What an HGV sees of you

[Origamist]

I was responding to the bit, about who is responsible for that space.

I suspect like a lot of incidents involving these vehicles, that most involve somebody undertaking a lorry turning left, or trying to go with a lorry and getting squeezed or dragged under the back of the lorry as it turns.

Less than half of cyclist/HGV fatalities are caused in the manner you describe. What's more, you also need to disentangle the instances of drivers passing and then turning across cyclists.

 

[theclaud]

Either way, "who is responsible for it? Who owns the problem, in other words?" That area is part of the lorries space, and while it may be the drivers "legal duty" to ensure that space is clear, we have to understand that it is difficult for them to do so, and to not be in that area.

If it is difficult for them to see whether or not they are killing people, they (and those on whose behalf they are driving) need to take responsibility for this, and figure out how they are going to stop killing people.

Excellent article by Caroline Russell.

Nazan [a lorry killed her 13-year old daughter as she was wheeling her bike across a pedestrian crossing] described the extraordinary situation where we have "lorries driving blind" through crowded city streets and asked how that can be acceptable? When you pause to consider the safety requirements on construction sites where lorries move at 5mph with a banksman on foot alongside, the fact that the same vehicles can move legally at 30mph with limited vision on London's busy roads, crowded with people, is bewildering. That they are killing and injuring people with such frequency is nothing short of scandalous.

The recent police activity to enforce the rules on driving-tired and road-worthiness of vehicles is to be welcomed but it needs to continue long term. If those in charge of the vehicles that can cause most harm feel there are no consequences for infringing the rules, we will continue to see further unnecessary deaths and injuries on our roads. And of course, every heavy goods vehicle driving through London should be fitted with technology that enables drivers to check their blind spots for the presence of people on foot and on bikes.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

It's good that she doesn't see the HGV problem as being a cyclists' problem but a civic problem.

Many of us were there, not 'for cycling' but because we can see that London could be a more liveable city. We were there not as cyclists or as pedestrians but as people: mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and grandparents.
The current debate is focused too much on cycling and the behaviour of those who use bikes to get around. It needs to expand. We need to build a coalition of London residents who value walking and cycling and understand that pedestrians are at risk too. Otherwise we won't begin to reduce road danger or create a more liveable and less vehicle-dominated city.

 

[Archie_tect]

While I fully support better driver aids to help them drive safely, more needs to be done to educate everyone including vulnerable people, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles to help them be aware of the dangers around HGVs so that all drivers give more room and/or consideration to all other road users around hazards and people give HGVs more space and take steps to keep out of their blind spots, but it is a 2 way process...

 

[Archie_tect]

It beggars belief that there is anything much to debate in this.

Exactly!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Meanwhile I'm really angry about a side issue. Some time ago @charlie_lcc appeared on this thread to discuss lorry vision. His appearance on here came immediately after I'd written to LCC about mirrors, with links to that thread. He has not responded to me on that, nor has he replied to an PM or a follow up email to the LCC. If that's the level of respect that I get, I think I should cancel my LCC membership and go somewhere else where I might be able to get a response. I really didn't expect to get completely blanked.

 

[theclaud]

While I fully support better driver aids to help them drive safely, more needs to be done to educate everyone including vulnerable people, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles to help them be aware of the dangers around HGVs so that all drivers give more room and/or consideration to all other road users around hazards and people give HGVs more space and take steps to keep out of their blind spots, but it is a 2 way process...

I find this weird. I go out on my bicycle every day and the only real constraint (my own abilities excluded) upon the way I ride is the conviction that I must not use the superior speed of my bicycle to hurt, endanger or intimidate others. This is not a "two-way process" but an absolute responsibility. It's nice, of course, if pedestrians make things easy for me by not veering suddenly onto the cycle bit of the path or not stepping out into the road without looking, but if they fail to do so it doesn't absolve me of my responsibilities towards them. Why is this different for the operators of motor vehicles?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

@theclaud That article is very well written, and has a very good point to put across. However, why should my safety be the responsibility of others? Why should I trust somebody else to keep me safe? It is my safety, and I use my judgement to keep me safe.

