Truck hazard

[buggi]

well my mum gave an interesting viewpoint the other day. We used to live near a two lane roundabout, quite a good size one. Now my mum is a woman that used to ride a bike occasionally, not a cyclist, she now hasn't ridden for over 10 years and she doesn't drive. She knows jack shoot about lorries.

its only recently while I've been talking about this that she's started to think about what she used to do. She said she often pulled up on her bike at this roundabout on the left of a lorry or a bus and used it as "cover" to protect her from traffic coming round the island. She would wait for the lorry to go and then go at the same time. It never once occurred to her the lorry might be in the right hand lane to turn left, bcoz it required a wide turning circle and bcoz it was in the right hand lane never checked its indicators.
to make it worse, she told me that often it wasn't just by chance... If she saw a lorry waiting at the island she would deliberately try to catch it up so she could do this.

then i had to admit... When i was in my late teens... I also used to do this with the no.6 bus at the same spot. I knew it was it turning right, however i did it for the same reasons... To protect me from traffic coming round the island. They can't hit me if there is a bus between us. That was the logic! Obviously now i know better but I'd forgotten i used to do it.

so that got me thinking... How many cyclists do this thinking the lorry offers some form of protection... So not just there by chance but have actually strived to put themselves there for this very reason??

 

[classic33]

Guilty. However in my defence you had to be in the correct lane on entering the roundabout. I also checked the indicators, just to make certain. I'd also be slower at pulling away than the lorry. For some reason car drivers seemed reluctant to chance running a red if there was a lorry pulling out at the next entrance!

 

[MacB]

If a vehicle represents a danger due to blind spots then that's what needs to be addressed - mirrors, cameras, sensors, alarms, redesigns - whatever is required.

For those that cite 'living in the real world' as a reason not to do so then I would suggest that it's only by living in the real world that we are aware of the visibility problem. What is actually meant by 'living in the real world' is that it would be expensive - I've never been convinced by economic arguments against saving lives.

Dancing around blaming victims, infrastructure and other road users is really ignoring the elephant in the room or in this case the juggernaut on the highway.

 

[Frood42]

She said she often pulled up on her bike at this roundabout on the left of a lorry or a bus and used it as "cover" to protect her from traffic coming round the island. She would wait for the lorry to go and then go at the same time. It never once occurred to her the lorry might be in the right hand lane to turn left, bcoz it required a wide turning circle and bcoz it was in the right hand lane never checked its indicators.
to make it worse, she told me that often it wasn't just by chance... If she saw a lorry waiting at the island she would deliberately try to catch it up so she could do this.

Oh, my, now I do use vehicles as a shield, BUT only if they are in the other lane to me and are moving out slowly.
Whenever I come to lights, roundabouts, junctions etc... I go into primary in the appropriate lane depending on my exit, so that I have control of the traffic behind me, and so I have good visibility of what is ahead.

If a vehicle to the right of me is pulling out to go around the roundabout then I will also pull out if safe and use that vehicle as a shield.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/co...ctive-Traffic-Riding---Part-3---Roundabouts-0
If I am coming up behind buses or lorries/tippers, I will take primary behind them, and if the tipper has a rear camera, give them a cheeky little wave () to let them know I am there and not disappeared down the left out of sight of there mirrors.

For example this morning I was coming up to a set of lights, I could see cars were queueing, I could see a black taxi slowly approaching from behind, I communicated to the taxi that I was going to move into primary by using a sort of hold back signal, which he saw and did hold back (thanks by the way!), although he seemed to anticipate this with me looking back a few times. I then moved into primary and joined the queue of traffic, why you ask?

I could see that a WVM had taken the ASL (so no safe space in it) and that there was a queue of cars that would just have to come past me again if I filtered left down the cycle ASZ entry or down the right that had already come past me further back down the road.

I also know the road well and that the cycle lane disappears after the traffic lights, that the single road becomes a two lane road, and that two lane road becomes three lanes at the roundabout, and that I want to be in the middle lane for the roundabout.

