Bike vs HGV

[MissTillyFlop]

Surely the point of the video isn't about blaming people (though IMHO it was 50/50 in the video), it's about warning cyclists of the possible danger undertaking a lorry can pose and how can you do anything other than commend it?

Do we know for certain that another video aimed at lorry drivers wasn't made?

Seriously, do we have to take offence at everything these days? Is it possible that everyone in the world who's not a cyclist isn't plotting to destroy us all?

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I have been working for my local council on one of there kerbside recycling vehicles for the pasts 2 years and been in the haulage industry for 16 years, This means I have people working on the inside of the vehicle all the time and can never move the vehicle until I can clearly see the three loaders are away from the vehicle, some times they do disappear from view they may have bent down to pick something up or just be standing in just the wrong spot. As pointed out a modern HGV has 6 mirrors and then sometimes a rear facing camera buts it's impossible to look in all 6 mirrors a shoulder check the camera plus forwards at the same time as a moving object decides to jump in the way. At the end of the day if both road users got it right the accident would never of occurred. In 25+ years of cycling I have never had a problem with HGV's as I have never been stupid enough to go up the inside or attempt to over take one in any manner you would have to be a total idiot !!!!! Cyclists on the other hand I've had plenty of problems with on my bike ,motorbike car, HGV and even walking. There are a lot of untrained idiot cyclists who have never passed a road based test of any type so have no proven record of understanding the problems various road user have or even what it is they are supposed to be doing ! All that said I think the trixy ( not sure how this is spelt) mirror at junctions could help as would a major education of cyclists and regular reminders to HGV drivers. Here is a link to the Guardian's podcast on the same subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-bike-podcast

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1648133, member: 3143"]I do have an explaination, I've touched on briefly in this thread. Go and find it if you want to know as I can't be arsed with you no more.[/quote]
As it seems the sum total of your contributions has been to repeat " your an idiot" I don't think you will be missed too much.

 

[Dan B]

Sorry that was in response to your blanket statement that squishier road users have priority

Here's what I wrote:

So, what if you are cycling down a shared use cycle path and a pedestrian walks straight in front of you and you hit them, who is responsible?

The cyclist. Except in absurdly unlikely scenarios like where the pedestrian is hiding behind a bush and jumps straight in front of you when you're three feet away, perhaps, but in general: it's a place where pedestrians are to be expected, and the softer/slower/squishier party always has priority

I didn't mention roundabouts or blankets, and the statement was in response to a question asking what would one do when one as a cyclist is the less squishy party. Now please stop imputing positions to me that I do not hold.

 

[Dan B]

LYB suggests a second man in the cab...it wont happen, so whats the 'alternative' in the fantasy world of 'all HGV drivers are killers' ? perhaps you can enlighten us all

First, I have not suggested that 'all HGV drivers are killers', so please stop imputing to me opinions that I do not hold. I'm sure the vast majority of HGV drivers have never killed anybody.

Second, what is your basis for the assertion that "it won't happen"? It quite easily could be made to happen either if it were made law, or if the penalties for accidentally killing someone were made high enough that operators decided it was uneconomic not to put two men in the cab. Yes, it would make deliveries cost more, but that doesn't mean it could never happen: I'm sure that drivers hours legislation had the same effect and that people said the same about that before it was introduced.

Third, have a look at Loop's post #157 where he suggests a variety of technical measures - msot of them probably quite a lot cheaper than a second man - which could go some way to ameliorate the problem. An aftermarket reversing sensor for a passenger car can be had for £20 from Maplins and fitted in two hours by an amateur, so the technology really can't be that expensive.

In summary: stop looking for excuses, start looking for solutions. Cyclist education is a partial solution - I've never said otherwise - but it's clearly not the whole answer or else cyclists wouldn't still be getting killed. HGVs do clearly present unique risks or the death toll from buses would be comparatively high

 

[User10571]

An interesting debate.
I’ve now watched the vid in the first post more than ten, but probably less than twenty times – each time looking at different things.
Each time, without fail, when the woman runs up screaming “Stop! Stop!” and the driver replies with “What?” a curious reaction is provoked in me. Firstly my palms leak copious amounts of water. They are then closely followed by my eyes doing the same. Also, the hairs on my arms stand up. But I digress.

