Bike vs HGV

[BADGER.BRAD]

I think this video is much more productive than the first one shown here, have a look , 3 minites in showns how blind a driver can become in an articulated vehicle whilst manovering. The first video shows the results of not watching this video. One coment I would make is it tells cyclist to not undertake a vehicle indicating left I'd rather go for not undertking at all ! see what you think .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_Uf5WVfY_RY

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

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?

There's a number points here, and I'm not au fait enough with the software to be able to thread them.

Buses may be challenging to drive, but they are not the same as HGVs ( or at least not Artics) in that the mirrors stay at the same angle relative to the body when cornering ( once an artic starts turning the mirrors both sides don't show much of any use)
The flat sides has some mileage in it and many HGVs( I can never remember the new TLA for them) do have that space filled in, however tippers, mixers and skip lorry operators scream like stuck pigs every time the idea is mooted because they don't want to get stuck on constructions sites.
I'm not sure the breakdown of KSI within HGV/Cyclist collisions but I'm willing to bet that tippers, mixers and skip lorries are as over represented within HGVs as HGVs are within the general population. This I would ascribe to two factors, one being the abscence of underriding bars on these vehicles and the other is the way that they are operated on a pay per load basis.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

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.

Sighh! :-(

It's only a "known danger zone" if you know...

The cyclist may or may not know, the driver is paid to know

 

[Origamist]

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.

The problem with trying to glean what the driver could and couldn't see in the video is that the camera is not located in the same postion as the driver and has a different field of view. This is critical. For example, when there are reconstructions of collisions involving cyclists and HGVs the "eye height" of the collision investigator and the driver are matched (although in the Eilidh Cairns case this was not the case) in order to establish/extrapolate what would have been visible from the cab.

 

[Origamist]

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.

There might still have been a collision, but the consequences are likely to be far less serious if a car or (to a lesser extent) a van are involved. HGVs that collide with cyclists at very slow speeds are nearly always KSIs. What's more, due to the length of HGVs it is harder to outrun or outbrake the vehicle when it is turning left.

 

[Shaun]

How you approach the issue, causes, and solutions makes a difference though. Rather than looking for who is to "blame" why can't we look at solving or alleviating the causes:

Problem: Cyclists are being injured and killed by left-turning HGVs/LGVs

Cause/s: Drivers are not paying attention and/or not observing the cyclists on their nearside; drivers do not have the equipment to easily detect cyclists who travel-up and sit-at their nearside; cyclists are not aware of the risks and are travelling up the nearside and putting themselves in potential danger; cyclists are aware of the risks and don't care anyway; road designers are creating pathways to encourage cyclists to travel up the nearside by laying cycle lanes on the approach to lights/junctions; some of the vehicles/trailers are not designed to deflect (or protect) the cyclist when caught by a turning lorry; etc. etc.

Responsibility: Cyclists, drivers, haulage/vehicle operators, vehicle manufacturers, road designers, cycling educators/trainers, legislators, prosecutors, judges, etc.

Solution/s: ... now that would make for an intersting discussion ...

 

[BentMikey]

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.

This is because when we were filming, the cyclist nips to the front of the truck, and then off to the right where he "hides" out of field of view of my camera on the traffic island in the middle of the road at the traffic lights.

Of course that begs the question as to why trucks where the driver can't see in the metre or two directly in front of their vehicles are allowed to be driven in busy urban environments. I don't see why ultrasonic sensors and mirrors can't be made mandatory so that there are no blind spots, and there are driver aids to help reduce the workload in avoiding those who make the mistake of getting in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[BentMikey]

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.

It is what I'm asking you, and it is the same problem of cyclists being killed by lorries.

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

 

[doog]

It is what I'm asking you, and it is the same problem of cyclists being killed by lorries.

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

What has a pissed up lorry driver on the phone got to do with the thread? Are you saying that if some safety device was in place despite being pissed and on the phone he wouldnt have killed that lady? Or are you just anti- lorry driver?

For the benefit of the thread can we safely assume that all left turning lorry drivers are sober and not on their phone or does that complicate things?

 

[cyberknight]

Sighh! :-(

It's only a "known danger zone" if you know...

