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

[theclaud]

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.

Quite. Presumed liability is a no-brainer.

 

[marknotgeorge]

Quite. Presumed liability is a no-brainer.

Just so long as we're not absolving the more vulnerable road users of all responsibility.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

[QUOTE 3099115, member: 30090"]Are there any blind spots on a truck?

People go on about them and you have the infamous (although factually incorrect)Tfl vid. I recall my driving days and properly set up mirrors along with the front class IV mirror meant they were not any. Certainly not when I drove. Having said this one does need to check them when pulling away from a junction.[/QUOTE]
The trouble with blind spots is that, self-evidently, you can't see them. (Or should that be self-unevidently?) We have a physiological blind spot in what we regard as our field of vision. It takes an exercise to be able to see/not see it. Without the exercise we remain unconscious of what we can't see. There's enough visual information coming to not notice the invisible.

Beyond the physiological blind spots - sides, back of the head, high above and below, in addition to the optical nerve blind spot - there are the physical blind spots that come from having further restrictions placed on what we can see. I have the misfortune to have to do a lot of driving in a small car. I've had to make a special effort to see round what turns out to be a large pair of blind spots in the particular vehicle I'm driving, namely the pillar between windscreen and side windows. Beyond that, of course, there is the rear, the road below, the sky above, what's in front beneath the bonnet, etc, etc. Because we don't have eyes in the back of our head, we need mirrors, which can only partly compensate for the enormity of our blind spots. Sure, you can see more, but the views we get all have blind spots.

In an HGV, the blind spot problem is even more marked. Height can leave a substantial part of the road below unseen, and solid doors obscure information coming from alongside and a lower height, mirrors in artics may be adjusted for optimum vision but all this goes out of the window when turning. And as for what's behind, totally blind, if the ''If you can't see me, I can't see you'' stickers stuck on the rear of many trucks (just alongside the ''Cyclists stay back!'' stickers) are to be believed. You can't do much more than optimise mirrors to reduce blind spots but you'll still have blind spots aplenty.

 

[theclaud]

Just so long as we're not absolving the more vulnerable road users of all responsibility.

There's no reason it shouldn't work all the way down the chain - HGV drivers bear the greatest responsibility because they present the most serious danger, a small child bears no responsibility at all. An adult cyclist who knocks a pedestrian over is responsible. There's no need for all the hedging.

 

[MontyVeda]

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?

No. It's a shared responsibility.

I was in the Tufty Club at school and learned how to take responsibility for myself when crossing the road. Yes the drivers using the road also have a responsibility to be alert and to be able to stop in time... but cannot always anticipate a child running out into the road from behind a parked car.

I was taught to be careful around ice cream vans (my responsibility). Drivers are told to be aware of kiddies running out in the road from behind a parked ice cream van (their responsibility)... so much so, the owners of the ice cram vans would have 'mind that child' painted in big letters in the back of the van.

We share the roads, and therefore we share the responsibility to keep ourselves and others safe.

 

[theclaud]

No. It's a shared responsibility.

I was in the Tufty Club at school and learned how to take responsibility for myself when crossing the road. Yes the drivers using the road also have a responsibility to be alert and to be able to stop in time... but cannot always anticipate a child running out into the road from behind a parked car.

I was taught to be careful around ice cream vans (my responsibility). Drivers are told to be aware of kiddies running out in the road from behind a parked ice cream van (their responsibility)... so much so, the owners of the ice cram vans would have 'mind that child' painted in big letters in the back of the van.

We share the roads, and therefore we share the responsibility to keep ourselves and others safe.

Yes they start the indoctrination early. The message is "cars are dangerous, get out of their way". I was too young for Tufty, of course, but he was an odious little creep. I stand for the right of Willie the Weasel to buy an ice cream on his own without people running him over.

 

[jonesy]

Quite. They HSE would have little sympathy for the "shared responsibility" argument if applied to a workplace accident in which one party imposes a risk on another.

