Truck hazard

[buggi]

And this is how it should be. Which is why any vehicle that shares our roads should be safe not only around expert cyclists but around inexperienced and incompetent ones, and also ones who occasionally make bad judgements. Lorries should be designed and operated ALWAYS with the assumption that someone small and crushable might be too close. This applies whether the small crushable person has put himself in that position or not. But from the obsession with victim behaviour that follows each incident, and the faux-balance about responsibilities, one might easily forget how much more likely it is in any given collision that the driver is directly at fault than the cyclist. Which of course suits the current power relationship on our roads very nicely thank you.

OMG I'm not denying it should be like that BUT IT IS NOT LIKE THAT bcoz this is the real world and until those lorries exist and humans are no longer fallible, we can't just carry on regardless and then all throw our arms up in disbelief when it happens again. Let me know when the perfect lorry is on the road and I'll stop telling the new cyclists at work about the dangers of the old ones.

 

[theclaud]

OMG I'm not denying it should be like that BUT IT IS NOT LIKE THAT bcoz this is the real world and until those lorries exist and humans are no longer fallible, we can't just carry on regardless and then all throw our arms up in disbelief when it happens again. Let me know when the perfect lorry is on the road and I'll stop telling the new cyclists at work about the dangers of the old ones.

Two points: the first is that by focussing on victim and not perpetrator behaviour you collude in it carrying on as it is and give the perpetrator a get-out. A cyclist is killed by a construction lorry. We know who was driving it and on whose behalf it operated. What can we do to stop that person and that firm killing again, with immediate effect? Clue - it isn't talking to some cyclists. The second point is that the situation in which there are inexperienced or inexpert cyclists on the roads isn't one to be lamented - there is, at the bottom of it, no fundamental problem to address. Of course we all want cyclists to develop and improve individually, and to gain in confidence, and the availability of information and training is a good thing. But there is no point in the future at which we want to achieve a 100% trained and expert cycling population - we want there always to be safe space on our roads for new, inexperienced, inexpert cyclists.

 

[snorri]

Why is the Road Haulage Association against trying to sort the problem out, or even willing to acknowledge that the problem exists?

Have you not read what one of their Directors had to say about cycling and cyclists?
http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association

 

[Spinney]

I think if ALL lorries / trucks / vans (or any size) had the 'cyclist keep back' / 'don't pass on the left' type stickers, I think it would make people think. Very simple, it won't solve any perceived issue, but it certainly won't hurt. I notice all London buses (well all of the ones I have seen) have these on now

A TV / press campaign aimed at cyclists may help and at least affect subconscious awareness. The leaflet above also not a bad idea

I saw a potentially effective pair of signs on the back of a lorry the other day - sadly only written in the dirt on the back of it.
Arrow pointing to right hand side of lorry with 'passing side'
Arrow pointing to left hand side 'Suicide'

Some of the posters above seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed onto the roads and be safe, no matter how inexperienced or ignorant. But you wouldn't let a toddler go out on the roads on their own. Toddlers don't realise the need to look for these tonnes of moving death before staggering into their path. In the same way, unless they have done some reading/had some training, many cyclists don't realise the potential dangers of lorry blind spots, etc.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to have a minimum level of awareness of the potential dangers before venturing onto main roads. Bike handling skills can be gained on quiet housing estate roads, or under the supervision of a competent adult, so this is not to deny inexperienced cyclists use of all roads.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

OMG I'm not denying it should be like that BUT IT IS NOT LIKE THAT bcoz this is the real world and until those lorries exist and humans are no longer fallible, we can't just carry on regardless and then all throw our arms up in disbelief when it happens again. Let me know when the perfect lorry is on the road and I'll stop telling the new cyclists at work about the dangers of the old ones.

This doesn't strike me as being an either-or dilemma. Education, training, developing road awareness are of vital importance because they are real attempts to address current dangers. Your instructor involvement could well save lives and I doubt anybody on here would criticise you for encouraging new cyclists to go out on the road and to do so with their eyes wide open to actual dangers.

At the same time as you're working to help more people to stay upright and alive, there are others working to stop, or reduce, the things that knock them down and kill them. Upright and alive; not down and dead. No conflict IMO. They seem to be the same goal approached from different angles.

 

[theclaud]

I saw a potentially effective pair of signs on the back of a lorry the other day - sadly only written in the dirt on the back of it.
Arrow pointing to right hand side of lorry with 'passing side'
Arrow pointing to left hand side 'Suicide'

Some of the posters above seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed onto the roads and be safe, no matter how inexperienced or ignorant. But you wouldn't let a toddler go out on the roads on their own. Toddlers don't realise the need to look for these tonnes of moving death before staggering into their path. In the same way, unless they have done some reading/had some training, many cyclists don't realise the potential dangers of lorry blind spots, etc.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to have a minimum level of awareness of the potential dangers before venturing onto main roads. Bike handling skills can be gained on quiet housing estate roads, or under the supervision of a competent adult, so this is not to deny inexperienced cyclists use of all roads.

Of course not - you are responsible for the toddler. Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept an urban road environment in which adults who have not undergone training are rendered as vulnerable as unaccompanied toddlers? Why not simply remove, restrict or control the "tonnes of moving death"?

