Exchanging Places - New HGV/Cyclist Vid
- Thread starter Origamist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
stoatsngroats
Guru
- Location
- South East
Excellent vid......
2Loose
Guru
- Location
- Loughborough, Leicestershire.
Interesting to see what a lorry driver sees from the cab (to us...) but I agree Magnatom, *yawn* to anyone else I am sure.
stoatsngroats
Guru
- Location
- South East
magnatom said:
Then howabout, interspersed with hard hitting pics of accident aftermaths...?
OP
OP
Origamist
Legendary Member
stoatsngroats said:
Given that the video is titled: "Exchanging Places" it would have been good to have seen cyclist/HGV interaction from a bike rider's perspective too - a close overtake, a HGV pulling up close behind cyclists at traffic lights (putting them in a blind-spot), overtake then left hook, side-swipe etc.
Good for a cyclist training class as it looks at HGVs multiple blind spots and typical cycling undertaking/overtaking manoeuvres.
However, (unintentionally or not) the vid highlights the dangers of HGVs in traffic dense urban environments. Driver and cyclist education/training and mirrors/sensors will hopefully help, but cyclists, pedestrians and HGVs will always be a lethal combination on busy roads due to road and HGV cab design.
arallsopp
Post of The Year 2009 winner
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
This is one of the reasons why I dislike bike filter lanes. Far too often, I see a cyclist in front edging down the kerb side of an HGV with a view to getting into the ASL area at the junction. When they get there, its full of motorbikes / BMWs / cars reversing from a box junction, etc, and they end up with nowhere to go. I've seen it done when the HGV is indicating left too... Very scary. If the lights change, or the ASL isn't clear, you are bugg3red.
stoatsngroats
Guru
- Location
- South East
arallsopp said:
Fair thoughts, but does the filter lane MAKE people go where they wouldn't otherwise...I think not - most would undertake anyway; what are your thoughts on ASL's?
If they're good, then the filter lane is just one way to make drivers aware that cyclists MAY pass on the left....if bad, then why don't MOST cyclists wait at the point they reach the traffic, and NOT undertake......because they never did historically anyway?
No arguement - just thoughts...!
arallsopp
Post of The Year 2009 winner
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
The issue for me is that filter lanes are marketed as a safer place than the road. That dotted white line tells cyclists "you're safe here. This isn't the road. That truck won't pull in here. This is a separate carriageway, a cyclepath, a faster version of the pavement"
And then the truck turns, the bus pulls in, someone opens a door, and the lane disappears. You're left with no recourse, a 2ft span of tarmac littered with broken bottles and ironworks, she shrugs her shoulders and says "what?".
I've seen too many cyclists get this wrong. Would somebody undertake if there wasn't a filter lane? Maybe.
Would they do it blindly, as a continuation of a route unchanged by static traffic in an adjacent lane? No.
That lane only exists in the cyclists eye, and that, to me, is the problem.
And then the truck turns, the bus pulls in, someone opens a door, and the lane disappears. You're left with no recourse, a 2ft span of tarmac littered with broken bottles and ironworks, she shrugs her shoulders and says "what?".
I've seen too many cyclists get this wrong. Would somebody undertake if there wasn't a filter lane? Maybe.
Would they do it blindly, as a continuation of a route unchanged by static traffic in an adjacent lane? No.
That lane only exists in the cyclists eye, and that, to me, is the problem.
Interesting video but very, very dry. I would have liked to have seen the view from the cab of the cyclist stopped 'well ahead' of the HGV.
I'd agree with that post entirely.
Positioning wise, at best keeping to the far right of a cycle lane puts a cyclist in a reasonable secondary position. If traffic is moving slowly enough to be safely passed, then in the vast majority of cases it is safer to do it on the right. If passing isn't safe then get in primary and wait.
ASLs encourage cyclists to force their way to the front of a traffic queue, often using dangerous filtering manoeuvres to do so. When they get there they may find the ASL is blocked, leaving them stranded. If a cyclist can get to an ASL, they then have a whole queue of traffic trying to force its way past when it sets off again. Far better to stop a few cars back.
ASL design often appears to actually be used to set the stop line further back so that turning traffic doesn't have to follow such a tight line through a corner - I happened to be stopped just behind an ASL on a side road joining a main road this morning, and watched three large vehicles turning right off the main road go through the ASL to cut the corner.
arallsopp said:
I'd agree with that post entirely.
Positioning wise, at best keeping to the far right of a cycle lane puts a cyclist in a reasonable secondary position. If traffic is moving slowly enough to be safely passed, then in the vast majority of cases it is safer to do it on the right. If passing isn't safe then get in primary and wait.
stoatsngroats said:
ASLs encourage cyclists to force their way to the front of a traffic queue, often using dangerous filtering manoeuvres to do so. When they get there they may find the ASL is blocked, leaving them stranded. If a cyclist can get to an ASL, they then have a whole queue of traffic trying to force its way past when it sets off again. Far better to stop a few cars back.
