Truck drivers forum perspective of cyclist fatality.

[Mugshot]

All this talk about a 2nd crewman, misses the point that the second seat in an LGV is not optimised to give good visibility. The mirrors are aligned for the driver. The seat is typically inward from the window, a 2nd man is not going to be able to see much, certainly not in the important zone, below and to the rear of the cab. And, as someone has already pointed out; legally the passenger is just a passenger - no authority to give direction.

Maybe they could lean out of the window?

 

[gavintc]

Maybe they could lean out of the window?

Are you for real?

 

[Profpointy]

He recent discussion on this thread has been about cyclists going up the side of a lorry near junctions which is really stupid and needs an ad campaign on TV to get to more people. However that isn't the only way lorries have killed cyclists, there are deaths where the cyclist was in front of the lorry. It is not the cyclists at fault in a number of those occasions so what should be done to prevent those deaths.

I've had a couple of close misses myself and each time the lorry was behind me before they made a stupid manoeuvre.

quite !

I've had a big van & digger-on trailer half overtake me then pull in beside me. I only just managed to stop in the 18" of space left. This is the closest call I've had in 40+ years cycling. Left hookings & incidents like i mentioned are far more hazardous with trucks and larger vehicles than cars - partly because the driver, albeit better trained, is less able to see, and partly because evasive action by the cyclist is so much harder - and being biffed off by a car, is likely not as bad as going under the wheels of a truck.

That said, I have also seen a goodly number of cyclists cycling up the inside of trucks, even obviously left turning ones - which is just nuts.

Suggestions for improvements - I must admit I'm skeptical about all the extra mirrors and cameras - but my suggestion is get rid of cycle lanes. Yes, really ! These encourage cyclists to be in totally the wrong place on the road , and encourage drivers, of all types of vehicle, to see cyclists as not part of the traffic - or not see them at all. At the very least it encourages drivers to pass very very close - after all they're inside their white line - never mind that the poor cyclist then has about of thou' of clearance.

 

[Mugshot]

Are you for real?

It was a simplistic answer to a rather simplistic non problem.

 

[Brandane]

Maybe they could lean out of the window?

And obstruct the drivers view in the mirror? I know what I'd be saying to the passenger!!!

 

[400bhp]

I'll post my pay slip if you want. A typical shift for me last week:
Out of bed 0415 to be out the house for 0500. Drive 35 miles to Glasgow to start shift at 0600 (petrol cost approx £5).
Class 1 (artic) shift, drive to Aberdeen and back. Finish shift at 1545. Lose 45 minutes pay for unpaid break, despite it being a legal requirement. Drive 35 miles home, another £5 in petrol.

Pay = 9 hours at £8.50 per hour (quite a generous company, usually it's 8.00, or 7.00 if non artic, i.e. tipper!).
Gross pay = 76.50
20% tax = 15.30 (basic rate as second income).
NI = 4.20 approx
Net pay = £57
Petrol = £10

So my efforts for the day made me £47 better off, and I worked a 9hr 45min shift for that.

Im not sure of your point as you get paid more than minimum wage

 

[400bhp]

All this talk about a 2nd crewman, misses the point that the second seat in an LGV is not optimised to give good visibility. The mirrors are aligned for the driver. The seat is typically inward from the window, a 2nd man is not going to be able to see much, certainly not in the important zone, below and to the rear of the cab. And, as someone has already pointed out; legally the passenger is just a passenger - no authority to give direction.

Perhaps you're correct. None of us are experts here or have thought about it long and hard enough. We are just interested enough to think of solotions to a problem.

But perhaps in the future lgvs could be designed differently and perhaps the law could be changed no?

 

[summerdays]

Suggestions for improvements - I must admit I'm skeptical about all the extra mirrors and cameras - but my suggestion is get rid of cycle lanes. Yes, really ! These encourage cyclists to be in totally the wrong place on the road , and encourage drivers, of all types of vehicle, to see cyclists as not part of the traffic - or not see them at all. At the very least it encourages drivers to pass very very close - after all they're inside their white line - never mind that the poor cyclist then has about of thou' of clearance.

Problem is even if you got rid of the cycle lanes that's where many of the same cyclists who would go up the side of a lorry would cycle on the road anyway.

 

[Brandane]

Once again, the way things are now is not the way they have to remain. The second person could have their own mirrors, they could monitor a set of CCTV images.

Are you deliberately ignoring the posts regarding cost factors?
Is it too much to ask that the likes of you, a self confessed MGIF cyclist and nearside of truck gambler, just refrains from such stupidity?

 

[Profpointy]

Problem is even if you got rid of the cycle lanes that's where many of the same cyclists who would go up the side of a lorry would cycle on the road anyway.

it would be a start though, and would reduce, albeit not prevent some of the other problems. At least it wouldn't actively encourage the more naive amongst us to be in a totally stupid place, and maybe even reduce the vehicle-caused risks a bit.

 

[400bhp]

Are you deliberately ignoring the posts regarding cost factors?
Is it too much to ask that the likes of you, a self confessed MGIF cyclist and nearside of truck gambler, just refrains from such stupidity?

Pretty harsh. You have guessed at the cost hinderance yourself as you have openly stated.

 

[Brandane]

Pretty harsh. You have guessed at the cost hinderance yourself as you have openly stated.

And given a known example of where two man crews were stopped on cost grounds.
Of course it's going to be a significant cost! Just because my actual take home pay is the sum total of fark all, doesn't mean to say that I am not actually costing the haulage operator a fair bit of cash. Multiply that across the number of lorries operated by some of these companies and it mounts up. It's a cut throat industry and margins are tight. Fuel costs have dropped, and all that means is that customers have demanded a drop in price of transporting goods. It's not going into Eddie Stobart's pocket!

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 3549773, member: 9609"]that is just purely and simply bad driving and it is about time the police and courts stamped it out. There was a video earlier on in this thread of such a pass and that driver should just loose his licence.
@0-markymark-0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfQbWNw3jY[/QUOTE]
Police involved with that one. Letter to tropifruit threatening their license. My mistake was contacting the company as plice said they couldn't persue driver after that. Hopefully driver got bollocked.

 

[Brandane]

You did, and then contradicted it with the remainder of the post where you illustrated the downside of the decision.

Contradicted?
I was merely trying to demonstrate what you are up against if you think haulage companies will employ extra staff unless absolutely forced to do so. They don't care about the downside; they aren't the driver who is having to do the job of van boy as well, and they aren't the driver being robbed at knife point in some Glaswegian ghetto.
Given that, do you really think they will employ someone to sit and watch for people who should know better, coming into close quarters with a lorry? Especially when it really IS NOT the answer to the problem!

So much for not getting drawn into this ..... it's Sunday and I need to get things done.

 

[400bhp]

[QUOTE 3549830, member: 9609"]fuel costs is immediately swallowed up by the customer paying lower rate to have his goods shifted

Hauliers only pay the drivers with the greatest of reluctance, they won't be paying for a second man any time soon - it would need to be a law change and that is never going to happen.[/QUOTE]
Nope. It entirely depends upon many factors, and doesn't necessarily end up in the consumers pocket.

no different to a price rise in petrol.