 

[Spinney]

Of course not - you are responsible for the toddler. Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept an urban road environment in which adults who have not undergone training are rendered as vulnerable as unaccompanied toddlers? Why not simply remove, restrict or control the "tonnes of moving death"?

Yes.
But most adults will already have some 'training' in that they will already know the dangers of moving vehicles from having been pedestrians or drivers.
The rest of the 'required training' only really needs to be something like a short video or leaflet explaining some of the dangers that inexperienced cyclists are often not aware of.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect anyone using the roads to take some responsibility for their own safety. Yes, trucks should have better visibility from the cab. Yes, drivers faffing with mobile phones/satnavs/whatever while they are driving should have the book thrown at them. But with the best will in the world, unless you totally ban trucks from the roads*, there will always be a situation where the driver does not see a cyclist who has moved into a blind spot/has done something stupid.

*and even if you get rid of trucks, there will still be morons in cars, vans, etc around which it is wise for cyclists to undertake some degree of defensive riding.

 

[buggi]

But why aim for something far below ideal?

Collaborating ideas and behaviour is far from aiming below the ideal. Its putting in layer on layer of protection. No one group is going to reach the ideal acting on its own.

Two points: the first is that by focussing on victim and not perpetrator behaviour you collude in it carrying on as it is and give the perpetrator a get-out. A cyclist is killed by a construction lorry. We know who was driving it and on whose behalf it operated. What can we do to stop that person and that firm killing again, with immediate effect? Clue - it isn't talking to some cyclists. The second point is that the situation in which there are inexperienced or inexpert cyclists on the roads isn't one to be lamented - there is, at the bottom of it, no fundamental problem to address. Of course we all want cyclists to develop and improve individually, and to gain in confidence, and the availability of information and training is a good thing. But there is no point in the future at which we want to achieve a 100% trained and expert cycling population - we want there always to be safe space on our roads for new, inexperienced, inexpert cyclists.

... Focusing on cyclists is not taking focus away from the haulage industry. Road safety should be approached from all angles bcoz even if lorries had no blind spots they are still frickin huge and require room to turn. The drivers are human, and therefore prone to error, which means even if they were perfectly designed the situation could still occur. Yes the driver could be held responsible but the cyclist would still be dead, which is why it should be approached from all angles. By refusing to do so, we are condemning someone to death on principle.

2nd.. Why don't we want to achieve a 100% trained cycle population? If we started a school level now in 20 years the attitudes towards cycling would be completely different if everyone was trained bcoz all these people that run haulage companies would be more aware of issues we faced if theyd been on a bike themselves.

3rd if every cyclist was trained and also behaved themselves (ie didn't RLJ or pull the stupid manoeuvre in the you tube clip above) the haulage industry wouldn't have a leg to stand on when they tried to argue it was our fault. And although i fully understand the reasons for RLJing the sad truth is that while we continue to do it, drivers will always hold the trump card.

i refer you back to the process safety model i posted in the thread that got closed, which i seem to remember that even those arguing against me could see the logic. The more layers of protection that go in, the more chance we have of surviving. Yes those layers should first and foremost be technology, better mirrors, better junctions, driver training and driver behaviour, but if (bcoz humans are fallible) we need to add cyclist training and behaviour in as another layer, then I'm all for it if it saves even just one life.

you say that talking to cyclists wont stop that firm from killing someone else with immediate effect. On the contrary... It might be the only thing that does bcoz i cant see anything else changing with immediate effect, can you??

 

[Crankarm]

 

[classic33]

But what should we aim for, toddlers or grown ups?

Both.

 

[vickster]

Good post - but I don't get the point below? Willful RLJing is not IMO excusable or understandable, rider comes up to light that is solidly red and either sails through, or goes through and track stands in the middle of the road proceeding once there are no vehicles or so the cyclist thinks. I am not talking about the light that turns red while crossing the junction or turns amber / red and unable to safely stop due to speed / weather / traffic behind etc

I am astonished by the number of cyclists who appear to be red-green colour blind, men and especially women who are much less likely to be so genetically

And although i fully understand the reasons for RLJing the sad truth is that while we continue to do it, drivers will always hold the trump card.

 

[snorri]

I really don't see much wrong with cycle training, certainly not a licensing system, but some training would do no harm.
It is popular to compare infrastructure for cyclists on mainland Europe and the UK, but we seldom here of cyclists themselves being compared.
Purely from my own observations I get the impression that your average mainland Euro cyclist is an altogether more competent cyclist than his/her UK counterpart.

 

[classic33]

Have you not read what one of their Directors had to say about cycling and cyclists?
http://road.cc/content/news/49463-i...sts-article-cyclists-road-haulage-association

I have actually spoken with them, for a project on here that never happenned in the end, and slightly dismayed at the response given.
I got a better response from their Irish counterparts, who were more open to the idea.
To recognise that something might need doing, requires that you acknowledge that there's a problem to begin with. Something the RHA were not willing to do. Now ask yourself why?

 

[Spinney]

The only RLJing that I condone/have done is the jumping the red light to stop in front of the first car in the queue - i.e. achieving visibility, not crossing the junction on red. In many cases the need to do this has been largely removed by the provision of ASLs.

 

[classic33]

Two quick questions.
Has anyone else seen the signs on the back of some lorries which state "If you can't see me, I can't see you".
Why was the Irish RHA equivalent, the first to call for mandortary side guards & lights to be fitted the length of the trailers.