Modern society places too much emphasis on make others responsible for other peoples safety.

This isn't to say that, you can drive a vehicle with no regard for the safety of others, anybody in charge of a vehicle is responsible for their actions, however, as vulnerable road users (note that vulnerable is a relative term, pedestrians are vulnerable to most traffic, bicycles included, bicycles can be vulnerable to even cars, but in context of HGVs then even cars can be considered a vulnerable vehicle) we must do our best to keep ourselves out of harms way, what is the point of being in the right if it means you are dead?

I have a local road with a very tight turn for articulated lorries in which it must use both sides of the road, and still the trailer's overhang and inside edge still crosses the footpath, and I regularly see pedestrians standing on the very edge of the footpath waiting to cross, and then are shocked when they need to move out of the way, I personally wouldn't be stood there if I saw one turning.

People want to be able to push the responsibility on to others so as to not be at blame themselves, people in modern society seem to be afraid of making mistakes or maybe peoples attitudes have changed and more have some kind of superiority complex.

We must empathise with users of all vehicles, and do our best to help each other, mistakes will happen, they are controlled by humans, however 90% of the time, it takes a mistake from both parties, and it nearly always takes 2 people to have an accident.

Get knocked over walking across a street? Lets play devil's advocate, did that person stop and wait for the traffic to stop and look to ensure it was clear, or simply walk across the pedestrian crossing because they have "right of way"?

You may say that is a ridiculous thing to say, but if you drove across a traffic controlled junction, you would still LOOK to ensure other traffic has stopped before proceeding, never make assumptions that others are going to follow the rules, and be prepared to back down and let them proceed incorrectly if it means you are safe.

Being blindsided by an overtaking vehicle who then turns across, is probably unavoidable, and unforgivable driving, but it is not the vehicle that is doing this, it is the driver, it is not because you are a cyclist, I see plenty of drivers do nobbish moves against other cars and motorcycles. But, I still believe that this kind of accident is less common than people either knowingly or unknowingly being in a dangerous position, with no empathy towards the operators of the other vehicles.

The correlation drawn between HGV operating in construction regulations and on the streets is also pretty ridiculous, it will just be as easy to say then that pedestrians aren't permitted out of their home without a Hi-Vis, hard hat, boots and must sign in with the foreman first, to pull bits and pieces to support an argument is pure biased journalism not intelligent debate.

To sum up, safety IS a two way street, we must be responsible of our actions to others, but we must also take responsibility and ownership of our own safety.

Education of ALL road users is the key, blame game is short sighted and doesn't solve the issue.

 

[theclaud]

@theclaud That article is very well written, and has a very good point to put across. However, why should my safety be the responsibility of others? Why should I trust somebody else to keep me safe? It is my safety, and I use my judgement to keep me safe.

Modern society places too much emphasis on make others responsible for other peoples safety.

This isn't to say that, you can drive a vehicle with no regard for the safety of others, anybody in charge of a vehicle is responsible for their actions, however, as vulnerable road users (note that vulnerable is a relative term, pedestrians are vulnerable to most traffic, bicycles included, bicycles can be vulnerable to even cars, but in context of HGVs then even cars can be considered a vulnerable vehicle) we must do our best to keep ourselves out of harms way, what is the point of being in the right if it means you are dead?

I have a local road with a very tight turn for articulated lorries in which it must use both sides of the road, and still the trailer's overhang and inside edge still crosses the footpath, and I regularly see pedestrians standing on the very edge of the footpath waiting to cross, and then are shocked when they need to move out of the way, I personally wouldn't be stood there if I saw one turning.

People want to be able to push the responsibility on to others so as to not be at blame themselves, people in modern society seem to be afraid of making mistakes or maybe peoples attitudes have changed and more have some kind of superiority complex.

