Cyclists Beware: The cancer is spreading

[Brandane]

Is that a reasonable requirement to put on other people? If you were to invent a vehicle like that today, do you think it would be allowed on our roads?

They are putting even BIGGER ones on the road now. So I guess the powers that be aren't overly concerned about them.

 

[Brandane]

But if it isn't (driven safely), is it reasonable that the person who made a slight error pays for it with their life ?

No, but that's a whole new topic. The courts are supposed to deal with drivers who don't drive safely. WE are supposed to use a bit of common sense to avoid being the victims of said drivers. Again, those stickers are only reinforcing that point.

 

[Brandane]

I have the same thought with every road user. It is their responsibility - and their responsibility alone - to ensure that the vehicle they are in control of is ridden/driven safely.

Would you disagree with that?

Up to a point.
I can be driving a lorry perfectly safely, turning left at a junction and doing all necessary observations to the left, right and all angles in between, including moving my head about to see round the mirrors which create their own blind spots. If some nobber in a car or bike then chooses to come up my inside while I am doing that, then I am sorry but I have done my bit. There is a responsibility on the cyclist to ride safely too, and that means keeping a safe distance from other vehicles. I suspect you know all this already though.

 

[mjr]

However, it does act as a reminder (and not victim blaming) that it's generally unwise to do so.

Being unwise in one or two situations does not mean it's "generally unwise". Most of the time, the lorry is going straight ahead, so overtaking on the left is generally safe.

and there are many cyclists who don't understand how extensive the blind area are on may lorries.

If the blind area is as big as some people would have us believe, these lorries should be phased out as a matter of urgency, not have poxy anti-cyclist advice stickers put on the back. After all, they kill far more walkers than cyclists and I don't think the walkers are overtaking on the carriageway.

They therefore assume that the driver can see them in his mirrors.

No, the driver could see them in the mirrors, but why bother to look carefully? The bloody cyclists have been warned by that sticker he/she sees on the back of the trailer at each stop, so it's their own silly fault and if they're killed, it'll be the driver's word against no-one's.

The majority of KSI by trucks are the fault of the driver, but this means that some are the fault of the rider.

Yes, but IIRC the faults of the riders are still more often the old favourites like "entered road" or "disobeyed automatic traffic signal", rather than the "poor turn or manoeuvre" which would indicate an unwise left-side overtake.

 

[mjr]

I can be driving a lorry perfectly safely, turning left at a junction and doing all necessary observations to the left, right and all angles in between, including moving my head about to see round the mirrors which create their own blind spots. If some nobber in a car or bike then chooses to come up my inside while I am doing that, then I am sorry but I have done my bit.

So driving within what you can see to be clear doesn't apply to lorries, then?

 

[Flying Dodo]

Obviously I can't speak for all lorry drivers, but IMHO this current call for lorries with better nearside visibility is something of a red herring.
Currently there are mirrors to cover blind spots. The problem is that drivers only have one set of eyes. When turning left, we obviously check mirrors on the left side, BUT, the last observation before you move is always going to be to the right (when turning left), as that is the direction from which traffic is coming. You do the same when driving a car or riding a bike. In that fraction of a second since checking your left hand mirrors, a cyclist can come up your inside, especially as when turning left in a lorry you normally have to go wide and leave a bigger gap up the left.

All the mirrors, cameras, and windows in the world aren't going to make any difference to the safety of cyclists if a driver is looking elsewhere - which he must be, when turning left. Yes he is going to have another check or two in his left mirrors (and everywhere else he needs to look) during the turn, but by then it's too late for the cyclist. Just do not go up the nearside of a vehicle, big or small, it might not end well. The stickers are very good advice.

For the last couple of years here in Luton, we've (the Cycling Forum) have run a joint event with Arriva Buses. They park up a double decker outside the shopping centre and we get anyone walking/cycling past to sit in the driver's seat whilst one of us positions a bike by the rear of the bus and slowly moves forward as though they were undertaking. Everyone is quite shocked that they don't see the cyclist in the mirrors, until it would be too late.

It's made a lot of participants re-think how they cycle around large vehicles.

