Bike vs HGV
- Thread starter Twilkes
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
col
Legendary Member
It was for you , or so you claimed so you could have a sound off to impress your friends
Educating cyclists to not put themselves in danger isnt really a vehicle change, but the only really practical way forward to help lower the chances of death or injury.
Your Liking of licence suspension until fault/ reason is determined is unreasonable. What about confiscating cycles from people until fault/reason is determined? Not really a sensible approach is it?
Other than sensors around the vehicle that sounds an alarm and flashes a light on a screen to show the point needing attention, no, more mirrors would make no difference in that sense, as you can only look when you can look. This is the reality of driving, and more people will be injured or killed. some will be the drivers fault, some the cyclist. But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen. the only way to minimise this is to seperate vehicles and cycles . But then some cyclists wont use cycling lanes for varying reasons, so should it be made law? if there is a cycle lane you must use it? it gets complicated and probably impractical. Lets just hope most see sense and just dont go too close to each other.
Little yellow Brompton
A dark destroyer of biscuits!
- Location
- Bridgend
It was for you , or so you claimed so you could have a sound off to impress your friends
Educating cyclists to not put themselves in danger isnt really a vehicle change, but the only really practical way forward to help lower the chances of death or injury.
Your Liking of licence suspension until fault/ reason is determined is unreasonable. What about confiscating cycles from people until fault/reason is determined? Not really a sensible approach is it?
Other than sensors around the vehicle that sounds an alarm and flashes a light on a screen to show the point needing attention, no, more mirrors would make no difference in that sense, as you can only look when you can look. This is the reality of driving, and more people will be injured or killed. some will be the drivers fault, some the cyclist. But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen. the only way to minimise this is to seperate vehicles and cycles . But then some cyclists wont use cycling lanes for varying reasons, so should it be made law? if there is a cycle lane you must use it? it gets complicated and probably impractical. Lets just hope most see sense and just dont go too close to each other.
Your prepackaged mentality of "Oh dear, but there is nothing that can be done!" shines through clearly in the above. Well done it's a very good bit of prose, I can almost see you shrugging your shoulders. I see that you use the technique of reversing a suggested situation and offereing that in exchange as a bargaining tool ( when you suggest confiscation of cycles) , it's a valid tool for seeing if the initial position is equitable , and you seem to think that confiscating cycles is not "sensible" . On the contrary I would suggest that it is a very sensible approach for the handful of times a decade that a cyclist kills someone.
As you are keen on the "reverse position bargain" lets also look at your suggestion of segregation of traffic, it's here that your closed mind shows through most clearly . You only mention segregation by moving the cyclist, not theHGV, you only mention restricting the cyclist not the driver, but the is a valid reason for this, you have already accepted that it's acceptable to kill cyclsits with "But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen" , at least Pilate got other people to make the decision before going Ho hum and washing his hands.
Little yellow Brompton
A dark destroyer of biscuits!
- Location
- Bridgend
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.
You're not a member of the IAM are you?
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
It was for you , or so you claimed so you could have a sound off to impress your friends
Educating cyclists to not put themselves in danger isnt really a vehicle change, but the only really practical way forward to help lower the chances of death or injury.
Your Liking of licence suspension until fault/ reason is determined is unreasonable. What about confiscating cycles from people until fault/reason is determined? Not really a sensible approach is it?
Other than sensors around the vehicle that sounds an alarm and flashes a light on a screen to show the point needing attention, no, more mirrors would make no difference in that sense, as you can only look when you can look. This is the reality of driving, and more people will be injured or killed. some will be the drivers fault, some the cyclist. But none are on purpose, accidents are always going to happen. the only way to minimise this is to seperate vehicles and cycles . But then some cyclists wont use cycling lanes for varying reasons, so should it be made law? if there is a cycle lane you must use it? it gets complicated and probably impractical. Lets just hope most see sense and just dont go too close to each other.
Not sounding off trying to have a genuine discussion which is never going to be furthered by snide jibes with no actual input.
Firstly I never claimed that all the onus had to be one sided, we were discussing what could be improved and road user awareness is always on the cards, hence cyclists education.
In the case of KSI then I think licence suspension, or vehicle confiscation, is perfectly reasonable, for all types of road user. As was pointed out already, we suspend all sorts of professionals pending results of investigations.
You can only look where you can look - this is the essence of the point that myself and LYB are making, we just feel it can be improved upon. If that means a drivers mate, masses of sensor technology, whatever, it's worth doing IMO. What I don't agree with is an acceptance along the lines of 'accidents will happen'. Yes they will but that's just a truism that means nothing on its own and should never preclude attempts to improve on a situation. When you cite things like practicality or costs I could just as easily say things like the families of the people killed would happily have paid a few hundred quid for sensor technology that would have saved their loved ones.