 

[MontyVeda]

Yes they start the indoctrination early. The message is "cars are dangerous, get out of their way". I was too young for Tufty, of course, but he was an odious little creep. I stand for the right of Willie the Weasel to buy an ice cream on his own without people running him over.

so what does this mean? 5 or 10 mph speed limits? quilted bumpers? a red flag waving bod walking in front of every vehicle?

You may call Tufty an odious little creep... but he spent a lot less time in hospital than Willie the Weasel did because Tufty could be bothered to take a little responsibility for himself.

do you have children of your own? if so, what do you teach them about road safety?

 

[jonesy]

It's about who should take responsibility. Where else, except on the public highway, can an adult in charge of dangerous machinery, kill a child and the child be held responsible?

 

[marknotgeorge]

There's no reason it shouldn't work all the way down the chain - HGV drivers bear the greatest responsibility because they present the most serious danger, a small child bears no responsibility at all. An adult cyclist who knocks a pedestrian over is responsible. There's no need for all the hedging.

Hedging?

Yes they start the indoctrination early. The message is "cars are dangerous, get out of their way". I was too young for Tufty, of course, but he was an odious little creep. I stand for the right of Willie the Weasel to buy an ice cream on his own without people running him over.

How is it supposed to work all the way down the chain if you persist in dismissing the passing on of knowledge and experience to more vulnerable and hence less responsible members of the road using community (thus turning them into more responsible members) as indoctination?

 

[MontyVeda]

It's about who should take responsibility. Where else, except on the public highway, can an adult in charge of dangerous machinery, kill a child and the child be held responsible?

I was taught not to run out into the road without looking first because moving vehicles are dangerous. If ALL the responsibility is on the drivers of these moving vehicles... what should we be telling our children about road safety?

 

[marknotgeorge]

It's about who should take responsibility. Where else, except on the public highway, can an adult in charge of dangerous machinery, kill a child and the child be held responsible?

It's the responsibility of those responsible for the child to teach them about the dangers of the road.

 

[theclaud]

so what does this mean? 5 or 10 mph speed limits? quilted bumpers? a red flag waving bod walking in front of every vehicle?

You may call Tufty an odious little creep... but he spent a lot less time in hospital than Willie the Weasel did because Tufty could be bothered to take a little responsibility for himself.

do you have children of your own? if so, what do you teach them about road safety?

Ignoring the facetiousness for the moment, why should a speed limit for an area where children play be higher than the speed at which one can confidently state that they will be able to stop if a child runs out from behind a parked car? Usually that means 20mph or below in residential areas where there are parked cars. Personally, I'd do away with the parked cars too, but that's straying even further off topic...

 

[MontyVeda]

Ignoring the facetiousness for the moment, why should a speed limit for an area where children play be higher than the speed at which one can confidently state that they will be able to stop if a child runs out from behind a parked car? Usually that means 20mph or below in residential areas where there are parked cars. Personally, I'd do away with the parked cars too, but that's straying even further off topic...

it's a fair point.. but i reckon the safe speed limit would a lot less than 20mph.

and yes, it is going off topic.

IMO... all drivers should have their licences suspended for mobile phone use, regardless of whether they drive for a living, drive to get to work or just drive for leisure..

 

[theclaud]

Hedging?

How is it supposed to work all the way down the chain if you persist in dismissing the passing on of knowledge and experience to more vulnerable and hence less responsible members of the road using community (thus turning them into more responsible members) as indoctination?

What I mean is that people seem to have difficulty with unqualified statements about their responsibility. It shouldn't be a problem to expect all road users to behave as if they started the day by saying to themselves "I will not kill, injure, or intimidate anyone on the road today". There's no need for a get-out clause.

The answer to your other question is that while we all end up capitulating in some ways to the dominance of the motor car, I think it is wrong to instil fear in children about their everyday environments, especially where the result of this fear is to perpetuate the danger; and that we need to make sure we are not killing anybody's children, not just equipping our own to stay out of the way.