 

[mjr]

For the last couple of years here in Luton, we've (the Cycling Forum) have run a joint event with Arriva Buses. They park up a double decker outside the shopping centre and we get anyone walking/cycling past to sit in the driver's seat whilst one of us positions a bike by the rear of the bus and slowly moves forward as though they were undertaking.

Do you get anyone from Arriva Buses to go cycling past their buses too, to see how big/scary it is to get buzzed by a bus, maybe followed by some more fun/scenic riding that would help them understand why people enjoy cycling, or do you only try to scare people off of cycling on roads?

 

[bozmandb9]

It is odd how people react in this way, and disregard the "how on earth do we allow vehicles this dangerous on our roads?" option.

We've done a joint campaign with a waste management (dusbins upwards), company locally. Personally I think dinky dustbin lorries might be relatively inefficient at carrying waste, and there would be many, many more of them. But as a result of working together (cyclists and haulage industry), they have adopted all possible changes to ensure that they can see cyclists, and their drivers have undergone education.

I recently had a very pleasant experience with one of their drivers. Considering he was driving a great big dustbin lorry, on a rural road, and I was cycling slowly uphill, I hardly heard him come up behind me. I felt no pressure or intimidation, waved him past at the earliest opportunity, he gave me a wide berth, and a courtesy pip on the horn. I may be very sad, but it pretty much made my day! It was great to experience a positive driver/ cyclist interaction as a result of that initiative.

Hopefully London will be leading the way on this matter. It seems that the Mayor (who I agree with on very little else), will be banning vehicles which are highest risk to cyclists.

I disagree with all the victim blaming about undertaking lorries. I agree we all have to take responsibility for our own safety, but when cycling in cycle lanes, there will be times when traffic passes us, other times when we can go slower. Are we to slam on the brakes and stop whenever there is a bus truck or other large vehicle ahead, with a clear cycle lane ahead? Naturally, I would totally agree with not passing any large vehicle (or more probably any vehicle), on the inside, when approaching a left turn, or sharp corner.

 

[srw]

It's made a lot of participants re-think how they cycle around large vehicles.

And does it make bus drivers re-think how they drive around cyclists? Or even generally? That's the acid test.

 

[srw]

Up to a point.
I can be driving a lorry perfectly safely, turning left at a junction and doing all necessary observations to the left, right and all angles in between, including moving my head about to see round the mirrors which create their own blind spots. If some nobber in a car or bike then chooses to come up my inside while I am doing that, then I am sorry but I have done my bit. There is a responsibility on the cyclist to ride safely too, and that means keeping a safe distance from other vehicles. I suspect you know all this already though.

I think you should review the Highway Code.

There is a general responsibility ("should" - it's guidance, not the law) on all vehicles to "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so" (rule 163) and some advice for all road users on all "Large vehicles. These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.". But that's only advice - rule 221

But there's an over-riding requirement on all drivers ("must" - it's the law): "You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times." (Rules 149 and 150. It's so important that it's stated twice). And in rules 151 to 153 the responsibility to look out for cyclists is re-stated, especially in slow-moving traffic: " In slow-moving traffic. You should [...] be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side." and on residential streets and at junctions: " Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. " (rule 170)

And from the DVSA's advice specifically for lorry drivers...
" Turning left
When you’re turning left, [...] You should [...] make sure the area to your left is clear before you start to turn: vulnerable road users such as cyclists might move into this area and are difficult to see." (https://www.safedrivingforlife.info...l-driver/lgv-knowledge-centre/your-lorry-road)

The legal and moral responsibility for road safety rests primarily with the operator of the most dangerous vehicles. Overwhelmingly, death and injury to vulnerable road users is not the fault of those vulnerable road users. It's the fault of the operators of dangerous vehicles. And there's a special moral responsibility on lorry drivers who are also cyclists to recognise that fact and challenge any assertion to the contrary.

 

[BrynCP]

When I stop behind ANY vehicle I do it in primary, or secondary, and leave loads of room for lemmings to go up the inside. It isn't my role to be a road safety road block to other people on bikes. As a result no other people on bikes get annoyed with me when I stop on the road behind a motor vehicle.

