Should truck drivers have their licences suspended for using mobile phones?‏

[theclaud]

The suggestion sounds good at first glance, the problem is that the driver doesn't spend all day turning left where cyclists or pedestrians might be. Having a passenger is a distraction that could cause other incidents to occur. It's like talking on the phone or listening to the radio.

Not only that, but when the designated person forgets is their responsibility and someone dies as a result, yes there is someone to blame, but it still doesn't help the dead person.

Personally I believe of you take the responsibility away from the driver, the situation would be worse, nor better.

It isn't like talking on the phone, acksherly - there have been studies on the effects on driver concentration of different kinds of possible distraction. And the thing about forgetting is addressed by changing the work culture and obliging people to take responsibility. At the moment nothing much happens to drivers who kill people, or to the companies on whose behalf they are killing, because it isn't seen as their responsibility. If you oblige them to take responsibility and face the consequences, they will stop doing it, and your hypothetical dead person won't need helping, because she'll still be alive. Safety on construction sites has improved beyond measure because it is now taken seriously - presumably whatever you mean by "human nature" doesn't apply there...

 

[Trevor_P]

It isn't like talking on the phone, acksherly - there have been studies on the effects on driver concentration of different kinds of possible distraction. And the thing about forgetting is addressed by changing the work culture and obliging people to take responsibility. At the moment nothing much happens to drivers who kill people, or to the companies on whose behalf they are killing, because it isn't seen as their responsibility. If you oblige them to take responsibility and face the consequences, they will stop doing it, and your hypothetical dead person won't need helping, because she'll still be alive. Safety on construction sites has improved beyond measure because it is now taken seriously - presumably whatever you mean by "human nature" doesn't apply there...

Construction sites are not a like for like comparison because the construction site is closed to the public. Removing people who don't know what the risks are from the equation. Yet still in 2013 there were 39 fatalities in the UK and 1913 serious injuries. The totals are an improvement over the previous years and an ever decreasing trend.

I'm finished flogging the horse for now.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Like I said, human nature being what it is....

.....paid professionals with a job of work and specific responsibilities will abdicate them in favour of a chat about Corrie or last nights match.

You've got a terribly low opinion of everybody not you haven't you.

you don't think that even for a few moments at each junction a driver and 'spotter' can they be trusted to put aside petty distractions and do what they are paid to do? That says FAR FAR FAR more about the average truck driver (from a fellow drivers view) than it does about the average anybody else.

 

[Trevor_P]

It's not when they are at the junction with the cyclist, It's the distraction that will occur at other times that is the problem. They will be together for up to 15 hours (22 if they use double manning under EU regs.) and you seriously expect them not to chat for any of that time? Get real. I've double manned in London plenty of times and I prefer not to do it for my own safety. That's real world experience for you and not some classroom theory.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Get them and ban them for the little things to stop them doing the bigger things

 

[theclaud]

Construction sites are not a like for like comparison because the construction site is closed to the public. Removing people who don't know what the risks are from the equation. Yet still in 2013 there were 39 fatalities in the UK and 1913 serious injuries. The totals are an improvement over the previous years and an ever decreasing trend.

I'm finished flogging the horse for now.

It's amazing how you can sail so close to The Point and still not get it.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3099202, member: 9609"]Nothing much happens to any class of driver for killing or maiming on the road, it seems to be some sort of parallel universe where the courts are concerned. So I think you are being unfair to single out truck drivers.

We do need a change in society that brings the same level of seriousness to our roads as we have on our rails - when someone dies that road should be closed until after the public enquiry, and we don't need sally traffic on radio 2 going giggle giggle there's going to be some chaos there for a few hours. Jeez, some poor sod dies on the roads and the radio reports the delay! That's what is really wrong, not some trucker working hard for a pittance.

