What an HGV sees of you

[PhilDawson8270]

Can you make a good argument why not?

Are you suggesting that HGVs slowing to 10mph for a pedestrian maybe more than 1 lane away on a 70mph dual carriage way is sensible and won't cause a road accident? Or cars slowing to 1/3rd of the posted limit is sensible?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Additionally, a vehicle slowing considerably may invite a pedestrian to cross a road where they would have other wise waited.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You're being silly now. There's no reason why traffic could not travel much more slowly all the time than it does at present. As for 'inviting a pedestrian to cross a road' - well good!

Am I? @theclaud suggests the driver must always be able to stop, so if there's a pedestrian 1 lane over (less than 12m) or the other side of a single carriage way, then the stopping distance is 10mph for a lorry and just shy of 20mph for a car.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

And what does it say?

To watch out, but to give way to pedestrians that have already started to cross, not those waiting.

Rule 8 is the reverse for pedestrians to look out for cars.

Rule 7 suggests letting traffic past before crossing.

This is the exact point I have been trying to get across, regardless of who the vulnerable user is, we must be responsible for others AND our own safety.

Motorised users should look out for vulnerable users, and vulnerable users should be aware of the risks to avoid

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Yes, and I've suggested that people don't actually die if they have to drive about at 20 mph. Perhaps 'traffic' should just SLOW DOWN. What's the friggin rush?

In a residential area yes, but some NSL dual carriageways have footpaths alongside, in which it wouldn't be safe to do 1/3rd of the limit.

 

[theclaud]

@theclaud
Who is responsible for this incident?

The larger vehicle, or the cyclist?

Before the comment about the advanced stop line, it's legal for the motorcycle to be there, since the gated entry into the ASL box is not a solid line, but an advisory broken one, so the motorcycle did NOT brake a compulsory solid white line to be there, and therefore did not brake the first stop line. (ASL Box regulations, refer to vehicles not being permitted to brake the first stop line on red, not specifically motor vehicles, so cyclists also should NOT enter an ASL box if the light is on red, unless through a gate on the cycle lane)

Not being some kind of legal fundamentalist, I find the rules about entry to ASLs so absurd that I wouldn't hold that against the motorcyclist anyway, but (as an aside) I disapprove of motorcyclists being allowed in ASLs at all. The cyclist appears to have disobeyed a red light (although she has a somewhat leisurely pace - it is possible that she went through at amber) and is responsible for doing so. You might want to note that there is no pedestrian behaviour that is precisely equivalent to this. The motorcyclist should have noted that the van part-blocking the junction presented a hazard to his sightlines, and passed it more slowly/cautiously, so he is responsible for an unsafe manoeuvre. So the answer to your question is that they are both responsible for the incident, and fortunately at that speed the differential between them in terms of size and power was a less salient issue.

As to what all this has to with HGVs killing pedestrians and cyclists... well, not a great deal, as neither motorcyclists nor cyclists seem to be killing people at all. Had an HGV passed the van that close at that speed and killed someone because of it, the HGV would have been responsible, because he is wielding lethal force around vulnerable people, which neither the cyclist nor the motorcyclist were doing. I do realise that some people find both nuance and responsibility a great strain...

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I find it difficult to disagree with you, the video was to demonstrate that it is not always as clean cut as bigger vehicle = blame.

What is difficult, is the hgv situation entirely. You can't get them off the roads as it would cause huge congestion, give them more mirrors will result in restricted forward view at junction, removing mirrors will reduce rearward vision for cyclists and pedestrians.

I honestly think, the best suggestion in this thread as a material solution, are the swivelling mirrors as described earlier. You could have less mirrors so more forward vision, but mirrors that pivot to stay in the same position relative to the trailer would far improve rear view.

How well this would work on non-articulated hgvs I don't know.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Maybe not 'get them off the roads', but why not restrict their access to certain times of day/night? Or the oft-quoted idea of using smaller delivery vehicles operating from edge of town depots?

When we built a venue, we need to be able to get shipping containers to the site, some items are bigger than LWB transits, smallest vehicle we could get away with are the lorries with curtains on the sides that you often see doing the beer deliveries etc, or for the majority of stuff, you would need far far more vans, that would take up far more room on the road than a HGV

One of our venues is based in Westfield shopping centre in stratford, that has restricted delivery hours, it cost the business a fortune for deliveries, and paying staff out of hours to be there for deliveries as not permitted at normal working hours, these guys then had to use transport as public transport had finished when they had finished unloading.

So stopping the deliveries at normal hours, resulted in increased costs everywhere including to the clients/customers, it also forced more cars onto the road that would have otherwise being using public transport.

Your comments for the driver being pre-occupied is entirely 100% valid, I absolutely detest mobile phone usage, facebooking, twittering while driving. And would fully support some kind of signal suppresion built into all vehicles.