ASL design often appears to actually be used to set the stop line further back so that turning traffic doesn't have to follow such a tight line through a corner - I happened to be stopped just behind an ASL on a side road joining a main road this morning, and watched three large vehicles turning right off the main road go through the ASL to cut the corner.
stoatsngroats
Guru
- Location
- South East
arallsopp said:
Bokonon said:
OK, i accept both points - I have to say that I'm in Sussex - not London, or other busy City, so my experiences perhaps cannot compare with these 2 above.
I'll not offer any points to persuade otherwise!
OP
OP
Origamist
Legendary Member
Overtaking a HGV is usually better than undertaking it - but not if you then proceed to plonk yourself a metre or so in front of it.
It's far easier to keep an eye on a vehicle in front of you, than behind you. For that reason, hang back at the lights if a HGV is ahead of you.
ASLs and feeders compound the problem, but it's worth remembering that before ASLs started appearing, around 80% of cyclists would undertake at many of London's light controlled junctions...
It's far easier to keep an eye on a vehicle in front of you, than behind you. For that reason, hang back at the lights if a HGV is ahead of you.
ASLs and feeders compound the problem, but it's worth remembering that before ASLs started appearing, around 80% of cyclists would undertake at many of London's light controlled junctions...
Good stuff. May not be flaw-free, but better to have this video than no video. The advice is sound.
I would add, one of the important points is never to let yourself be 'surprised' by your lorry! All road usage has its elements of 'surprise' in it: there's always the risk of something unexpected happening and the consequent risk of accident, but you can keep the probabilities down. For instance there's the situation where the traffic is backed up solid at a red light which is going to remain red for a while (because you can see crossing traffic still on the move). And our lorry is some way back in the queue and certain not to be moving anywhere for a while. In such circumstances I'd feel comfortable about filtering on either side of the lorry if there's room, I know I've got time to get clear and it can't move without ramming another vehicle. There is risk, but it's calculated and a low risk.
But, although that's a technique I apply, myself, maybe not the best to put in a video. It needs good judgement on the spot, rather than fixed guidelines. And often as not, I'm not sure, so I hang back.
And as to making videos such as this have more zest, or more impact: well I've often wondered about that. Certainly not going down the line of more gruesome blood and gore, that would sicken viewers but not necessarily change their habits (because people like to forget, to edit out of their mind, things that they found too horrific to remember). Or it might just put people off cycling altogether.
So what's the alternative? Well I was thinking of the celebrated 'Volvo' ads - but in reverse, so to speak! How about putting an animated crash dummy on a bicycle and showing what happens when it gets left-hooked: disintegrated plastic body parts and all? People see the dangers without the puke-factor. I'm sure CGI can cobble up a realistic animation these days...
I would add, one of the important points is never to let yourself be 'surprised' by your lorry! All road usage has its elements of 'surprise' in it: there's always the risk of something unexpected happening and the consequent risk of accident, but you can keep the probabilities down. For instance there's the situation where the traffic is backed up solid at a red light which is going to remain red for a while (because you can see crossing traffic still on the move). And our lorry is some way back in the queue and certain not to be moving anywhere for a while. In such circumstances I'd feel comfortable about filtering on either side of the lorry if there's room, I know I've got time to get clear and it can't move without ramming another vehicle. There is risk, but it's calculated and a low risk.
But, although that's a technique I apply, myself, maybe not the best to put in a video. It needs good judgement on the spot, rather than fixed guidelines. And often as not, I'm not sure, so I hang back.
And as to making videos such as this have more zest, or more impact: well I've often wondered about that. Certainly not going down the line of more gruesome blood and gore, that would sicken viewers but not necessarily change their habits (because people like to forget, to edit out of their mind, things that they found too horrific to remember). Or it might just put people off cycling altogether.
So what's the alternative? Well I was thinking of the celebrated 'Volvo' ads - but in reverse, so to speak! How about putting an animated crash dummy on a bicycle and showing what happens when it gets left-hooked: disintegrated plastic body parts and all? People see the dangers without the puke-factor. I'm sure CGI can cobble up a realistic animation these days...
OP
OP
Origamist
Legendary Member
661-Pete said:
In terms of influencing people - many viewers disassociate themselves (often projecting errant behaviour onto other riders/drivers) from the shock tactics used in television campaigns. This makes it difficult to ascertain their effectiveness. That said, they often stimulate debate and raise awareness, even if their effect on attitude and behaviour is less clear.
I recall an NZ study that looked at the impact of (I think) anti-drink driving commercials and returned some interesting results with regard to the most effective structure of a shock campaign film. Unfortunately, I cant remember what it was...