I think you are so wrong and unfair to lorry drivers, it is not always the trucker to blame, you would be surprised at how many are super careful in what they do, Yes there could be improvements but also some cyclists need to understand the dangers of big vehicles and stop putting themselves in such stupid places.[/QUOTE]

They are especially dangerous, because they are driving a truck. I am not terribly indulgent of motorists as a group, but this thread is about trucks. There's a chain of responsibility of which the driver is an important part. It's also a simple fact that a high proportion of cyclist deaths caused by lorries are due to drivers overtaking and then turning left across the path of the cyclist, and have nothing whatever to do with cyclists putting themselves anywhere, stupid or otherwise.

 

[Trevor_P]

They are especially dangerous, because they are driving a truck. I am not terribly indulgent of motorists as a group, but this thread is about trucks. There's a chain of responsibility of which the driver is an important part. It's also a simple fact that a high proportion of cyclist deaths caused by lorries are due to drivers overtaking and then turning left across the path of the cyclist, and have nothing whatever to do with cyclists putting themselves anywhere, stupid or otherwise.

If that were the case, then there would be numerous prosecutions of said drivers for careless or dangerous driving. The FACT still remains that this is NOT the case. You have no proof that it is, it's just speculation on your part to justify your argument. As the rules of the road stand, there IS an obligation on cyclists to behave properly at junctions (Highway code rule 73). I couldn't guess at the number of cyclists that ignore this rule and are lucky enough to be spotted by the driver. It's VERY frequent though. Next time I'm in town I'll keep a count, but I might not have enough fingers and toes .

 

[333]

In answer to the original subject of this thread, yes they should!

There is a roundabout near me that is extremely busy at peak times 7 days a week with 7 main routes all connected to it (6 dual carriageways and 1 single), countless times and I mean I don't have enough fingers to count how many times I see lorries / trucks / artics doing this - I see one approach in the inside lane of the dual carriageway then proceed to drive around half of the roundabout (passing two exits, one a single carriage and the second a main dual carriageway artery to / fom a major city) on the inside lane with no indication as to where they are going at all, once again countless times another driver has come around the roundabout in the outside lane wanting to turn off one of the 7 roads and smashed into the side of the lorry that has failed to indicate because as he can only see the right side (his side) of the lorry he is assuming it is turning off to the left, I've seen it happen myself and I see it extremely often where luckily nobody has come around but the lorry has not indicated, this is lethal driving and its amazing that someone has not been killed yet, all for the sake of putting an indicator on to signal ones intent.

On a not lorry relevant story, yesterday I was descending a small hill near me (30 zone) and I see this elderly guy waiting at the other side of the road to cross (in fairness to him its a busy road and there is no crossing) further down the road, he starts to cross the opposite lane just as a car starts to overtake me, I start to think (as many of us do) what is going to happen next??? so I began slowing down, anyway he waits for the car to go past and then proceeds to walk out right infront of me making me slam the anchors on and swerve around the guy whilst shouting the odd expletive, if it wasen't for the fact that I anticipated it I would have ploughed head long into him at 25-30mph, pedestrians can be stupid too!

 

[theclaud]

If that were the case, then there would be numerous prosecutions of said drivers for careless or dangerous driving. The FACT still remains that this is NOT the case. You have no proof that it is, it's just speculation on your part to justify your argument. As the rules of the road stand, there IS an obligation on cyclists to behave properly at junctions (Highway code rule 73). I couldn't guess at the number of cyclists that ignore this rule and are lucky enough to be spotted by the driver. It's VERY frequent though. Next time I'm in town I'll keep a count, but I might not have enough fingers and toes .

We've done this before... a lot. @glenn forger will be able to name many of those killed. Another member of this forum records the circumstances of all reported cyclist deaths and serious injuries caused by collisions in London. A TRL report found drivers solely responsible for collisions in 60-75% of all cases involving adult cyclists. It is the dangerous behaviour of drivers, and not the sometimes risky behaviour of cyclists, that is the issue. The reason it's so important to focus on this with regard to lorries is that the industry is taking a calculated gamble in order to avoid taking responsibility and bearing the costs of the risks it presents. The recent outrage at the number of cyclist deaths in London has caused it not to review the extent of law-breaking and dangerous driving behaviour, to redesign its vehicles or to change its practices, but to repeat and amplify the get-out-of-the-way mantra that underpins its everyday conduct, and to instil fear into vulnerable road users. Effectively, the industry is admitting, and even obligingly demonstrating, that its vehicles are unfit to share public roads, and counting on us being sufficiently intimidated to accept this state of affairs. It's sad how many cyclists are prepared to give in to this, and even to collude with the killers by spouting their propaganda on cycling forums.

