Left turn alarm on lorries

[wiggydiggy]

Would these alarms sound when they are changing lanes or just turning, is there a way to differentiate?

I'd imagine perhaps its deactivated above 30mph perhaps?

 

[classic33]

Would these alarms sound when they are changing lanes or just turning, is there a way to differentiate?

I'd imagine perhaps its deactivated above 30mph perhaps?

Currently, where fitted, they are active the whole time. What happens in slower moving traffic though.Lorry is moving forward & every stationary object is seen as moving. Now put that into the context of living near one of the roads with heavy HGV/LGV traffic & it it'll be sounding non stop.
It "see's" everything as a moving object & will therefore sound. Just like the car alarms, how long before people start ignoring them then start complaining about them?

 

[ufkacbln]

I have said this before and I will continue to repeat this.

A novice cyclist, and many who have come from driving to cycling will sees a cycle lane as that - a lane

In the same way that they would drive inside an HGV on a dual carriage way, assuming that it will behave appropriately, they adopt the same procedure on a cycle lane as acceptable and safe.

We need to have a look at the whle problem including the behaviour of traffic where there are cycle lanes.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I had a look at the 'Cycle Eye' and think that is a much better proposition, it helps account for the novice rider by warning a driver someone is on the inside rather rather than this approach.

Mind you I think both have potential?

 

[Roadrider48]

A straightforward victim-blaming lie. Which you have refused to withdraw.

Yes your honour!

 

[Tanis8472]

In principal, it could be a good idea, but I feel it will add to the noise already outside many homes.
I live in a house on a traffic light junction. Imagine having that going on 24/7.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Seems like a damn good idea to me (OP) - at the very least it ought to keep a few argumentative cyclists from visiting cycle heaven.

 

[classic33]

In principal, it could be a good idea, but I feel it will add to the noise already outside many homes.
I live in a house on a traffic light junction. Imagine having that going on 24/7.

Bear in mind that Labour want to make it compulsory, should they win the next General Election!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

The point this misses is that cyclists, idiotic or not, don't kill and main lorry drivers. Lorries and their drivers continue to kill and maim cyclists (and pedestrians), idiotic or otherwise.

I never said they did, in fairness. But - and in no way am I saying that all lorry / cyclist incidents are down to this, nor that all cyclists blithely ride up the inside of lorries indicating to turn left - you have to be something of an idiot to ride between the left hand side of an indicating truck and a pedestrian fence at traffic lights. I've had any number of cyclists do this to me while I've been waiting at traffic lights and indicating left, so it does happen. I'm not sure that a cyclist who ignores a left turn signal on a truck will pay much more attention to an audible warning, and that's before you get into the discussion about a warning only being as much use as a driver's willingness to use it.
My own answer is always the same: educate the driver to keep a constant watch on his or her left hand mirror for cyclists (as I do; I've never failed to spot one yet), and educate the cyclist to keep away from any area of the road where there's no obvious escape route, such as the nearside of a large vehicle. This'll be of far more use than tinkering around the edges with audible alarms which merely duplicate the visible ones already fitted to nearly every road legal motor vehicle.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Quite. In an either-or scenario, sensors are the better option, because they place the responsibility where it belongs - on the operator/s of the vehicle posing the threat. My main objection to alarms is that they do exactly the opposite, and endorse the principle that it's OK to bring anything, however dangerous, onto a public road as long as it is shouting "GET OUT OF MY WAY!" loudly enough. That and the fact that there's already too much unpleasant vehicle-related noise in our lives. I'd be surprised if anyone hears a left-turning-lorry alarm over the near-constant and entirely pointless wailing of car alarms (which should obviously be banned).

This I agree with (especially the bit about the noise). Although I still believe that educating drivers to look out for other road users, rather than relying on technology to do this for them, is a more productive way forward.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I have said this before and I will continue to repeat this.

A novice cyclist, and many who have come from driving to cycling will sees a cycle lane as that - a lane

In the same way that they would drive inside an HGV on a dual carriage way, assuming that it will behave appropriately, they adopt the same procedure on a cycle lane as acceptable and safe.