So the safest thing is to get in primary early, join the flow of traffic, take primary in the left hand lane after the lights, then communicate with traffic behind that I will be moving into the middle lane for the roundabout (using the lane to go to Leytonstone as if I was a car/motorbike).
Then take the roundabout in primary in the middle (Leytonstone) then left hand lane (A114 Forest Gate/Leytonstone), then the middle lane again in primary as I exit the roundabout and come to the traffic lights (as I want to go to Leytonstone and not Forest Gate).
Then after the lights move back across to Secondary assuming there are no buses in the bus stop.

I do this every morning and I have not had any major issues, you get the odd undertaker on the roundabout, but apart from that all fine.
Of course, you may want to take this differently, but it feels much safer this way than hugging to the left...

http://goo.gl/maps/heCNc - First set of lights, want to get in Primary much earlier than pictured, especially if there is a queue of traffic, as someone will always take the ASZ...
http://goo.gl/maps/3MbXy - Primary left hand lane if in flow of traffic as will be taking the middle lane at the roundabout.
http://goo.gl/maps/Co9P3 - Middle lane for Leytonstone in primary coming up to the lights.
http://goo.gl/maps/O7xnX - Middle lane L'Stone in primary if in flow of traffic, not always safe to move to secondary though as you get cars sometimes trying to undertake who have joined the roundabout in the wrong lane, the lane that is supposed to be for turning left, not for going straight on.
http://goo.gl/maps/Tkc26 - Primary in left hand lane, painted A114, as soon after the lights I will be exiting and moving to the middle lane for Leytonstone.
http://goo.gl/maps/ietE1 - Take Leytonstone exit in primary and move into the middle lane rather than staying in the left lane, as the left lane is for left turns only to Forest Gate.
http://goo.gl/maps/k8SNM - Middle lane primary coming up the lights, after the lights move into Secondary assuming there are no buses about.

Your mileage may vary, but this is my prefered way to take this large roundabout, there are other lanes that the cars can use, and at the time I go through it is not too busy. I personally can do 18-20 mph around this roundabout on the hybrid, which means I can keep up with most of the traffic around it, especially with the way the lights are sequenced, as you must invariably stop at the first set on the roundabout and the first set after the exit anyway.

For those less confident there is a pedestrian/cycle path that goes under the roundabout, but is a pain to get too and is not as direct as the road.
I tend to use the pedestrain/cycle underpass on my return in the evening, as it is easier to join, plus people are in too much of a rush to get home at night...
.

 

[classic33]

Would a cyclist ban in Londons Zone 1 be workable to get around any further deaths?
Not my idea, letter in the Sun calling for one by Alan Waites. We as cyclists it seems entirely at fault again!!

 

[ianrauk]

Would a cyclist ban in Londons Zone 1 be workable to get around any further deaths?
Not my idea, letter in the Sun calling for one by Alan Waites. We as cyclists it seems entirely at fault again!!

Pathetic...

 

[classic33]

Pathetic...

Well we're at fault simply for being on the roads in the first place. No mention of road tax seen.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

If a vehicle represents a danger due to blind spots then that's what needs to be addressed - mirrors, cameras, sensors, alarms, redesigns - whatever is required.

An interesting viewpoint over on Trucknet which I hadn't thought of before is that while truck drivers cannot always see cyclists, cyclists can always see trucks. The exact post was:

We are getting this the wrong way around, at NO point does the cyclist not SEE the truck or bus so make the cyclist, who can see the truck/bus, ALWAYS at fault for any accident.

Now, while I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of this, and would take issue because it doesn't cover trucks left hooking riders, or turning without indicating, or passing too close or any of the other things the worse sort of truck driver gets up to, it does make the point that creeping up the inside of lorries at traffic lights is a bad idea, and it's a lot easier for the cyclist to avoid doing that than it is for the truck driver to see them once they're there.

 

[Frood42]

Would a cyclist ban in Londons Zone 1 be workable to get around any further deaths?
Not my idea, letter in the Sun calling for one by Alan Waites. We as cyclists it seems entirely at fault again!!

