Bike vs HGV

[Little yellow Brompton]

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 ...

I would suggest that the first way to start on a solution would be to use the standard form of risk assessment matrix used by every other industry. On reflection I just snipped the rest...

 

[Shaun]

I, and possibly others, don't know what a risk assessment matrix is - sounds interesting; is it something you could explain to us?

And how would it help in the context of reducing accidents and deaths from left turning lorries?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I, and possibly others, don't know what a risk assessment matrix is - sounds interesting; is it something you could explain to us?

And how would it help in the context of reducing accidents and deaths from left turning lorries?

I doubt if I could explain it well enough that you woudn't be better googling for one.
How would using one help? To start from the basics, it would show that cycling in and of itself is safe, so the over emphasis on helmets, RLJ, HI ViZ etc... should be reduced and the resources, time, money and effort wasted on promoting and enforcing them re directed towards to where it they would be more effective.
It would also force the haulage industry to regard their equipment as what it is, the threat; and then for them to try and control the threat in the way that every other industry is required to do. Somone earlier pointed out that a saw bench ( not a good example) is required to be guarded , and the employer to have a risk assessment for use of the saw, it's not just good enough to say " It's dangerous keep clear of it" , the haulage industry is not obliged to do that once it's equipment leaves the yard ( Go read the HSEs webpage on risk assements for haulage) . A risk matrix would show that the same activity ( using a cycle lane) has a different loading from " low risk" to "Extreme risk" simply by changin the equipment that the activity is near, as the activty is shown to be "safe", it's the equipment that makes it unsafe, so you look at the equipment and change that ( stop using it, introduce control measures, manual operation, double manning...) until you can reduce the risk to acceptable levels.


Of course this is where I came in and we have reached a full circle. It's lorries that are the problem, they are the things that should alter, their operators should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and operate their machinery to the same standard as the rest of the country. Haulage is the dangerous activity , not cycling.

 

[DresdenDoom]

Sorry LYB but haulage is an integral part of every country's economy, and cycling is, well, a passtime. At sea, the rules relate mostly to maneuverability, so should it be on the road. Hang-gliding is also dangerous, but the practitioners accept the risk and try to minimise it as much as possible. So should cyclists, WE are the mote in the Roads eye.

 

[Canrider]

How many people hang-glide to work each day?

 

[subaqua]

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.

yup but there do seem to be protagonists who think the riding safe doesn't apply to them and all other road users should move for them. if you ignore control measures then you are very likely to get hurt or at worst killed.

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.

so don't ride up the inside then , take a primary position and ride properly, shoulder checking regularly.
I don't always ride primary but if theres lots of traffic i most certainly do, but i always check over both shoulders regularly. Even before reading what it was called i used to try and keep to the middle of the lane to avoid being overtaken dangerously. I am not a super rider and would class myself as average /slightly below average and if i can do it then its a fairly simple for others to do it.

the sad thing is that we can never eliminate all risks, only reduce them as far as is reasonably practicable. 50 deaths in construction this year so far , thats 1 a week. we have reduced and eliminated risks as far as we ca. its the changing of mindsets that we are now focussing on . this is what needs to happen for all road users. from lorry drivers to pedestrians.

last night i counted 12 perdestrians who walked out without looking , they may have been listening but a cycle is silent, i am glad i have applied the anticipate what people do mantra taught to me after i passed my test and strted to learn to drive not just learn to pass a test.

 

[subaqua]

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

suggest you look at 19 to 23 seconds . top mirror. cyclist cleary visible. the driver checks mirror at about 17 seconds when no cyclist is visible then looks forward again, possibly checking right mirror. checks mirror again at 24/25 seconds when cyclist has disappeared from view.

mikkey says he nips up to the front of the truck then hides on the right which fits with what the video shows . not even Boris would actually squish a cyclist

maybe a trip to specsavers for you LYB

 

[fimm]

So if no cyclist ever went up the left hand side of a HGV ever again, the number of KSIs due to HGV vs cyclists would drop to zero? Some people on this thread appear to be saying this... please note that I agree that cyclists should be educated not to...

 

[Origamist]

Sorry LYB but haulage is an integral part of every country's economy, and cycling is, well, a passtime. At sea, the rules relate mostly to maneuverability, so should it be on the road. Hang-gliding is also dangerous, but the practitioners accept the risk and try to minimise it as much as possible. So should cyclists, WE are the mote in the Roads eye.

Cycling is mode of transport for many hundreds of thousdands of people, not merely a pastime.

 

[Shaun]

Taking the view that lorries are the whole of the problem isn't going to lead to anywhere useful - you can equally remove the cyclist from the equation to solve the problem.

Operating a bicycle with no HGVs or other vehicles nearby isn't particularly risky.

Operating a HGV away from cyclists and other vehicles isn't particularly risky.

It's when you mix them together in close proximity, such as town traffic (and in particular at left turns) that the risk is amplified.

You can't remove either from the situation or separate them in a practical way - unless you create exclusive routes for either or both and that's not going to happen - so you've really got to look at ways of reducing the risk within the boundaries of having them mixed together in traffic.