 

[theclaud]

yesterday I was descending a small hill near me (30 zone)
[...]

, if it wasen't for the fact that I anticipated it I would have ploughed head long into him at 30-35mph,

You know that 30 is the maximum, right? And that it's your responsibility to anticipate that pedestrians looking to cross the road might. er... cross the road?

 

[Trevor_P]

Link to the available statistics. I can provide a link to the highway code which quotes the current law. Unfortunately, we have no means of recording near misses except hearsay. If we did you'd see just how much bad/inconsiderate road use we are obliged to allow for, tolerate and anticipate all the time. Amongst the professional driving community it is a widely discussed topic. It really is a travesty that no other road users are subject to the rigorous scrutiny and training that LGV and PCV drivers are forced to undergo (A good thing). If they were, the number of incidents would fall significantly.

 

[summerdays]

If that were the case, then there would be numerous prosecutions of said drivers for careless or dangerous driving. The FACT still remains that this is NOT the case. You have no proof that it is, it's just speculation on your part to justify your argument. As the rules of the road stand, there IS an obligation on cyclists to behave properly at junctions (Highway code rule 73). I couldn't guess at the number of cyclists that ignore this rule and are lucky enough to be spotted by the driver. It's VERY frequent though. Next time I'm in town I'll keep a count, but I might not have enough fingers and toes .

Are you saying lorry drivers don't turn across cyclists!!!

I was cycling in a Bus lane to the left of the line of traffic. Stopped in the ASL, lorry pulled up behind and in main line of traffic (right hand lane). When lights when green, both of us set off going straight on, and he decided to pull over into my lane to stop on double yellows. Luckily I was aware of the danger and realised what could potentially happen and stopped. Otherwise I would have been another accident statistic. I stopped to talk to him and he apologized and said he hadn't seen me. And there are plenty of videos on the web to show that lorry drivers make mistakes (as do cyclists), but it will be the cyclist who comes off worst in both situations. If you carried out a poll on here I suspect you would find that most cyclists had had problems with lorries at junctions even when the cyclist was correctly positioned.

 

[theclaud]

Link to the available statistics. I can provide a link to the highway code which quotes the current law. Unfortunately, we have no means of recording near misses except hearsay. If we did you'd see just how much bad/inconsiderate road use we are obliged to allow for, tolerate and anticipate all the time. Amongst the professional driving community it is a widely discussed topic. It really is a travesty that no other road users are subject to the rigorous scrutiny and training that LGV and PCV drivers are forced to undergo (A good thing). If they were, the number of incidents would fall significantly.

Gee, thanks. I wouldn't have known where to look. The Highway Code is a guidebook - some of its rules are enshrined in law, and you can recognise these by the appearance of the words "MUST" or "MUST NOT". Giving large vehicles room to manoeuvre is, like most of the code, sensible advice. What the Code most certainly isn't is a licence to endanger others, whether they are following its advice or not.

You want some links about who causes the death and injury? Fine. Here's one. Here's another. And another. Here's how, where and by whom people are hit in London.

It's a shame that all this apparently rigorous training doesn't prevent scandalously high levels of law-breaking and rule contravention amongst professional drivers. All drivers should be subject to more rigorous training and constraints, and the more dangerous the class of vehicle, the more rigorous these should be. Pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders etc don't present a comparable danger to others, so should of course not be subject to similar constraints.

 

[marknotgeorge]

Sounds to me as if we need a rethink of the Road Traffic Act and other laws so that the same laws apply to all road users, and which reflect the degree of harm a road user's likely to cause another in the case of a collision. I think we might need to do away with the 'death by...' laws and treat them as manslaughter. Maybe then people will think about their road use more and take responsibility.

'Road users' does of course mean cyclists, skateboarders, pedestrians, etc.