We must empathise with users of all vehicles, and do our best to help each other, mistakes will happen, they are controlled by humans, however 90% of the time, it takes a mistake from both parties, and it nearly always takes 2 people to have an accident.

Get knocked over walking across a street? Lets play devil's advocate, did that person stop and wait for the traffic to stop and look to ensure it was clear, or simply walk across the pedestrian crossing because they have "right of way"?

You may say that is a ridiculous thing to say, but if you drove across a traffic controlled junction, you would still LOOK to ensure other traffic has stopped before proceeding, never make assumptions that others are going to follow the rules, and be prepared to back down and let them proceed incorrectly if it means you are safe.

Being blindsided by an overtaking vehicle who then turns across, is probably unavoidable, and unforgivable driving, but it is not the vehicle that is doing this, it is the driver, it is not because you are a cyclist, I see plenty of drivers do nobbish moves against other cars and motorcycles. But, I still believe that this kind of accident is less common than people either knowingly or unknowingly being in a dangerous position, with no empathy towards the operators of the other vehicles.

The correlation drawn between HGV operating in construction regulations and on the streets is also pretty ridiculous, it will just be as easy to say then that pedestrians aren't permitted out of their home without a Hi-Vis, hard hat, boots and must sign in with the foreman first, to pull bits and pieces to support an argument is pure biased journalism not intelligent debate.

To sum up, safety IS a two way street, we must be responsible of our actions to others, but we must also take responsibility and ownership of our own safety.

Education of ALL road users is the key, blame game is short sighted and doesn't solve the issue.

I don't mean to suggest that all this is the same-old same-old, but does anything in this very long and not terribly novel post absolve me of my responsibility not to hurt, endanger or intimidate others?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

That there is the point. A lot of people involved in these incidents they endanger themselves due to their ignorance of keeping themselves safe.

All road users have a duty of care to others but that does not absolve you from being responsible for your own safety also.

 

[theclaud]

That there is the point. A lot of people involved in these incidents they endanger themselves due to their ignorance of keeping themselves safe.

All road users have a duty of care to others but that does not absolve you from being responsible for your own safety also.

Which you still appear to be evading. Supposing, just for a second, that you fail in your responsibility to look after yourself. Does that mean that I am no longer responsible if I hurt or endanger you?

 

[snorri]

I have a local road with a very tight turn for articulated lorries in which it must use both sides of the road, and still the trailer's overhang and inside edge still crosses the footpath, and I regularly see pedestrians standing on the very edge of the footpath waiting to cross, and then are shocked when they need to move out of the way, I personally wouldn't be stood there if I saw one turning.

Some of us would consider it unreasonable of the owner of the said artic to expect his employee to take the vehicle on a route which requires positive actions of pedestrians on footpaths to ensure safe passage of the vehicle through the junction.

You (as a pedestrian) have the experience to recognise the hazard in this situation, and the physical and mental competence to take action to ensure your safety, many people on our footpaths lack these abilities..
Should we be restricting pedestrian status only to those holding certificates of their mental and physical competence?

 

[theclaud]

Some of us would consider it unreasonable of the owner of the said artic to expect his employee to take the vehicle on a route which requires positive actions of pedestrians on footpaths to ensure safe passage of the vehicle through the junction.

Quite.

 

[Origamist]

@theclaud That article is very well written, and has a very good point to put across. However, why should my safety be the responsibility of others? Why should I trust somebody else to keep me safe? It is my safety, and I use my judgement to keep me safe.

Further red herrings, strawman arguments and non sequiturs snipped

Your safety is contingent on the behavior of other road users, particularly the behavior of HGV drivers who are in charge of large, heavy vehicles (with limited visibility) that have the potential to kill and maim at very low speeds.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Some of us would consider it unreasonable of the owner of the said artic to expect his employee to take the vehicle on a route which requires positive actions of pedestrians on footpaths to ensure safe passage of the vehicle through the junction.

Unfortunately it is the world that consumerism has forced us to be in, if the population didn't want a supermarket on their doorstep, then this problem would not be so severe I imagine.