glenn forger
Guest
The latest thought from that link:
Notice that's from a mod over there. Holy jumping jehosephat.
Notice that's from a mod over there. Holy jumping jehosephat.
Truck drivers forum perspective of cyclist fatality.
- Thread starter Brandane
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
[QUOTE 3548999, member: 9609"]May be some sort of pilot scheme like they have for ships coming into port.? would be very very expensive and create massive delays, can't see any government risking the resulting inflation.
Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Pedestrians too. Lots of them. Just that cyclist are more coordinated and vocal about it.
Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Pedestrians too. Lots of them. Just that cyclist are more coordinated and vocal about it.
400bhp
Guru
It wouldn't even be a doubling of the wage. The 2nd person is likely to be less skilled so likely to be cheaper.
In any case if fuel is by far the largest cost then the recent price drops in fuel will probably pay for a second occupant.
and I would argue that the large haulage companies aren't doing enough to remove the risk that volatile fuel costs place on their business. 2ndd driver would pale into insignificance with this risk they run.
I figured the second person could be another qualified driver, then there would be much less problem with driving hours restrictions (and consequently less risk taking to arrive within the allotted hours)
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
[QUOTE 3548999, member: 9609"]May be some sort of pilot scheme like they have for ships coming into port.? would be very very expensive and create massive delays, can't see any government risking the resulting inflation.
Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
I've offered a potential clause to this up thread, do we need the extra man in every HGV? Let's expand that, do we need the extra man in every HGV in every town or city? How's, I dunno, Cardiff for HGV related KSIs or Coventry or Leeds. How about we look at some possible solutions and how they may be workable rather than simply saying they're unworkable.
Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
I've offered a potential clause to this up thread, do we need the extra man in every HGV? Let's expand that, do we need the extra man in every HGV in every town or city? How's, I dunno, Cardiff for HGV related KSIs or Coventry or Leeds. How about we look at some possible solutions and how they may be workable rather than simply saying they're unworkable.
OP
OP
Brandane
Legendary Member
If the second person was a qualified driver, but his tachograph was set to "rest", then it would be a serious infringement of drivers hours regulations for him to be doing anything other than "resting".
Nah, just stick a magnet on it. Seems endemic.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Interestingly, well maybe not, I've been a drivers mate. When I was working for the agencies I had a call to go to a particular company the following day as they were collecting and moving an item which was of a size that they needed an extra person in the cab. I turned up, had a ride in the lorry, got out and checked we weren't going to hit anything on dodgy corners and that was that. I managed to do this with only a motorcycle licence and almost unbelievable without forming a close and lasting relationship with the driver.
OP
OP
Brandane
Legendary Member
No it's not, but it would be costly and ultimately it's not really a solution to the problem. As I posted earlier, I as a driver of ANY vehicle, am certainly not going to move on the say-so of a passenger. I want to see for myself that it is safe to manouevre, and if anything happens then it is down to me.
I don't intend to get drawn into yet another long drawn out debate about lorries on the road. When I am driving a lorry, I give cyclist as much space as is practical. When I am on my bike, I keep the feck out of the way of lorries. If others choose to do things differently, then they have to face the consequences.
OP
OP
Brandane
Legendary Member
That would depend on how long he had been driving prior to swapping over to being second man, but generally double manned crews are either driving or resting. Economics again.
Certainly, but I expect you can still image situations where a second pair of eyes could be used to tell you that it's not safe to manoeuvre.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
As Dan said, I would imagine that the role would more likely be to let you know that it was not safe to proceed.
I do have sympathy for the haulage industry, I speak to drivers on an almost daily basis, I regularly speak to transport managers and distributors.
I don't see how the addition of more and more mirrors and cameras makes the job of the drivers any easier, as has been said you can't look in all of them at the same time, but surely there is something that can be done that makes things safer for other road users without having to make things even more fraught for the drivers.
What that is I don't know, the drivers mate, glass panels on the bottom of the doors, out of hours deliveries, hubs for the distribution of goods by smaller vehicles? What I tend to see in these threads however is both the outright poo pooing of any ideas which are aired and the lack of alternative ideas being put forward by the very people that would likely have the best suggestions.
classic33
Leg End Member
[QUOTE 3548999, member: 9609"]May be some sort of pilot scheme like they have for ships coming into port.? would be very very expensive and create massive delays, can't see any government risking the resulting inflation.
Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
Its not just undertaking HGV/LGV's. Its also the legal passing of such vehicles, and being passed by them.
You're in the left-hand lane, a lorry in a right turn only lane indicating a left turn, which way is it going to go. If you're already alongside in the correct lane(for your direction of travel) where do you go when the lorry swings left?
Seems to me an awful lot of money is going to need to be spent so as cyclists can undertake trucks.[/QUOTE]
Its not just undertaking HGV/LGV's. Its also the legal passing of such vehicles, and being passed by them.
You're in the left-hand lane, a lorry in a right turn only lane indicating a left turn, which way is it going to go. If you're already alongside in the correct lane(for your direction of travel) where do you go when the lorry swings left?
OP
OP
Brandane
Legendary Member
This might not go down well, but what I see time and time again on similar threads on this site is the outright poo pooing of any idea that perhaps cyclists could do more to help themselves. There are a vociferous element who keep batting the ball back into the haulage industry court. The same ones who see no problem with cycling in the dark on public roads with no lights; apparently because drivers should be able to see them anyway. Try picking them out in the mirror of an artic, the back end of which is over 50' back from the mirror. Factor in some rain on the mirror glass and it's impossible to see anything that isn't properly illuminated.
The basic design of lorries isn't going to change any time soon. The attitude of some cyclists who think it's ok to come up their nearside is the main thing that needs to change. What about cyclists who end up on the nearside because a lorry has overtaken them? In that case the driver will surely know they are there as he has seen them as he passed them.
