Fleets share best practice on cyclist safety at Fleet Safety Forum Annual Conference

[TonyEnjoyD]

Good to see this being adressed - or even just brought up as a safety conference!.


===============================
HealthandSafetyZone Direct Archive

Fleets share best practice on cyclist safety at Fleet Safety Forum Annual Conference

Fleets share best practice on cyclist safety at Fleet Safety Forum Annual Conference

A range of fleet operating companies including the Environment Agency and Cemex spoke out at the 9th annual Best of the Best Fleet Safety Forum Conference yesterday, in support of fleets doing all they can to protect vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

Simple best practice measures such as fitting blind spot mirrors and safety cameras to large vehicles were advocated as a cost effective measure. Brake is appealing to all HGV operators to minimise the danger they pose by fitting the latest blind spot devices to their vehicles, as part of its Cycle for life campaign.

The Conference, sponsored by Aviva, took place at Cranmore Park, Birmingham yesterday, and was attended by 150 delegates from across the fleet industry.

Other companies represented on the agenda included: Iron Mountain; Tesco Dotcom; Cummins Inc; Peak Performance; and Cardinus. Dr. Shaun Helman of TRL and Dr. Will Murray of Interactive Driving Systems presented a provocative session asking operators to consider how well the accepted methods for improving work related road safety are really being evaluated. Fleets were encouraged to submit entries to the Fleet Safety Forum Awards, as one way of forcing themselves to evaluate their own fleet safety measures, and ensure they have a good understanding of what’s working and what’s not.

 

[steveindenmark]

So in fact nobody was ordered to do anything, they were all asked.

I am an ex LGV driver and you can make the front of a lorry look like a 1960s Vespa scooter and it can still be hard to see bikes, especially when they come up on the inside in the shade. Cameras on a truck just gives the driver something else to be distracted by.

The answer is to seperate the bikes and vehicles, not just trucks. The only way to do this is for councils to plan proper cycle paths into the infrastructure as they do in Holland and Denmark.

In the meantime cyclists should realise that to ride alongside trucks could cost you your life. There is no point in saying "But why should we.........." The reason you should is because a truck can kill you and you can`t kill a truck.

Steve

 

[mickle]

So in fact nobody was ordered to do anything, they were all asked.

Cameras on a truck just gives the driver something else to be distracted by.

The answer is to seperate the bikes and vehicles, not just trucks. The only way to do this is for councils to plan proper cycle paths into the infrastructure as they do in Holland and Denmark.



Steve

I disagree.

 

[steveindenmark]

I think you should expand on that Mickle.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. "One of the best ways to do this ........"

I am not arguing about safety as any suggestion is better than none.

Steve

 

[mickle]

I think you should expand on that Mickle.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. "One of the best ways to do this ........"

I am not arguing about safety as any suggestion is better than none.

Steve

Steve, I'm convinced that separation is not the panacaea (spl) so many people imagine it to be. I would definitely agree that that many of our road junctions could do with being better designed, on the basis that much of the network was designed to optimise motor vehicle traffic flow without any thought given to, and at the expense of, non-motorized users. But separate facilities? For a start it'll never happen, for all kinds of reasons including the enormous cost of such an undertaking and the unanswered question of where to put the proposed new dedicated cycle lanes.

There's a perfectly good cycle network in the UK. It's called The Roads. The problem of the danger posed to vulnerable road users by dangerous vehicles is not to remove the vulnerable but to remove the danger. And if that means slowing trucks down, or more mirrors, or cameras, or better training or removing them altogether from certain roads, perhaps at certain times of day or even employing top-hat wearing men with red flags to walk in front of the damned things then so be it.

 

[steveindenmark]

Mickle, in the 60s they also said "It will never happen". But it did and they have an amazing cycling network. In Denmark they said "It will never happen", it did and we are one of the safest places to ride in Europe. It was done mainly through the pressure of cyclists.

The road is NOT a good cycling network for all the reasons you mentioned. Everyone who thinks more mirrors or cameras in a modern lorry is the answer, has no idea what it is like to drive a lorry. It is nothing like driving a big car.

Seperating the traffic from the bikes has already been proved to be the answer and every new road in Denmark and Holland have cycle paths added to them. Quite often the cycle path is put in first and so we all get to know where the road is going. Not just a foot wide strip but a decent size cycle path.

Steve

 

[boydj]

But what do we do while we wait 30 years for the infrastructure to be put in place? We definitely need some education - first and foremost for cyclists so they don't put themselves into dangerous situations. A television awareness campaign would be useful. Then we need to tackle the real cause o danger with education for drivers and some enforcement of laws to curb the bad driving that we encounter on an almost daily basis. We also need some changes in the law in terms of speed limits, changes on the assumption of liability in collisions, a serious look at the most dangerous junctions and a direct requirement on roads authorities to put vulnerable users at the top of their priorities when planning any changes to the roads.

