Bike vs HGV

[Shaun]

[QUOTE 1650194, member: 3143"]I'm truly tired of debating with morons with the IQ of a plank of wood. (You're excused Dan B).[/quote]

Maybe you and a few others should just stop then. You've all made your points and the tit-for-tat jockeying for the "win" on threads can get a bit tiresome.

As a cyclist you should be aware that drivers of HGVs may not see you on the inside, so to stay safe - just don't go up their inside. Stay behind them and remove the risk.

Drivers of HGVs should equally be aware that some cyclists go up their inside regardless and should look out for them where it is possible and practical. Drivers who don't take due care should be prosecuted within the current laws, and if the laws need changing then you need to campaign for that.

Telling a cyclist not to go up the inside of a HGV is not being an apologist for HGV manufacture or use - it's plain, simply, common bloody sense. Who gives a toss if you shouldn't have to tell people that (in an ideal world) the fact is that this simple bit of advice can save their life.

If you want to campaign for improving the visibility of cyclists on the inside track of HGVs or to educate drivers or cyclists - work together and use the campaigning forum to discuss, positively, ways that this could be achieved.

Rant over.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1650194, member: 3143"]Coming close to something is not the same as actually saying it thoughn is it. And the poster refered to 'industry' and not the pacifics of HGV driving.

I'm truly tired of debating with morons with the IQ of a plank of wood. (You're excused Dan B).[/quote]

No one is forcing you to debate* and you have already announced once that you had given up.


* Where debate seems to consist of saying nothing can be done and then calling variuos people names

 

[Shaun]

No one is forcing you to debate* and you have already announced once that you had given up. * Where debate seems to consist of saying nothing can be done and then calling variuos people names

You're not exactly a saint either - and certainly shouldn't be finger pointing!!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

You're not exactly a saint either - and certainly shouldn't be finger pointing!!

I've never claimed to be a saint, but at the risk of angering the admin gods I don't think there has been an occasion in this thread where I have called anyone an idiot, twonk , moron or anythign else that could be classed as name calling. Or have I?

 

[subaqua]

How do you propose to do this?

haven't a clue. I know whats sensible and whats not in that situation so don't need to change my mindset. how would you solve the problem ??

 

[Bayerd]

That's what we need, more HGV drivers with a pacific attitude.

Really? I thought there was oceans of them....

 

[BentMikey]

haven't a clue. I know whats sensible and whats not in that situation so don't need to change my mindset. how would you solve the problem ??

Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?

 

[Dan_h]

Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?

Are there not two slightly different things being argued here?

The first being the cyclist does something dangerous and puts themselves at risk because of it (passing the HGV on the left for example).

The second point being argued seems to be that the safety of trucks in general on the road needs to be improved as there are many situations where the cyclist is doing everything right but can still be knocked down.

As individual cyclists the first point is one we can do something about (Don't pass the HGV on the left!). The second would require a change to the training of drivers or their equipment or something. This is not something that can be done by individual cyclists.

 

[Dan B]

Are there not two slightly different things being argued here?

The first being the cyclist does something dangerous and puts themselves at risk because of it (passing the HGV on the left for example).

The second point being argued seems to be that the safety of trucks in general on the road needs to be improved as there are many situations where the cyclist is doing everything right but can still be knocked down.

I don't really think it's a matter of deciding who's at fault. Whoever makes the first mistake, it usually still takes two parties to cause an accident. If I am driving a car and a cyclist does something foolish such as pull out in front of me when I have priority, I have the option - in fact, I am pretty much obliged - to take avoiding action: to stop, or change direction. In the same way when cycling and a pedestrian steps out in front of me, it is not my fault that they've placed themselves in a dangerous situation, but regardless, it then becomes incumbent on me to do my best to avoid them. And for that matter, I would be a crap driver (or cyclist) if I hadn't already anticipated that they might do that.

The problem with HGVs seems to be that there is no margin for error in these situations. I agree completely that if you go up the inside of an HGV you are putting yourself at risk, but (1) I don't see why it's apparently impossible for them to do anything which offsets that risk, and (2) if it really is impossible, should we really be allowing such unforgiving vehicles on the road? It's not about who's in the wrong, it's about what the options are for getting out of the wrong. Proximity sensors, mirrors, training, trixie mirrors, side bars or panels, cameras, cab design, bike lane/asl design, road layout - any or all these things might help, and will be just as likely to help no matter who farked up first.