Seperation - I've already said that I see a role for this but it's not the be all and end all and is never going to be physically possible in towns. As LYB pointed out you don't flip this option round to suggest removing HGVs, whereas I consider that a valid option. I can see the HGV to depot then smaller van to end users as being an option. But I'd also see limits on private vehicle use being equally as valid. Improving town/city centre life and traffic for everyone, not just cyclists.
As for other attitudes on here directed at 'stupid' cyclists that cycle up the inside, that only looks at one part. If that was completely stopped do we believe there would be no further cyclists killed by HGVs?...of course not as that's not the only scenario it occurs in. So what are we saying? stopping cyclists going up the inside is as good as we can do? We'll just have to accept the other 'accidents' as part and parcel of the world we live in? Even though the same sort of technological measures that could be taken to help in one area could/would help in all the others?
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
summerdays
Cycling in the sun
- Location
- Bristol
I think technology used by used to help the driver (and cyclist - those audible warnings that I've seen on the internet but not in real life). In an urban situation at a junction there are a number of directions that even a cyclist needs to be looking and occasionally we get it wrong.
I've had my own close call with a lorry where he pulled into my lane (a bus lane with double yellows) to park and came extremely close. When questioned he hadn't seen me - in the middle of the lane wearing hi-vis in daylight. Maybe if he had had sensors in his cab it would have alerted him that I might have been there.
I've had my own close call with a lorry where he pulled into my lane (a bus lane with double yellows) to park and came extremely close. When questioned he hadn't seen me - in the middle of the lane wearing hi-vis in daylight. Maybe if he had had sensors in his cab it would have alerted him that I might have been there.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
in that video he would have to be looking in the left mirror constantly to see the cyclist who goes up the inside. which would mean he couldn't be checking all the other areas he needs to be. so the simplest thing to do is to get cyclists to use their brains and not cut up the inside of the lorry even if tthe cycle lane directs them too.
my 10 yr old daughter understands this and did so before her bikeabilty as she pulled the instructor up who said to use cycle lanes to approach traffic lights . not from my teaching eithe, r she can read a sign on the back of a lorry and has applied that logic across all lorries.
she also understands priority and knows that even though she has priority as she is the most vulnerable road user she knows when to get off the bike so she doesn't get hurt.
why don't you write to brompton and suggest they don't use HGVs to deliver their products
Little yellow Brompton
A dark destroyer of biscuits!
- Location
- Bridgend
From memory, the lorry was stationary for 20 seconds, the cyclist was visible for 6 seconds of that twenty, nearly a third of the time the vehicle was stationary, and even that doesn't allow for the fact that the vehcile had only just overtaken the cycle. If the driver had been scanning left/front/right etc... the cyclist would have been visible.
You aren't the first person to mention the areas the driver "needs" to check , considering that he knows he is turning left, and that the mirrors cover 45 degrees that leaves 160 degrees to be scanned ( with the mirrors within that sweep) , what other areas does the driver "need" to check that doesn't allow him to check left ?
Again , as my very first post, I'm amazed at how many people will take so much trouble to generate so many spurious excuses for inattention.
Little yellow Brompton
A dark destroyer of biscuits!
- Location
- Bridgend
in that video he would have to be looking in the left mirror constantly to see the cyclist who goes up the inside. which would mean he couldn't be checking all the other areas he needs to be. so the simplest thing to do is to get cyclists to use their brains and not cut up the inside of the lorry even if tthe cycle lane directs them too.
my 10 yr old daughter understands this and did so before her bikeabilty as she pulled the instructor up who said to use cycle lanes to approach traffic lights . not from my teaching eithe, r she can read a sign on the back of a lorry and has applied that logic across all lorries.
she also understands priority and knows that even though she has priority as she is the most vulnerable road user she knows when to get off the bike so she doesn't get hurt.
why don't you write to brompton and suggest they don't use HGVs to deliver their products
I'm not sure they do, mine arrived in a Transit.
BlackPanther
Hyper-Fast Recumbent Riding Member.
- Location
- Doncaster.
The only advantage of a drivers mate would be the odd reversing manoeuvre where a banksman could come in handy.
I've had a couple of jobs where we double manned. It's impossible not to be a little distracted when you've got someone talking to you most of the day. IMHO, the safest drivers on the road are solo.
I'd also like to bet that more accidents happen per mile where 2 are in the cab than when the driver's solo. I have no stats to back this up, it's just MHO.
If her cycle instructor didn't know not to go up the inside of an HGV, that's a pretty compelling indication right there that fixing the problem is going to be more involved than calling people stupid on the Internet
She clearly isn't, though.
