What an HGV sees of you

[gaz]

that's my issue... by stating that there's another mirror that will give the driver a view of the near side of their cab* might lead some readers to think "They have a mirror that shows the nearside of their cab, so it's OK for me to ride down their nearside." ... Which is why i feel the 'nit picking' is counter productive to the point of the video and image.

*assuming it's fitted, positioned correctly and the driver is looking at it.

Which of course is not a good message. Really you should treat all vehicles as if they don't have a mirror and as if they haven't seen you.

As they may well have them to see you with but they may not look in them

 

[Origamist]

Good points but more psych-ability than bikeability, perhaps?

Yes, to a degree. Second guessing the errant behaviour of other road users is a cognitive skill that can be improved (some cues are easier to pick up on, others are harder to discern and process), but there's only so much you can preempt and reasonably respond too.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

no I know what 360 degree monitoring means as I understand the basics of physics english and mathematics and biology , something which you yourself do seem to be struggling with. I don't seem to be the only one who understands what i am saying judging by the comments i have recieved

Here's a basic for you: i before e except after c

Are these private messages of support? Unseen to everyone else.

 

[ttcycle]

Removed a couple of posts, let's not get into mudslinging territory please. As you were.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

To a degree, yes. Second guessing the errant behaviour of other road users is a cognitive skill that can be improved (some cues are easier to pick up on, others are harder to discern and process), but there's only so much you can preempt and reasonably respond too.

Yes, I suppose that it's the kind of thing you pick up on the way to surviving but is so hard to teach, and that level of learning how to survive should never have to be learnt. It's road wisdom, learned on the road in interactions over a period of years , not something you can teach in the playground.

 

[ufkacbln]

in most of these fatalities recently the exact circumstance is unknown. And no one is making presumptions about the cyclist, they are just saying try not to put yourself in this scenario if you have a choice.

... but the point is that the HGV is removing that choice.....

 

[Wobblers]

Not backing down at all...you're just spoiling for an argument!

The way you put it, is exactly what I meant though. IF there were separate cycling lanes then it would mean cyclists could go as fast as legally allowed. The same would then hold true for motorised vehicles on the road. That is correctly what I meant, hence not backing down.

On the other point, I didn't suggest for a moment that anybody on here had blamed the HGV driver. Read the posts...

"As fast as legally allowed" is not the same as "as fast as is safe". Shared paths are simply not designed for fast cyclists. Even segregated paths are still likely to have pedestrian traffic on them, will not get gritted in winter and are unlikely to be maintained to the same standard as roads, so fast cycling on those facilities is unlikely to be advisable. The same applies to road speed limits: they aren't targets, there is a requirement for motorists to reduce speed in reduced visibility or poor grip. The fact that this is widely ignored along with the "you should drive at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear" does not make it acceptable - or legal.

Most cyclist injuries are not as a result of collisions with other vehicles, but due to things like ice, diesel, leaves, potholes, etc. Segregation will do nothing to solve this, in fact as a result of the usually poor standard of construction (it's amazing how many designers seem to think that high kerbs and sharp 90 degree bends are perfectly fine) and poor upkeep is likely to worsen matters.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 2780803, member: 30090"]To yours and the others members posts regarding the positioning of the cab:-

It is not correct, I have my class 1 license so feel qualified to give an opinion on the matter, if that vehicle was to continue the turn then the n/s trailer wheels would be a good 5-6 feet on the kerb.[/quote]
yawn.

 

[buggi]

... but the point is that the HGV is removing that choice.....

Which is why i said " And no one is making presumptions about the cyclist, they are just saying try not to put yourself in this scenario IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE"

 

[buggi]

I don't know about you but much of my commute has two lanes each way with bus lanes on the left and an all comers lane. Cyclists ride in the bus lane,lorries in the other lane. Covering primary doesn't always cover everything.

its a difficult scenario i admit but there are 3 ways you can handle it.

i would treat the bus lane as a massive wide cycle lane. If the lights were on red as i approached, i wouldn't proceed to the front if there was a lorry at the front of the other lane. Instead I'd sit in primary in the bus lane adjacent to at the back end of the lorry. The only person you're "holding up" is the bus driver and he should be savvy enough to understand why.

Or i would use the same lane as the lorry but just join the back of the queue of traffic in primary (or nip in at a convenient gap anywhere behind the lorry, and take primary), and proceed through with the traffic returning to the bus lane when it was safe.
Or if was at the front of the bus lane (in primary of course) and the lorry came up behind and sat in the next lane, he should have seen me but in case he hadn't i would move as far forward as the road would allow so i got a head start.

 

[buggi]

But we do know the exact locations. Predominantly at junctions, though not always. That is part of the reason why I haven't yet discounted my ''Bike Priority Zones'' suggestion back in post #60.

from what i saw of bow roundabout lights, they allow the cars to go, then stop them, then allows the cycles to move forward into a priority zone (although not marked as such, but they are a few yards in front) and holds them there. Then after allowing the traffic on the RAB to go round, the sequence then returns to allow the cars AND the cycles already in that zone to proceed at the same time. Cars catch up cycles very quick and they get squished. This RAB should just have a seperate sequence for cyclists (why bring them out of a protected zone and stop them in another unprotected zone? I think a pre-green light for cycles would work better than a priority zone. It gives the cyclist more time to get across the junction

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Oooooooooooh! Keep your hair on!

Sorry I have had what must be the worst 3 or 4 days in my life, and I shouldn't have taken it out on here.

 

[Brandane]

Arghhh, not this video again!
OK, it might be useful in highlighting the fact that visibility can be restricted from an artic cab, BUT that particular video is nonsense.

1. Mirrors are not properly adjusted, showing far too much of the side of the cab, and therefore less of the angle away from the vehicle.

2. It is parked with the cab and trailer at an angle, which it wouldn't be if sitting stationary at lights. Drivers would hopefully keep cab and trailer aligned for best visibility, and only start to turn when moving off, having checked that there are no cyclists.

3. As others have pointed out, it fails to show the other mirror at the top of the nearside window which points down to the ground, the purpose of which is to erradicate that blind spot not covered by rear view mirrors.

4. Worst of all, the camera is being held at somewhere slightly above a drivers waist level! The tops of some of those cyclists would be visible from eye level, simply by turning your head and looking out of the nearside window.

Yes I am talking from experience. HGV class 1 licence holder for about 8 years now, with 6 years full time driving an artic. Now where's the bookmark facility so I can cut and paste this for next time this clip appears!

 

[SquareDaff]

Personally I think that anyone who writes this sort of stuff needs to have a good long think about their humanity.

Then teach your kids to cycle up the nearside of a left turning HGV instead of staying a) behind it or b) filtering up the offside if safe to do so and we'll see how long your family line lasts! The point of that statement was that cyclists are in general hideously exposed. Only an idiot would risk almost certain death by filtering up the near side of a HGV in the process of a left hand turn. But please explain to me why I'm wrong!!!

 

[SquareDaff]

It's the 'deserving death' bit that is unacceptable.

Read back and point out to me where I said anyone deserved to die. I didn't! We've all had moments where we've done stupid things and sufferred the consequences be that, shocks when a drivers blasted you with a horn, coming off, having clothing torn, getting the bike damaged etc... My statement just said that if you perform an idiotic maneuovere like that then you can expect the consequences. You added the death part.