 

[Dan_h]

I don't really think it's a matter of deciding who's at fault. Whoever makes the first mistake, it usually still takes two parties to cause an accident. If I am driving a car and a cyclist does something foolish such as pull out in front of me when I have priority, I have the option - in fact, I am pretty much obliged - to take avoiding action: to stop, or change direction. In the same way when cycling and a pedestrian steps out in front of me, it is not my fault that they've placed themselves in a dangerous situation, but regardless, it then becomes incumbent on me to do my best to avoid them. And for that matter, I would be a crap driver (or cyclist) if I hadn't already anticipated that they might do that.

The problem with HGVs seems to be that there is no margin for error in these situations. I agree completely that if you go up the inside of an HGV you are putting yourself at risk, but (1) I don't see why it's apparently impossible for them to do anything which offsets that risk, and (2) if it really is impossible, should we really be allowing such unforgiving vehicles on the road? It's not about who's in the wrong, it's about what the options are for getting out of the wrong. Proximity sensors, mirrors, training, trixie mirrors, side bars or panels, cameras, cab design, bike lane/asl design, road layout - any or all these things might help, and will be just as likely to help no matter who ****ed up first.

I am not trying to say it is about who is at fault and who is to blame. I agree that when someone does something foolish (or even just makes a mistake) you are obliged to try and avoid the accident and I can't imagine there are many people on the road who would NOT try and avoid an accident.

I also agree that the design and operation of HGVs could, or infact should, be improved for the safety of all concerned. I have never driven an HGV so don't really feel that I can comment on what can or cannot be seen from inside the cab. From the point of view of the camera in the original video I thought that the cyclist was hard to spot, whether the driver can see into the place the cyclist ended up by twisting his head around I cannot say.

Still having said all of that if there is a way that as cyclists we can do something to reduce the risk to ourselves in certain situations is it not worth us doing it? In one of bentmikey's you tube clips a cyclist tries to go up the left of a truck in a most alarming manner (infact I think he does it twice!) so there are cyclists out there who do not know this danger exists (it is possible that they know but don't care!).

In my mind it is much like the anti RLJ campaign, if I am driving along and a cyclist jumps the lights just ahead of me I will of course try and avoid them if at all possible. However this does not mean it is not a dangerous thing to do. I am sure there are very few HGV drivers who would run over a cyclist on purpose, but this does not mean that it is not dangerous to pass them on the left and it would be better not to.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

The cyclist is clearly visible in the top n/s mirror when the driver pulls off. Not blind but not paying attention.

Ummm... I've had a look at the vid and I can't see the cyclist in either of those mirrors at 24 secs when the driver pulls away. Looks to me like there's a blind spot there, whether there *should* be or not.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

An interesting point, IMO, was raised earlier about buses not having nearly the same accident statistics as HGvs and yet they are similarly challenging to drive in terms of size and manouverability (sp?). Is part of the problem, and I'm just "spiffballing" here, that they have such large expanses of openness between the wheels on HGV's whereas Buses are more encased so don't tend to 'drag' cyclists underneath them but rather they bounce off them and probably suffer injuries rather than death? Isn't there any way of 'encasing' the sides of HGVs further to limit this 'drag under' effect?

 

[subaqua]

Do you think you'd be capable of avoiding an aggressive overtake and left hook by a Dennis Putz-alike?

as other people have posted , thats not what is being discussed here. that is an entirely different problem to solve. and a van or car doing that would likely have caused the same outcome.

in reply to sharkybloke-more trailers are getting the sides enclosed. maybe some retrospective legislation like the emmision zone rules.

 

[cyberknight]

oh the instructor knew, she just reminded him that cycle lanes put you in a bad place going to traffic lights. Her words not mine.

fixing the problem involves those who think its SAFE to do dangerous things such as ride up the inside of a large vehicle, having a mindset change and taking responsibility for THEIR OWN actions rather than bleating that somebody else should do something so thay can do what they like.

Pretty much what i said at the start , it amazes me how many pages this thread has gone on for with much mud slinging and we all wish that it could be made safer but putting yourself into a known danger zone and shouting "no fair " will not save your life.

 

[Origamist]

An interesting point, IMO, was raised earlier about buses not having nearly the same accident statistics as HGvs and yet they are similarly challenging to drive in terms of size and manouverability (sp?). Is part of the problem, and I'm just "spiffballing" here, that they have such large expanses of openness between the wheels on HGV's whereas Buses are more encased so don't tend to 'drag' cyclists underneath them but rather they bounce off them and probably suffer injuries rather than death? Isn't there any way of 'encasing' the sides of HGVs further to limit this 'drag under' effect?

Buses are different to HGVs (or LGVs if you prefer) as the cab is higher and set back further (although this varies from cab to cab) and bus drivers have better visibility on the front left due to the amount of glass surrounding the driver. However, "side and underrun protection" is something that has been mooted and might help mitigate the seriousness of collisions involving cyclists and HGVs.