Trike on A82

[oldwheels]

I put this up on the retirement thread originally but here is more appropriate. This is a fast traffic busy road with lots of bends. It was getting so bad a 50mph speed limit was imposed but widely ignored.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Holy smoke!

I confess I would be too afraid to ride that, I'd take the added expense of going down the other side and getting the ferry back across at Corran. That section of the trunk road is pounded daily by articulated lorries and it's got double white lines for 99% of its length.
I wince every time I'm on it and see a cyclist.

 

[oldwheels]

Holy smoke!

I confess I would be too afraid to ride that, I'd take the added expense of going down the other side and getting the ferry back across at Corran. That section of the trunk road is pounded daily by articulated lorries and it's got double white lines for 99% of it's length.
I wince every time I'm on it and see a cyclist.

You would not have to pay at Corran I think. Pedestrians go free and bikes used to be but not been on it for a long time now. Lots of timber lorries on that road as well and I will refrain from giving my opinion of them. I would certainly not dream of cycling on that road now. There were so many fatal accidents that a 50mph speed limit was imposed.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

You would not have to pay at Corran I think. Pedestrians go free and bikes used to be but not been on it for a long time now. Lots of timber lorries on that road as well and I will refrain from giving my opinion of them. I would certainly not dream of cycling on that road now. There were so many fatal accidents that a 50mph speed limit was imposed.

They introduced a fare of £1.50 last year but seem to have removed it on the latest timetable. I was thinking of the £3.50 fare on the wee ferry from Fort William to Camusnagaul so it would take you down the quieter A861 to come back over at Corran.

Aye, the loggers are something else on that road.

 

[Edwardoka]

I've ridden that stretch of road once in each direction. Not fun, to put it mildly. Doing it on a trike where you're so low down... nope nope nope

 

[Ming the Merciless]

What’s this thing about low down? He’s perfectly visible, just as much as someone on a road bike. But he’ll get noticed more and will in fact be safer.

 

[Edwardoka]

What’s this thing about low down? He’s perfectly visible, just as much as someone on a road bike. But he’ll get noticed more and will in fact be safer.

They'll be just as visible to a car driver, but as mentioned upthread, logging trucks use that section a lot, and truck cabs are not famed for having very good cones of vision. Someone standing in front of a truck cab is completely invisible to the driver (even downward-facing mirrors cannot fully alleviate this problem).

The lower down someone is, the further ahead of the truck the arc of effective invisibility extends.
If you'll excuse my extremely crude knocked-up in 3 minutes, not to scale MS Paint diagram...

 

[Ming the Merciless]

They'll be just as visible to a car driver, but as mentioned upthread, logging trucks use that section a lot, and truck cabs are not famed for having very good cones of vision. Someone standing in front of a truck cab is completely invisible to the driver (even downward-facing mirrors cannot fully alleviate this problem).

The lower down someone is, the further ahead of the truck the arc of effective invisibility extends.
If you'll excuse my extremely crude knocked-up in 3 minutes, not to scale MS Paint diagram...
View attachment 562619

If he’s that close he’ll run over all three people anyway.

 

[Edwardoka]

If he’s that close he’ll run over all three people anyway.

I did say it was not to scale. It was intended to show the principle of blind spots, not to be a scientific diagram to be picked apart.

If I'd used something better than paint I'd have made several images, with all three road users in the same place to show just how much farther ahead the recumbent rider has to be in order to be seen from a truck cab.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I did say it was not to scale. It was intended to show the principle of blind spots, not to be a scientific diagram to be picked apart.

If I'd used something better than paint I'd have made several images, with all three road users in the same place to show just how much farther ahead the recumbent rider has to be in order to be seen from a truck cab.

Either way, it’s a non problem on the A82.

 

[Milkfloat]

Not sure I would fancy it myself, but I support his right to do so.

 

[Edwardoka]

Either way, it’s a non problem on the A82.

So what you're saying is that on an twisty stretch of busy, fast road, with trees on either side (all of which contributes to very poor forward visibility and limited reaction time), and which is heavily used by logging trucks, the distance at which a rider disappears into the area of effective invisibility from the perspective of a truck driver *isn't* a problem?

Like, I'm fine with the trike rider doing it if they want, but saying that it's actually less dangerous is straight-up cuckoo-banana-pancakes level stuff that ignores the realities of that stretch of road, the significant visibility limitations of truck cabs and the disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities caused precisely because of truck blind spots.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

So what you're saying is that on an twisty stretch of busy, fast road, with trees on either side (all of which contributes to very poor forward visibility and limited reaction time), and which is heavily used by logging trucks, the distance at which a rider disappears into the area of effective invisibility from the perspective of a truck driver *isn't* a problem?

Like, I'm fine with the trike rider doing it if they want, but saying that it's actually less dangerous is straight-up cuckoo-banana-pancakes level stuff that ignores the realities of that stretch of road, the significant visibility limitations of truck cabs and the disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities caused precisely because of truck blind spots.

No it doesn’t, accidents are rarely to lack of visibility. It’s lack of attention. The trike will get the drivers attention for more than any upright bike. in effect he or she is safer.

 

[Edwardoka]

No it doesn’t, accidents are rarely to lack of visibility. It’s lack of attention. The trike will get the drivers attention for more than any upright bike. in effect he or she is safer.

[Citation needed]

 

[DRHysted]

So what you're saying is that on an twisty stretch of busy, fast road, with trees on either side (all of which contributes to very poor forward visibility and limited reaction time), and which is heavily used by logging trucks, the distance at which a rider disappears into the area of effective invisibility from the perspective of a truck driver *isn't* a problem?

Like, I'm fine with the trike rider doing it if they want, but saying that it's actually less dangerous is straight-up cuckoo-banana-pancakes level stuff that ignores the realities of that stretch of road, the significant visibility limitations of truck cabs and the disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities caused precisely because of truck blind spots.

didn’t a lorry driver recently come out with the information that there were no blind spots on modern lorries, it was now fail to look spots.