 

[Origamist]

yup but there do seem to be protagonists who think the riding safe doesn't apply to them and all other road users should move for them. if you ignore control measures then you are very likely to get hurt or at worst killed.



so don't ride up the inside then , take a primary position and ride properly, shoulder checking regularly.
I don't always ride primary but if theres lots of traffic i most certainly do, but i always check over both shoulders regularly. Even before reading what it was called i used to try and keep to the middle of the lane to avoid being overtaken dangerously. I am not a super rider and would class myself as average /slightly below average and if i can do it then its a fairly simple for others to do it.

the sad thing is that we can never eliminate all risks, only reduce them as far as is reasonably practicable. 50 deaths in construction this year so far , thats 1 a week. we have reduced and eliminated risks as far as we ca. its the changing of mindsets that we are now focussing on . this is what needs to happen for all road users. from lorry drivers to pedestrians.

last night i counted 12 perdestrians who walked out without looking , they may have been listening but a cycle is silent, i am glad i have applied the anticipate what people do mantra taught to me after i passed my test and strted to learn to drive not just learn to pass a test.

As I understand it, part of the reason the video that the OP posted was pulled was because it could give the impression that the majority of cyclist/HGV collisions were the result of a cyclist undertaking a left turning HGV at a junction (not to mention the upset this could cause the families of bereaved cyclists who died in different, but broadly similar circumstances).

I'll explain. In many of the cases the circumstances leading up to the collision were not known. It could be that the cyclist was overtaken and hooked by the HGV when they were both moving, it could be that the HGV pulled up behind a cyclist and ran them down when turning left, it could be that the cyclist overtook the HGV on the right and then went into an ASL in the driver's frontal blindspot and was then hit when they pulled away etc. There are many scenarios that fall under the "left turning HGV/cyclist collision" type and where the cyclists undertakes the HGV is a subset of this type - it is only one contributory factor in a critical combination of circumstances.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I know of one collision where a skip truck shunted a Renault Clio 30 yards out from a junction because he was too busy howling and hooting at the girl with the surgically enhanced assets on his right.
When questioned he stated that he could not see the Clio and although knowing it had been there had assumed it had gone. He also didn't notice he was pushing it until he heard the driver's hooter and was wondering why the wagon was a bit sluggish.

There's a hell of a lot of factors to think about, some are predictable. Then there's human nature.

 

[subaqua]

As I understand it, part of the reason the video that the OP posted was pulled was because it could give the impression that the majority of cyclist/HGV collisions were the result of a cyclist undertaking a left turning HGV at a junction (not to mention the upset this could cause the families of bereaved cyclists who died in different, but broadly similar circumstances).

I'll explain. In many of the cases the circumstances leading up to the collision were not known. It could be that the cyclist was overtaken and hooked by the HGV when they were both moving, it could be that the HGV pulled up behind a cyclist and ran them down when turning left, it could be that the cyclist overtook the HGV on the right and then went into an ASL in the driver's frontal blindspot and was then hit when they pulled away etc. There are many scenarios that fall under the "left turning HGV/cyclist collision" type and where the cyclists undertakes the HGV is a subset of this type - it is only one contributory factor in a critical combination of circumstances.

totally agree but in THIS THREAD we are discussing this video and how the incident reenacted for the video happened. . I am fully aware that drunk drivers be they in cars van or lorries cause deaths , that SOME drivers do not look properly , that SOME lorry drivers should not be on the road . the underlying theme from a lot of the posters ids that ALL lorries and Lorry drivers are bad wghich is patently not the case. just as SOME cyclists are RLJers SOME ride on the pavement, SOME put themselves in danger because they think they are in the right does not mean ALL cyclists do the above.


there are now more control measures in place than ever before on drivers and still accidents happen, that suggests there is something beyond the control of the driver that can cause SOME accidents. this is what needs to be looked at not knee jerk even stricter regulations.

maybe better cyclelane provision /location could help who knows.

 

[PK99]

As I understand it, part of the reason the video that the OP posted was pulled was because it could give the impression that the majority of cyclist/HGV collisions were the result of a cyclist undertaking a left turning HGV at a junction (not to mention the upset this could cause the families of bereaved cyclists who died in different, but broadly similar circumstances).

I'll explain.s.

it is not just undertaking that is the problem. Stopping hard left against the kerb and allowing a lorry to share the lane alongside you is equally foolish.
Arrive first : Stop centrally / in primary position in the lane.
Arrive later: Do not undertake, wait in line.

 

[Origamist]

I'm not really interested in trying to piece together what happended in the video as it's a fruitless exercise. As I've already said, the camera in the cab is not in the same position as the driver and a camera lens has a different field of view to the human eye.

What interests me is how to better to understand why these collisions occur and what can be done to prevent them.

A lot of people on this thread have (righty) highlighted the danger of undertaking HGVs when they are stopped and indicating left. I'd go one step further and strongly advise against overtaking them on the right and using an ASL zone as you are just as likely not to be seen if you position yourself in front of the cab (without a class VI mirror) in an ASL zone.

Fundamentally though, if you wanted to drastically reduce cyclist and pedestrian fatalities you would have to look at redesigning cabs, changing HGV delivery schedules to avoid the rush hours, HGV bans in town and cities etc. None of which are likely as there is a complex cost benefit analysis that is used when considering safety interventions.