If there is a cycle lane painted on the road, I will stay in it when I stop rather than go out into primary, unless it's a lengthy stop and I could potentially filter then I may try to go into primary. But I am still not passing a high sided vehicle in that narrow space. I never said it was my role, or even intention, to protect others.

 

[srw]

But what happens when it is used as victim blaming?

It should be challenged. Only nobbers blame victims or potential victims.

I assume you have the same thought when it comes to cyclists?

Absolutely.

But here are the statistics. (Free registration required). And here's a relevant news report By far the largest number of people killed or seriously injured on the road are car occupants, with pedestrians second:

Cyclists don't kill or injure pedestrians in anything like the numbers that drivers do:

Cyclists don't kill car occupants:

Of the pretty small number of cyclists' serious casualties, the overwhelming majority were in collisions with motorised road users, and mostly in towns:

When the victim is an adult cyclist, who can be assumed to have a full understanding of the road, the fault is overwhelmingly with the driver, not the cyclist. The fault is often with the cyclist when they are young - when the driver must assume that the cyclist does not have a full understanding of the road and must act accordingly:

I could go on, but I hope you're getting the message.

 

[Brandane]

I think you should review the Highway Code.

There is a general responsibility ("should" - it's guidance, not the law) on all vehicles to "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so" (rule 163) and some advice for all road users on all "Large vehicles. These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.". But that's only advice - rule 221

But there's an over-riding requirement on all drivers ("must" - it's the law): "You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times." (Rules 149 and 150. It's so important that it's stated twice). And in rules 151 to 153 the responsibility to look out for cyclists is re-stated, especially in slow-moving traffic: " In slow-moving traffic. You should [...] be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side." and on residential streets and at junctions: " Take extra care at junctions. You should watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. " (rule 170)

And from the DVSA's advice specifically for lorry drivers...
" Turning left
When you’re turning left, [...] You should [...] make sure the area to your left is clear before you start to turn: vulnerable road users such as cyclists might move into this area and are difficult to see." (https://www.safedrivingforlife.info...l-driver/lgv-knowledge-centre/your-lorry-road)

The legal and moral responsibility for road safety rests primarily with the operator of the most dangerous vehicles. Overwhelmingly, death and injury to vulnerable road users is not the fault of those vulnerable road users. It's the fault of the operators of dangerous vehicles. And there's a special moral responsibility on lorry drivers who are also cyclists to recognise that fact and challenge any assertion to the contrary.

Yes, the key word being "before you START to turn.
I have been careful with my choice of wording in my scenarios, knowing how the lorry haters jump on any opportunity.
I explained that I always check mirrors on the nearside BEFORE moving off. Once moving, your priorities are elsewhere. That's why I said that I was turning, not about to turn, in my scenario about the nobber cyclist then coming up my inside.

 

[srw]

Yes, the key word being "before you START to turn.
I have been careful with my choice of wording in my scearios, knowing how the lorry haters jump on any opportunity.
I explained that I always check mirrors on the nearside BEFORE moving off. Once moving, your priorities are elsewhere. That's why I said that I was turning, not about to turn, in my scenario about the nobber cyclist then coming up my inside.

Errr.... No.

The key words are: "VULNERABLE road users such as cyclists might MOVE into this area". That's while you are turning.

Re-reading the DVSA advice with your mindset I'm rather more concerned about it than I was before. As a very experienced road user (car driver and cyclist) I assume that all road users are scanning for other road users all the time while manouevring, because that's how I was taught to drive. Not seeing a cyclist or a pedestrian getting in my way while I was turning would have been an instant driving test fail. And that's the obvious interpretation of the Highway Code and of the advice I quoted from the DVSA website. If current advice to lorry drivers doesn't match that obvious intepretation and the way that new drivers are trained, there's something very wrong.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If there is a cycle lane painted on the road, I will stay in it when I stop rather than go out into primary, unless it's a lengthy stop and I could potentially filter then I may try to go into primary. But I am still not passing a high sided vehicle in that narrow space. I never said it was my role, or even intention, to protect others.

Fair play to you and thanks for expanding on the point.