I don't think so...

Actually I would like to see all motor vehicles except buses banned from Zone 1 so that pedestrians and cyclists can get about safely...
.

 

[Frood42]

That could work equally well or badly

Yes, but can I not make the suggestion to ban the cars/trucks when they make the suggestion to ban bikes, just to be beligerrent about it...
I know its not very constructive, but neither is the suggestion to ban bikes..

But then you already know that
.

 

[theclaud]

An interesting viewpoint over on Trucknet which I hadn't thought of before is that while truck drivers cannot always see cyclists, cyclists can always see trucks. The exact post was:

Now, while I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of this, and would take issue because it doesn't cover trucks left hooking riders, or turning without indicating, or passing too close or any of the other things the worse sort of truck driver gets up to, it does make the point that creeping up the inside of lorries at traffic lights is a bad idea, and it's a lot easier for the cyclist to avoid doing that than it is for the truck driver to see them once they're there.

Don't necessarily agree with the specifics??? I sometimes have to double-check lately that I'm on the right forum...

 

[Frood42]

An interesting viewpoint over on Trucknet which I hadn't thought of before is that while truck drivers cannot always see cyclists, cyclists can always see trucks. The exact post was:

We are getting this the wrong way around, at NO point does the cyclist not SEE the truck or bus so make the cyclist, who can see the truck/bus, ALWAYS at fault for any accident.

So when that rushed worker overtakes me for that extra load, misjudges my speed and decides to immediately cross my path, it will be my fault..?
If that rushed worker decides to ignore the give way sign just because I am on a bike, it will be my fault?

Those will be the scenarios are what will be my undoing, as I do not go up the inside of large vehicles, if I cannot filter right safely I wait behind in primary.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7R6opx0Egs

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9__e_EkKYfc

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSBBRyJ1fdg

 

[Banjo]

My fellow truck drivers and I are distressed by the number of truck/cyclist incidents (see trucknet). If any of my family were cycling, I would ask them to bolt on one of those compressed-air foghorns as used by recreational sailors.

Thanks for coming on here and at least expressing your worries.
Air horns are available for bikes but not likely to become popular.
My view is that more education for both cyclists and drivers of all vehicles is needed.

Why anyone on a bike would squeeze up the side of a hgv or any larger than normal vehicle is completely beyond my understanding.

Out on the open road I cant remember the last time a lorry caused me any concern. Cars cause me concern on a daily basis.

Banning HGVs from cities during peak times will result in more deliveries done in smaller vans. Whats worse, 1 Lorry or twenty vans?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

No, I quite agree. I did cover that in my post. All that I'm trying to get at is that - whatever the rights and wrongs of this - it's difficult sometimes to spot a cyclist down the inside of a truck, especially if the mirrors are covered in raindrops, the cyclist is inadequately lit, or whatever. This isn't going to change anytime soon, and while the introduction of proximity sensors might help, it's always going to be a dangerous place for cyclists. Therefore, and this is the approach I adopt when on a bike, it's simplest just to avoid going up the inside of lorries, and some of the posts further up the thread indicate that a good many cyclists have no idea how dangerous a place it can be.
As it happens and for the record, I absolutely don't think that cyclists should be "ALWAYS at fault for any accident". Not my views at all.

 

[Frood42]

No, I quite agree. I did cover that in my post. All that I'm trying to get at is that - whatever the rights and wrongs of this - it's difficult sometimes to spot a cyclist down the inside of a truck, especially if the mirrors are covered in raindrops, the cyclist is inadequately lit, or whatever. This isn't going to change anytime soon, and while the introduction of proximity sensors might help, it's always going to be a dangerous place for cyclists. Therefore, and this is the approach I adopt when on a bike, it's simplest just to avoid going up the inside of lorries, and some of the posts furthe rup the thread indicate that a good many cyclists have no idea how dangerous a place it can be.
As it happens and for the record, I absolutely don't think that cyclists should be "ALWAYS at fault for any accident". Not my views at all.

I've edited the post to make it more obvious I was referring to the quote from Truck Net.