Left turn alarm on lorries

[Ganymede]

Don't lorries already have indicators? Surely lorry drivers who don't use indicators won't use a left turn alarm. And cyclists who ignore indicators will ignore a left turn alarm. Technological solutions to human problems don't work.

You have a point, but if you are a lorry driver who has this alarm fitted to your truck, you're going to have been made much more aware of the whole turning-left danger scenario and therefore probably more likely to signal. I mean, having the alarm fitted acts as education in itself to the driver.

Being an ex lorry driver, I think the majority of them do indicate.

Unscientifically, I can definitely say I've had far more trouble with cars not indicating than trucks. And as a driver of quite big vans myself, I do think there is a strong sensibility when you're up in a van cab to make sure people know where you're going - not that this always translates into awareness of everything/body around you, and it can't deal with the issue of blind spots. Some car drivers do like to "nip out" of places or nip into gaps - you really can't do that in a big vehicle.

 

[Roadrider48]

I agree 100% with Steve and wait4me!
Whether you're cycling, driving or walking, everyone has a responsibility to look after their own safety.

 

[oldroadman]

yea but if you have a choice between sensors to tell the driver there is a cyclist or a voice telling the cyclist the lorry is turning, would it cross their minds the cyclist might not be able to hear because they were plugged in... or.. in the extreme... come to think of it... could the cyclist be deaf or have limited hearing. Plus, the audible warning is for all vulnerable road users not just cyclists. you could have a deaf pedestrian. All I'm saying is, it might not have been considered when making the decision.

So I'm gonna ask how loud it is and if this has been considered.

If you know anyone deaf (I do) who riders, what's interesting is that they appear to be far more aware of what's happening round them because they have to compensate for poor/nonexistant hearing and are suitably careful. Unlike someone who sticks earphones on and does not instantly get that innate compensating from other cues, or has the heightened sense of self-preservation I've observed. Others may call this road sense!

 

[simon the viking]

A few people have asked how loud It was? loud enough for me to think "WTF is that" then realise it was the lorry....

With regard to being able to hear it because of headphones all I can say is......

 

[buggi]

If you know anyone deaf (I do) who riders, what's interesting is that they appear to be far more aware of what's happening round them because they have to compensate for poor/nonexistant hearing and are suitably careful. Unlike someone who sticks earphones on and does not instantly get that innate compensating from other cues, or has the heightened sense of self-preservation I've observed. Others may call this road sense!

well, it doesn't matter what you think of people wearing headphones, they exist, it's not illegal so they are not breaking the law and therefore it should be something to be considered when deciding on what equipment goes on lorries.

 

[buggi]

Regarding the people wearing earphones I feel you're defending the indefensible.
I fail to understand the brain workings of someone who puts a bit of music ahead of self preservation.
These people expect another person to take extra care for them when they don't bother to take all possible safety measures for themselves?

Sometimes I wear them and sometimes I don't. I don't find it makes a difference. Cars give me the same room when overtaking whether I'm wearing them or not (and you can hear traffic). I never change position on the road without first looking whether I'm wearing them or not. I never signal and change lanes without first looking whether I'm wearing them or not, and when I see a lorry at a junction I'm just as careful if I'm wearing them than if I'm not. If someone hits me from behind because they pass too close, I'm pretty sure that would happen whether I was wearing them or not, as my hearing is not so toned in any event that I can tell if they are going to hit me because of a few inches they didn't give. If I looked back at every car that I heard approaching from behind, I'm pretty sure I would crash because I wouldn't be looking where I'm going.

when I'm in my car, I always play music too. It blocks the sound from outside. I don't see anyone whinging about that. Yes, I have mirrors but I have to look in them if I want to see behind. When I'm cycling I look back if I want to see behind and as a cyclist I have a much wider field of vision anyhow.

and just as there are cyclists who ride up the inside of lorries who don't wear headphones, so there are those that ride up the inside of a lorry that do wear headphones. The cost of sensors to tell the driver a cyclist is riding up the inside is, I understand, £600. It is the same cost to put the audible alarm on. So if you're going to spend £600 putting equipment on lorries, it seems sensible to me that you would consider all angles and choose the most appropriate for your £600. Particularly, as riding with headphones is common practice and legal.

 

[uclown2002]

I wear only one earphone and hear the traffic perfectly fine!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

You have a point, but if you are a lorry driver who has this alarm fitted to your truck, you're going to have been made much more aware of the whole turning-left danger scenario and therefore probably more likely to signal. I mean, having the alarm fitted acts as education in itself to the driver.

Fair point, but we're back to educating other road users again, which I've always said is the only way forward. Far too much time and energy is spent making the world safe for idiots* these days when the only long term solution is to educate the idiots. Lorries already have a highly visible warning device to tell other road users they're going to turn, the driver just needs to choose to use it.

*by "idiots" I mean cyclists and lorry drivers; there are idiots in both camps. Not pointing the finger at any one group in particular ...

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I wear only one ear phone and hear the traffic perfectly fine!

On the other hand, the music must sound crap!

 

[Alun]

I wear an eye patch over one eye when I'm cycling!

 

[Roadrider48]

It's been said many times....don't cycle up the inside of lorries!
This debate on headphones verses car stereos is a really stupid comparison. The world of hgv's isn't gonna change just to suit cyclists. Those injured in the past. 9 times out of 10 have themselves to blame.

 

[oldroadman]

well, it doesn't matter what you think of people wearing headphones, they exist, it's not illegal so they are not breaking the law and therefore it should be something to be considered when deciding on what equipment goes on lorries.

Indeed I am sure you are correct in what you say. We have sometimes to have rules to protect people from their own lack of sense of preservation.

 

[Saluki]

I think that the left hand turning alarm is a good idea.
I have heard alarms saying 'caution vehicle reversing' often enough so a left hand turn alarm is a reasonable idea.

I don't cycle up the inside of big vehicles. I do sometimes listen to a bit of music (in one ear) while cycling. I never have headphones in when cycling through towns or cities, just when I am out on proper roads. Its not on at a loud volume at all, I can hear my wheels on the tarmac. Sometimes the music just gives me a bit of ooof when I need it.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I wonder if the cyclists of the Netherlands are currently debating the need for indicator/proximity alarms on Dutch trucks?


.............?

 

[buggi]

I wonder if the cyclists of the Netherlands are currently debating the need for indicator/proximity alarms on Dutch trucks?


.............?

No, they are still too busy laughing their asses off at our cycle highways.