We need to have a look at the whle problem including the behaviour of traffic where there are cycle lanes.

I think that's a very big part of the problem, though. When you learn to drive, you learn that undertaking traffic - any traffic - on a dual carriageway is a bad idea and illegal to boot. When you learn to cycle ... well, you don't learn to cycle, you just buy a bike and off you go. While this is undoubtedly part of the charm of cycling and a thing I wouldn't like to see come to an end, it does mean that there are cyclists who just don't realise where the danger zones are and why that nice inviting cycle lane on the nearside of the road is a dangerous place to position your vehicle.
I see it virtually every evening on my way to work: there's a bike lane for going straight on painted on the road to the left of the lane for left turning cars and lorries. I'd never use this in a million years and would always put my bike squarely in the middle of the "straight on for cars" lane, but I see plenty of people positioning themselves at the lights to the left of a row of left turning cars. It's not their fault, and it's no less the drivers' responsibility to spot them, but wouldn't it be better if that cycle lane was repositioned (or better still, done away with altogether because cyclists were just an accepted part of the traffic)?

 

[ufkacbln]

I think that's a very big part of the problem, though. When you learn to drive, you learn that undertaking traffic - any traffic - on a dual carriageway is a bad idea and illegal to boot. When you learn to cycle ... well, you don't learn to cycle, you just buy a bike and off you go. While this is undoubtedly part of the charm of cycling and a thing I wouldn't like to see come to an end, it does mean that there are cyclists who just don't realise where the danger zones are and why that nice inviting cycle lane on the nearside of the road is a dangerous place to position your vehicle.
I see it virtually every evening on my way to work: there's a bike lane for going straight on painted on the road to the left of the lane for left turning cars and lorries. I'd never use this in a million years and would always put my bike squarely in the middle of the "straight on for cars" lane, but I see plenty of people positioning themselves at the lights to the left of a row of left turning cars. It's not their fault, and it's no less the drivers' responsibility to spot them, but wouldn't it be better if that cycle lane was repositioned (or better still, done away with altogether because cyclists were just an accepted part of the traffic)?

But it isn't undertaking...

It is using a lane where traffic is travelling at different speeds, and that is perfectly legitimate and legal

For example on my commute there is a dual carriageway where the bulk of traffic turns right, so there is stationary traffic. Drivers do not sit parallel to the rear car of the right hand lane, they proceed to the junction - legal and accepted practice.

Equally the expectation is that if a driver decides to change lane, then they look and filter in, not drive across and to hell with he user of that inside lane.



Expecting the same concession to a cycle path is not unreasonable, and there is absolutely no reason at all for it not not happen.?

 

[steveindenmark]

These devices are fitted to dozens of lorries now and although not ideal, it is a start. There still seems to be a resistance for cyclists not to go up the inside of buses and lorries, especially in cities. I am sure the fatality number would drop if this practice stopped.

With regards to people living at junctions where these lorries turn and the noise the lorries emit. Within a few days you wouldn't hear them. I have had experience of it. I also lived under a flight path for a while, it was only the visitors who heard the planes.

Truck firms seem to get slagged for doing nothing and then get slagged for taking advice and doing something.

Steve

 

[steveindenmark]

But so often it all ends in grief as we know Adrian. Not only in the UK but in Denmark as well. It is the biggest killer of cyclists over here and probably there as well.

We can argue all we like about alarms, truck drivers, mirrors etc. but if cyclists kept away from the inside of lorries, the death rate would drop rapidly.

Steve

 

[steveindenmark]

That does not make any sense at all to me.

I don't know if you are suggesting that we get rid of lorries....which certainly won't happen, or get rid of bikes..which won't happen, but they would go before lorries.

Or maybe you are having a "Why should we" moment. That is fine with me as well. I keep away from the inside of trucks and buses, I am never in that much of a rush. But in 2014 people will still ride into that space and die. If they keep out of it they won't. It is all about personal choice and opinion.

Steve