The cyclist is visible for somewhere between five and six seconds between first appearing in the n/s mirrors and subsequently disappearing. I say disappearing because whoever it was who in an earlier post suggested the cyclist was still visible in the downward facing mirror when the truck pulls away, should try relying on such a mirror for crucial information. It’s a really unusual perspective for most of us (lorry drivers included) to be viewing things from – we generally tend to look ‘across’ rather than ‘down on’ and are far more familiar with visual information and clues from the former than the latter. The latter looks, well… a bit weird and unfamiliar.
Going back to the vid, I’m struggling to see the cyclist in the downward facing mirror when the lorry pulls away partly, because of what I’ve just written above, and partly because of the less than fantastic resolution of the vid.

The point of this post?
I’ve sat in that driver’s seat. Many, many times. I’ve held (and still do hold) a Class 1 LGV licence for 27 years a fair proportion of which were spent earning a living driving them in both urban and rural environments. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say the artic mileage I’ve clocked up is well into seven figures. I last drove one around six years ago – co-incidentally just before I returned to cycling. It had nine mirrors and a camera / LCD display for reversing. Some of those mirrors were more effective than others. Some were next to useless.

Why the sweaty palms and tears?
I’m a careful driver with a (thankfully) blemish free record. But I can so, so, see myself looking away from one mirror, because there are so many others to be looking at, in addition to other things to be looking out for, for longer than the five or six seconds it took the cyclist to materialise and subsequently (and crucially) vanish from my view. At which point the fate of the cyclist is sealed. I cannot help but feel for the driver in the vid when he shouts “What?” when things have gone really badly wrong.

The answer?
I dunno. This kind of scenario is no more helped by the @rsehole LGV driver who doesn’t look, than it is by the @rsehole cyclist who puts themselves in a position where it is really, really difficult to stand out and be seen. TBF, I think if the majority of LGV drivers out there could not be @rsed to look (and I don’t thing that’s the case for one moment) the casualty / death toll would be significantly higher than it already shockingly is.
Better education for both, is the best answer I can offer.

Additionally, I’m thankful I no longer drive an LGV – I think that today I’d find the experience too nerve wracking.

 

[doog]

First, I have not suggested that 'all HGV drivers are killers', so please stop imputing to me opinions that I do not hold. I'm sure the vast majority of HGV drivers have never killed anybody.

Second, what is your basis for the assertion that "it won't happen"? It quite easily could be made to happen either if it were made law, or if the penalties for accidentally killing someone were made high enough that operators decided it was uneconomic not to put two men in the cab. Yes, it would make deliveries cost more, but that doesn't mean it could never happen: I'm sure that drivers hours legislation had the same effect and that people said the same about that before it was introduced.

Third, have a look at Loop's post #157 where he suggests a variety of technical measures - msot of them probably quite a lot cheaper than a second man - which could go some way to ameliorate the problem. An aftermarket reversing sensor for a passenger car can be had for £20 from Maplins and fitted in two hours by an amateur, so the technology really can't be that expensive.

In summary: stop looking for excuses, start looking for solutions. Cyclist education is a partial solution - I've never said otherwise - but it's clearly not the whole answer or else cyclists wouldn't still be getting killed. HGVs do clearly present unique risks or the death toll from buses would be comparatively high

excuses ? the solution is for cyclists not to cycle up the inside of HGV's....thats the solution . I live in a ferry port so feel qualified to post. You can add as many technical measures to a lorry as you want but as Badger and User10571 state above you cant counter for idiot cyclists.....there will always be "idiot cyclists"....why cant you get your head around this fact?

 

[Dan B]

excuses ? the solution is for cyclists not to cycle up the inside of HGV's....thats the solution . I live in a ferry port so feel qualified to post. You can add as many technical measures to a lorry as you want but as Badger and User10571 state above you cant counter for idiot cyclists.....there will always be "idiot cyclists"....why cant you get your head around this fact?

If 'there will always be "idiot cyclists"' then the solution of telling them not to ride up the inside of HGVs is no solution. Because they're idiots, they won't listen. Unless you're saying it's OK to run over a cyclist provided he's an idiot - and I don't think you really are - then we need to find a better solution

 

[gaz]

excuses ? the solution is for cyclists not to cycle up the inside of HGV's....thats the solution . I live in a ferry port so feel qualified to post. You can add as many technical measures to a lorry as you want but as Badger and User10571 state above you cant counter for idiot cyclists.....there will always be "idiot cyclists"....why cant you get your head around this fact?