 

[theclaud]

What is difficult, is the hgv situation entirely. You can't get them off the roads as it would cause huge congestion, give them more mirrors will result in restricted forward view at junction, removing mirrors will reduce rearward vision for cyclists and pedestrians.

I honestly think, the best suggestion in this thread as a material solution, are the swivelling mirrors as described earlier. You could have less mirrors so more forward vision, but mirrors that pivot to stay in the same position relative to the trailer would far improve rear view.

How well this would work on non-articulated hgvs I don't know.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my post #156 above...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I honestly think, the best suggestion in this thread as a material solution, are the swivelling mirrors as described earlier. You could have less mirrors so more forward vision, but mirrors that pivot to stay in the same position relative to the trailer would far improve rear view.

How well this would work on non-articulated hgvs I don't know.

It was a side issue because they would have no effect on non-articulated hgvs, such as those used by the construction industry. I still think they would be a possible improvement on the blind spots caused when artics are....er...articulated. They'd also be cheap.

However, I am glad that you have understood the basic idea of them for artics. And dismayed that Charlie Lloyd hasn't.

The classic tipper truck, skip lorry, types, which appear with fearsome regularity in the rider down RIP threads, however, are the most dangerous and therefore need addressing first IMO.

 

[Wobblers]

True, but I am safer not putting myself in the dangerous position regardless of the actions of the driver.

Errr, what???

The footpath is by definition a place for pedestrians. Motorised vehicles are only allowed to encroach it for access to properties. And pedestrians have priority there. Hence, pedestrians have every reasonable expectation of safety whilst they are on the footpath. If a turning HGV encroaches onto the footpath, that rather suggests that the HGV is entirely unsuitable for the road. Certainly the driver should wait until the pavement is clear - the safe operation of his vehicle is entirely his responsibility. It is unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be aware of any dangers posed - few will have driven vehicles and children certainly will not be aware of any risk. Can anyone comment as to whether or not encroachment in these circumstances constitutes an offence?

 

[Nigelnaturist]

The classic tipper truck, skip lorry, types, which appear with fearsome regularity in the rider down RIP threads, however, are the most dangerous and therefore need addressing first IMO.

I think you may find that the problem with such types of L.G.V.'s is down to the driver (not taking away from those that are good drivers as most will surly be), having spent sometime drive class 2 Hi-Habs, that the type you referred to do tend to have some abandonment to other road users (but again this is down to the attitude of the person and would most probably be the same no matter what they drive or ride), as for missing a pedestrian or cyclist on the near side of the L.G.V. I completely missed a car coming up the M56 one evening (back end of the year so it was dark), I was in lane 3 of 4 as it became a 3 lane carriageway, (I indicated to move to what was going to become lane 1) checked and manoeuvred, the next thing I saw was the roof of a car pass under the windscreen, the car in question must have been slightly forward of me as I caught it around the rear wheel, so I either completely missed the car or they were undertaking me at speed, apart from the road side questions I was never asked another by the police, I never heard anything else after filling an insurance form out. The driver was ok apart from being a little shocked.

The onance I believe is on yourself to stay safe and on others to observe and stay within the rules a regulations of the road, if this is done people should know what everyone is doing, a recent example of this is, I was approaching a local mini-roundabout the other day car to my right indicated right so I stop, they then precede to take the exit of the roundabout I approached on, indication of your intent (or lack of it) can lead to many accidents, I find people either don't do it or leave it very late to be of any use, but you also have to understand that what they indicate is their intent.

 

[Origamist]

No, But there can be mitigating circumstances to any incident. We have a duty of care to all other road users, but must also take responsibility of our own safety. Hopefully, riding your bike, you are aware of the risks enough to take action should another road user make a mistake, and hopefully when you're in a car, you're aware enough of a pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist that you can avoid killing them when they make a mistake.

To reverse your argument, suppose that a pedestrian steps off a curb as you turn into a junction and you hit them, by your argument, that should be your (the cyclist) fault since you have the responsibility to the more vulnerable to keep safe.

Safety is the responsibility of everybody.

It’s worth unpicking the insidious, false equivalence that is embedded in those statements (however well intentioned and reasonable they might superficially sound) as it gets to the heart of what is wrong with the prevailing “road safety” mindset. The notion that all road users are somehow equal and "in it together", diverts attention away from the simple truth that HGVs have a massive potential to harm and, as such, the unswerving focus should be on reducing their deadliness – be it by limiting access to towns and cities, cab re-design, better regulation and inspection procedures etc. As it currently stands, killing or seriously injuring someone because of limited visibility or driver error is an occupational hazard as the vehicle is not fit for purpose. Attempts at educating other road users to the dangers posed by HGVs (which can be reduced to “hang back” or “get the fark out of the way” ) have a place, but we must not pretend that this approach is any more than an Elastoplast when dealing with the problem.