Bike vs HGV

[Dan_h]

its a really simple action to take DO NOT MOVE THE HGV UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO , regardless of what the employer/customer directs you to.

Why is your version any more valid?

I think it comes down to which is more realistic. very few drivers will move their vehicles if they believe it is safe to do so, but how can they be 100% sure? In the time it takes to check that are no sneaky pedestrians stepping off the kerb in front of you, and that all the traffic ahead has actually stopped at the lights (including RLJ cyclists) a cyclist could have sneaked up the left of the truck... in a utopian world the driver would know 100% that it is safe, but in the real world accidents DO happen. As cyclists if we can reduce the number of cycling deaths involving trucks through modifying our own behaviour slightly then I for one am all for that.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I'm not sure if this is just the way it reads or if it was a mistake.
But the deaths in London cyclists alone are at 16 mark. There have been many deaths of cyclists over the whole country.

Sorry it was a mistake , using two seperate resources and different timeframes.

I was using the avg no of deaths for the country ( from memory) of 14* and a recent newspaer report that mentioned 7 out of 8 lorry/cyclist deaths involving tippers/concrete lorries. Serves me right for rattling it off without checking my sources.



* HAs it really shot up to 16 in London alone????? That really is worrying.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Easy answer - As of tomorrow morning, all HGV's are banned.
Reason being that the drivers don't have 360 degree vision.

Just gives us time to run to the shops before all deliveries are cancelled.

Easier answer, have a 2nd man in the cab.
Even easier answer, just blame the victims and continue on as usual.

 

[Twilkes]

This film was staged and Bentmikey was involved (he was filming as well, IIRC). It was made in two parts.

I believe the film was not "officially" released by TFL. It was posted anonymously online earlier this year, but both vids were made private soon after.

This is another re-uploading of half of the film.

It's worth remembering that cyclists who are involved in collisions with HGVs are not, by any means, always undertaking on the left.

That's what I was looking for, thank you. It's a pretty effective film for making you think, but the fact it was staged makes the initial caption a bit disingenuous - I think that would have reduced the film's impact, once it was known. It's almost a shame it's faked, as the fact that the driver/cyclist's family would have had to agreed for the footage to be shown was what made me pay more attention than other cycling videos I've seen.

I've read all the other comments too, and I guess everyone makes their own decisions when they're on their bikes about where to cycle, but I know which one I make when I'm in that situation. If I walked into a doctor's waiting room behind a fat man, I wouldn't jump into his chair just before he sat down.

Thanks,

Twilkes

 

[Mushroomgodmat]

As a driver I fully understand that not every driver (myself so very included) does not see all things at all times (same when Im on the bike). In my personal opinion its unrealistic to expect the same thing from eveyone else - though I do fully expect them to try and maintain a high level of concentration, I also except (esp on the roads) that other distractions on and around the road can direct their attention elsewhere which may result if missing the cyclest whos doing something they shouldnt.

 

[MacB]

there's no shortage of 'cycle facilities' that will lead, and via ASLs encourage, cyclists to scoot up the inside of vehicles at lights. I've caught myself doing it when following an on road cycle lane.

Either we stop that alltogether and ditch cycle lanes or we have them treated correctly as another lane of traffic. In the same way as if a vehicle turned left from the outside lane of a dual carriageway they would be at fault for hitting anything in the inside lane.

 

[PK99]

Really? It shows me that the cyclist was quite visible,

for about 3 seconds in a small section of the field of view the driver has to scan

 

[subaqua]

its a really simple action to take DO NOT MOVE THE HGV UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS SAFE TO DO SO , regardless of what the employer/customer directs you to.

Why is your version any more valid?

so thats static vehicles as nothing inm life is safe its just how big the risks are . riding up the inside is a fairly big risk. not to mention so stupid as to be Darwinian.

 

[PK99]

You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?


"Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?"

It is still possible even, if all appropriate guards and mirrors are fitted to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safe operation of the HGV, that some f***wit of a cyclist will deliberately place themselves at the point of maximum danger (which is what the cyclist in the video did).

 

[PK99]

You failed to answer the question(s). I will however answer yours , me!
Now can you answer the intitial question(s)?


"Simpler for who exactly?

Don't you believe that the entity that brings the dangerous object into the environment is responsible for making it safe?"

It is still possible even, if all appropriate guards and mirrors are fitted to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safe operation of the HGV, that some f***wit of a cyclist will deliberately place themselves at the point of maximum danger (which is what the cyclist in the video did).

 

[PK99]

, the problem is HGVs being moved without the operator knowing 100% that it is safe to do so,.

100% safety is impossible to achieve -

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

It is still possible even, if all appropriate guards and mirrors are fitted to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safe operation of the HGV, that some f***wit of a cyclist will deliberately place themselves at the point of maximum danger (which is what the cyclist in the video did).

"so far as is reasonably practicable" the newprint industry used to use the same sort of weasel words when dreaming up excuses, for why they coudn't stop killing/maiming people, so did construction, mining, engineering, steelmaking... why are there still so many apologists for the haulage industry? The next time you see a crushed bollard on a corner, ask yourself " Was it the bollards "fault" that it was crushed"? If you come to the conclusion that the bollard was not to blame , then you will then need to consider ( or just shrug and say "not my problem") what caused the problem, that will eventually lead you to the realsiation that it was the moving vehcile , not the bollard that was the cause. Now replace the bollard in your thought eperiment with a cyclist/pedestrian, if it was not the fault of the bollard for being there, and was the fault of the operator of the vehicle how does it sudden;y become the cyclis/pedestrain's fault?


Or if you want to reverse the though experment...


If the cyclist is a "farkwit" , is the bollard that woudl get crushed also a" farkwit", or again is the problem coming from somewhere else?

 

[MacB]

100% safety is impossible to achieve -

Not true, ban HGVs from roads open to cyclists and vice versa and you have instant HGV/cyclist 100% safety.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

100% safety is impossible to achieve -

You are treading down a centuries old path of excuse hunting. "it can't be done" so we won' t bother trying! "It will be too expensive" so we won't bother trying! "No body else wants it" Apart from the dead people who can't speak!

All the same arguments were trotted out by other industries in the past, there is nothing new or suprising ; apart from that is cyclists making excuses for the haulage industry, if it was industry insiders making excuses I could understand it. You aren't involved in the haulage industry by any chance?

 

[Mushroomgodmat]

You are treading down a centuries old path of excuse hunting. "it can't be done" so we won' t bother trying! "It will be too expensive" so we won't bother trying! "No body else wants it" Apart from the dead people who can't speak!

All the same arguments were trotted out by other industries in the past, there is nothing new or suprising ; apart from that is cyclists making excuses for the haulage industry, if it was industry insiders making excuses I could understand it. You aren't involved in the haulage industry by any chance?

but hes right...nothing on this is 100% safe, and nothing ever will be.