Not all deaths of cyclists vs HGV's are because a cyclist went up the inside of the HGV.

 

[MacB]

Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?

As for the attitude of 'I have a job to do' to excuse barrier/bollard/wingmirror damage, I find that quite disconcerting. If something doesn't fit then go another way or use a different vehicle.

 

[col]

Whilst on one level stopping any cyclist passing an HGV will prevent the problem it does beg the question "why should cyclists be constrained by the speed of slow moving traffic?"

Oh dear

 

[col]

Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?

As for the attitude of 'I have a job to do' to excuse barrier/bollard/wingmirror damage, I find that quite disconcerting. If something doesn't fit then go another way or use a different vehicle.

I wonder when you will click on to what has been mentioned?
Here is a little experiment for you, look in front of you and then tell us what you see directly behind you? no cheating now
Now try this, look over your left shoulder, and tell us what you see in front of you, and even in front and to the right, still looking over your left shoulder mind.
If you realise the problem, do let us know wont you?

 

[MacB]

I wonder when you will click on to what has been mentioned?
Here is a little experiment for you, look in front of you and then tell us what you see directly behind you? no cheating now
Now try this, look over your left shoulder, and tell us what you see in front of you, and even in front and to the right, still looking over your left shoulder mind.
If you realise the problem, do let us know wont you?

So what part of 'I need this explaining further' don't you get? same as Lee, if you've got a point to make, or an explanation to give, then do so.

The rambling nonsense you've posted above is a crappy way of saying we all have the same visual equipment, ie a pair of eyes. No shoot Sherlock, but we don't all crush cyclists with our vehicles now do we?
It's not hard, lay out in clear and concise language, paint a picture, but stop belittling yourself in an attempt to belittle me, or others.

 

[col]

So what part of 'I need this explaining further' don't you get? same as Lee, if you've got a point to make, or an explanation to give, then do so.

The rambling nonsense you've posted above is a crappy way of saying we all have the same visual equipment, ie a pair of eyes. No shoot Sherlock, but we don't all crush cyclists with our vehicles now do we?
It's not hard, lay out in clear and concise language, paint a picture, but stop belittling yourself in an attempt to belittle me, or others.

Well if you cant grasp what Im saying with those very simple examples Ill try again.
Your statement of I quote so you dont get too mixed up.Well I need this explaining further, if there are no blind spots then any cyclist that has been killed by an HGV could have been seen had the driver looked in the right place?
Whats the term you use? No shoot sherlock?
Lets just say for example the driver is looking to his right, how would the said driver see to the left at the same time, my point is, which you call rambling nonsense, is really very simple to understand. we all have to look somewhere, and that means other directions cant be looked at at the same time. It couldnt really be more clear now could it?
You say " we dont all crush cyclists with our vehicles now do we" yet again in your words, no shoot sherlock
What you dont seem to grasp or understand is, it doesnt matter how many mirrors there are, they have to be looked at to be of use, are you with me so far? So if your looking at a mirror on one side you cant see the other side at the same time. Not going to quick for you am i?

I hope you can understand this a little now, I know your having problems picking up on it, but persevere you will get there.

 

[MacB]

That's it, that's the entirety of the point you were trying to make, boy, I wouldn't worry about 'going too fast for someone to follow' if I were you...trust me that's never going to be an issue.

Of course we all have to look somewhere and the counter suggestion has been that it should include any points around a vehicle where someone could be crushed. The further point being made is that if that is not deemed practical with current equipment/personnel then changes would be advisable.

One of those changes is educating cyclists not to ride up the inside of large vehicles. As that's unlikely to be completely successful then what else could be done?

I quite liked the idea of automatic licence suspension until fault/reason is determined. Personally I would extend that to all drivers and all types of licence.

But you are, probably unwittingly, helping to make the counter case. As we can't look everywhere simultaneously then no amount of mirrors will have the desired effect. So that would leave a drivers mate or sensor technology that mimics, or improves upon, this.