 

[mickle]

Mickle, in the 60s they also said "It will never happen". But it did and they have an amazing cycling network. In Denmark they said "It will never happen", it did and we are one of the safest places to ride in Europe. It was done mainly through the pressure of cyclists.

The road is NOT a good cycling network for all the reasons you mentioned. Everyone who thinks more mirrors or cameras in a modern lorry is the answer, has no idea what it is like to drive a lorry. It is nothing like driving a big car.

Seperating the traffic from the bikes has already been proved to be the answer and every new road in Denmark and Holland have cycle paths added to them. Quite often the cycle path is put in first and so we all get to know where the road is going. Not just a foot wide strip but a decent size cycle path.

Steve

It has certainly not been proved to be the answer Steve, sorry. Danish and Dutch cycling has very much more behind it than the provision of cycle paths.

The provision of cycle paths alongside new roads in Daneland is laudable. Except.. how many kilometres of new roads are we talking about? Do you have any idea how many miles of new roads is planned for the UK? No, nor me neither.

We seem to be approaching this from two opposite directions. You want to remove the vulnerable road users from the danger. I want to remove the danger from the vulnerable road users. To me the answer is clear: Firstly education, of cyclsts - from school age and upwards - and of drivers, whether they're car or HGV drivers. Redesigning of the existing road network to give peds and cyclists back the priority which has been lost. Rigid, possibly even draconian, enforcement of existing road traffic laws. Simple. Cheaper by an enormous margin than your proposal. But most importantly, actually feasable.

 

[benb]

I think in the UK, in the vast majority of cases, segregation is neither neccessary nor desirable. There are some roads that would benefit from a separate cycle lane - 40mph dual carriageways for example, but only if the lanes:
-are wide enough
-are well surfaced and well maintained and kept clear of glass &c.
-are convenient
-don't give way at every side road: the side road must give way to the cycle lane

I also think some segregation is useful at junctions, but only things like ASZs and cycle only green light phases

The main issue I have with widespread segregation is that it rarely makes the cyclist safer (in the UK at least) and it reinforces the view in some people's minds that bicycles shouldn't be on the road.

 

[HLaB]

Segregation just leads to poor user interaction when off road and on road comes into conflict and even the best designed of paths must end somewhere and/or be crossed by driveways. From the sounds of it, even Tony Martin was caught out the other day

 

[steveindenmark]

The whole set up for cycling in Denmark is hugely different and better than in the UK. But it has had to be fought for and earnt. Most people in Denmark are cyclists as well as motorists. Many families do not have cars in favour of bikes. Because the cycling is so safe here the Danes ride much further, per capita, than they do in the UK and yet the accident and especially fatalites are much lower than the UK.

This is due largely, but not exclusively, to the fact that for a large part of the time the bikes and motorised traffic are seperated. It also helps that other traffic have to give way to cycles. Instead of being second class on the road, we are top of the list.

We still have the problem of trucks crushing bikes on right turns, the equivalent to your left turns and especially at traffic lights and mostly women. This is being looked at and a solution will be found, I am sure. I think it will be more down to road configuration, rather than mirrors and cameras.

I have ridden all over Europe and England is still the worst place to ride which is a pity because I would love a cycling holiday over there.

Steve

 

[boydj]

It helps that in Denmark, Holland and other places in Europe, most drivers are cyclists and attitudes to bikes are so much better than they are here in the UK. It's the attitudes from downright hostility to lack of awareness that are the real source of danger.

 

[atbman]

Having had the job of surveying potential cycle routes in Leeds, back in the day, I came to the extremely reluctant conclusion that there wasn't the room even for on-road cycle lanes in far too many cases. The short-term answers are:

• a massive expansion in Bikeability training with refresher sessions for teenagers of school age
• rigorous development of safe routes to school, including huge expansion of 20mph limit areas
• Regular barages of public info adverts aimed at drivers and riders

 

[jdtate101]

I also disagree with a wholly segregated solution, but for different reasons. As I don't commute but cycle for sport and fitness, I don't bimble along. I'm doing 20-30mph most of the time. This would just not be feasible on dedicated cycle lanes which would typically be placed side by side in this fashion:

Can you imagine trying to dodge both oncoming cyclists and trying to overtake, all the while avoiding pedestrians who don't know the difference between "cycle path" and "pavement".

Whilst cycle lane infrastructure is fine for commutes and must be encouraged, it's only part of the solution, calming traffic is a more important goal as with the best will in the world, a Dutch style infrastructure would take decades to do. Slow down the roads, make lorry awareness sensors mandatory and increase the penalties for the wounding and killing of pedestrians / cyclist involving an RTA.

 

[steveindenmark]

" a Dutch style infrastructure would take decades"

Yes it will and yes it did. But that is no reason why you should all start working for it now. It was never going to be easy but it wasn`t for the Dutch or Danes, but they got there in the end.

You made a lot of good points in your post.

Steve