The cyclist may or may not know, the driver is paid to know

As others have pointed out the lorry is indicating before the cyclist decides to cycle up the inside so common sense would tell anyone that it is a danger zone,stop trying to pass the buck and accept the that your actions can have repercussions.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

This is because when we were filming, the cyclist nips to the front of the truck, and then off to the right where he "hides" out of field of view of my camera on the traffic island in the middle of the road at the traffic lights..

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those experts who managed to spot the cyclists didn't? How embarrasing

 

[Origamist]

How you approach the issue, causes, and solutions makes a difference though. Rather than looking for who is to "blame" why can't we look at solving or alleviating the causes:

Problem: Cyclists are being injured and killed by left-turning HGVs/LGVs

Cause/s: Drivers are not paying attention and/or not observing the cyclists on their nearside; drivers do not have the equipment to easily detect cyclists who travel-up and sit-at their nearside; cyclists are not aware of the risks and are travelling up the nearside and putting themselves in potential danger; cyclists are aware of the risks and don't care anyway; road designers are creating pathways to encourage cyclists to travel up the nearside by laying cycle lanes on the approach to lights/junctions; some of the vehicles/trailers are not designed to deflect (or protect) the cyclist when caught by a turning lorry; etc. etc.

Responsibility: Cyclists, drivers, haulage/vehicle operators, vehicle manufacturers, road designers, cycling educators/trainers, legislators, prosecutors, judges, etc.

Solution/s: ... now that would make for an intersting discussion ...

Interventions that attempt to ameliorate the situation vis a vis cyclists and HGVs are usually based around the three "Es": education, enforcement and engineering.

For example, a video aimed at highlighting the dangers of left turning HGVs and cyclists would come under "education" as would cycle training. HGV sensors, cctv and an improved mirror configuration would come under "engineering" (as would changes to junction layouts etc). Checking tachographs, roadworthiness, excessive loads on HGVs would be covered by "enforcement". These are only examples of dozens of interventions/approaches that have been discussed over the years to tackle this longstanding and seemingly intractable problem.

In Campaigning there are links to numerous reports, cycle safety plans, petitions and videos that propose many different approaches to reducing road danger from HGVs.

 

[col]

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those experts who managed to spot the cyclists didn't? How embarrasing

 

[BentMikey]

What has a pissed up lorry driver on the phone got to do with the thread? Are you saying that if some safety device was in place despite being pissed and on the phone he wouldnt have killed that lady? Or are you just anti- lorry driver?

For the benefit of the thread can we safely assume that all left turning lorry drivers are sober and not on their phone or does that complicate things?

What has it got to do with a thread on "Bike vs HGV", that's about cyclists dying under the wheels of lorries? Do you really need me to explain that to you, or have you just destroyed all credibility on your posts in this topic?

A pissed lorry driver is just as relevant as the lorry safety unit that found that 100% of the HGVs it examined had one or more serious safety defects. Not minor issues, SERIOUS issues. BoJo wanted to disband it, but the correct action would be to significantly increase the quantity of inspections made and the number of prosecutions brought. There is a lot of scope for enforcement in this area, and for traffic enforcement of the many aggressively driven lorries I see on a daily basis in London.

It's just as appropriate to discuss this, as it is to discuss further education of cyclists and lorry drivers both.

 

[doog]

What has it got to do with a thread on "Bike vs HGV", that's about cyclists dying under the wheels of lorries? Do you really need me to explain that to you, or have you just destroyed all credibility on your posts in this topic?

A pissed lorry driver is just as relevant as the lorry safety unit that found that 100% of the HGVs it examined had one or more serious safety defects. Not minor issues, SERIOUS issues. BoJo wanted to disband it, but the correct action would be to significantly increase the quantity of inspections made and the number of prosecutions brought. There is a lot of scope for enforcement in this area, and for traffic enforcement of the many aggressively driven lorries I see on a daily basis in London.

It's just as appropriate to discuss this, as it is to discuss further education of cyclists and lorry drivers both.

Credibility? I am debating an HGV turning left at a junction like everyone else. You are throwing drink driving, mobile phone using and vehicle defects into the mix. Are they relevant for the thread thats all I am asking?

You show me one HGV with a defect , a drink driver, and a phone using driver and I will show you 100 of the same in vans or 1000 in cars. I'm struggling to see your point.