TheLondonPaper Cyclists and HGVs article

Feltup

I have a theory that LiT is a spy from the Truckers Union. She has too much knowledge on trucks. I would even go as far as saying she is in fact called Terry or Big Tel and drives 12 wheeler "artic".












I could be wrong of course and she just happens to be the most logical where it comes to the need for trucks and the fact that trucks are the shape they are due to the function they provide not because they want to kill cyclist or run cars off the road. Extra mirrors etc would help the drivers but in reality we cyclists are better off knowing the dangers and doing what ever wee can to avoid them because in the short term they are certainly not going away.

pyro_maniac

its ok to fit more mirrors to trucks but they in themsleves create blindspots, you cant see through them
i see on london tonights program that they are giving out fresnel lenses to trucks entering the 2012 olympic site, i think thye should be given out to ALL trucks and be made a legal requirement, the same as mirrors

Coriander

pyro_maniac wrote:

its ok to fit more mirrors to trucks but they in themsleves create blindspots, you cant see through them
i see on london tonights program that they are giving out fresnel lenses to trucks entering the 2012 olympic site, i think thye should be given out to ALL trucks and be made a legal requirement, the same as mirrors

According to the ITV London news programme last week, Fresnel lenses are now obligatory on all trucks registered after some recent date (2004?). Trouble is the lorries older than that.

lost_in_thought

Feltup wrote:

I have a theory that LiT is a spy from the Truckers Union. She has too much knowledge on trucks. I would even go as far as saying she is in fact called Terry or Big Tel and drives 12 wheeler "artic".

I am so totally busted. My real name is Big Kev.

pyro_maniac

as far as i am aware there is no legal requirement for a fresnel lens, the only legal requirement i know of is after 2006 new trucks have to have 6 mirrors fitted (offside and blindspot mirror, nearside and blindspot mirror, nearside kerb mirror and a mirror mounted on the front so you can see directly in front

chuckcork

Saying that trucks have bad sighltines because of *insert reason here*, and then going on to find suitable excuses to make it OK, is kind of like saying roll-on-roll-off ferries have a tendecy to sink because the bow doors tend to fail, but thats OK as long as the number dead is reasonable, and we need ferries to link to other countries, otherwise how are goods going to be delivered internationally?

Of course not, after the Herald sinking and others, ferry designs were changed and laws changed to ensure they didn't sink and kill a lot of people.

I think the issue is that the design of HGV's vehicles is allowed to be inherently unsafe in the first place. There is no reason an inherently unsafe design could not be changed to be otherwise (ferries are a case in point). Sure enough goods need to be delivered, but the method can be changed, the process can be changed and so on.

Dublin for an example doesn't allow some classes of heavy vehicles into the city centre at certain times, why is that unfeasible for anywhere else?

Why are vehicle designs based in cab over engine, rather than behind? Cost/space factors, but is it worth the number of deaths?

_Brun_

lost_in_thought wrote:

I am so totally busted. My real name is Big Kev.

Sexist!

linsen

Good article. For me it hammers home the point that you just don't wait on the left of things that won't bend round a corner. Fault and blame become irrelevant when you are clearing someone up off the road, surely?

mcmullej

chuckcork wrote:

Saying that trucks have bad sighltines because of.....[..]

Why are vehicle designs based in cab over engine, rather than behind? Cost/space factors, but is it worth the number of deaths?

This. Exactly this.

jedster

Why are vehicle designs based in cab over engine, rather than behind? Cost/space factors, but is it worth the number of deaths?

Basically it's about length. Trucks have a maximum length regulation (related to maouvrability). If you put the driver, say, in front of the engine at ground level and lengthen the tractor, you'd get less payload (volume) per truck. Which would mean more trucks (cost, congestion, risk - afterall each truck adds a hazard). Also a driver positioned low down would have a poorer view ahead. Given truck acceleration costs and braking distances/kinetic energy, this would in of itself add danger and cost.

I'm afraid to say as a cyclist that the number of cyclist deaths caoused by trucks (tens per year in the UK?) is pretty small beer compared to other causes of death among the UK population. If society is going to spend money on saving lives, would redesigning trucks be the best way of using it - may be more traffic cops would be more effective? May be more education for truck drivers or cyclists? May be focus instead on heart disease or cancer research?

Not simple I'm afraid,
J

mcmullej

jedster wrote:

Why are vehicle designs based in cab over engine, rather than behind? Cost/space factors, but is it worth the number of deaths?

Basically it's about length. Trucks have a maximum length regulation (related to maouvrability). If you put the driver, say, in front of the engine at ground level and lengthen the tractor, you'd get less payload (volume) per truck. Which would mean more trucks (cost, congestion, risk - afterall each truck adds a hazard). Also a driver positioned low down would have a poorer view ahead. Given truck acceleration costs and braking distances/kinetic energy, this would in of itself add danger and cost.

I'm afraid to say as a cyclist that the number of cyclist deaths caoused by trucks (tens per year in the UK?) is pretty small beer compared to other causes of death among the UK population. If society is going to spend money on saving lives, would redesigning trucks be the best way of using it - may be more traffic cops would be more effective? May be more education for truck drivers or cyclists? May be focus instead on heart disease or cancer research?

Not simple I'm afraid,
J

I disagree. I think it's very simple. Prohibit large vehicles with restricted driver visibility from entering cities during rush hour.

Result: HGV manufacturers coming up with ingenious new designs and regular HGVs make their deliveries during the night and cyclists lives saved.

Bikerbaboon

chuckcork wrote:

Saying that trucks have bad sighltines because of *insert reason here*, and then going on to find suitable excuses to make it OK, is kind of like saying roll-on-roll-off ferries have a tendecy to sink because the bow doors tend to fail, but thats OK as long as the number dead is reasonable, and we need ferries to link to other countries, otherwise how are goods going to be delivered internationally?

Of course not, after the Herald sinking and others, ferry designs were changed and laws changed to ensure they didn't sink and kill a lot of people.

In health and safety legislation you have referance to a term Resonabaly practical.

If changeing trucks to make them safer to other road users cut death rates by 1/2 it would save 4.5 cyclists lives a year. and the cost to replace all trucks billions. its just not resonabaly practicable to do. Unfortunatly a life does have a cash value in the world that we live in.
I do think that reduceing the times that HGVs can operate in city centers should be looked at as i would cut congestion slightly and not cost alot morefor the delivery.

Getting left hooked by a van is all down to the van driver, but i just dont get any one that gets that close to a HGV, its a 45 tonne weapon driven by a person that may or may not beable to see you at any given time. We always go on about people takeing risky overtakes when they pass us saying "could they not just wait 20 seconds" well its the same for the lorries give them the extra time till you know what they are doing.


Also in motorbike training you get told to always have a wayout. when you are filtering you go slow enough to see people faces in the wing mirros so you can see where they are looking and what they may be going to do, but you also always have a place to move to if something unexpected happens for you own safety. ( granted not all bikers do that)
I apply the same skills to riding a biek in traffic. 20 seconds waiting will not kill me and always have a way out of the car or vans way if it makes an unexpected move.( even if its to hop on to the curb.)


be safe out there.

cougie

Do we know how many of the deaths we've had have been the fault of the drivers or cyclists though ?

mcmullej

cougie wrote:

Do we know how many of the deaths we've had have been the fault of the drivers or cyclists though ?

Do you think that matters? I don't.

cougie

I think its pretty important. If say it was found to be inexperienced cyclists undertaking wagons - then thats who you need to target to make them aware.

If it is lorry drivers overtaking bikes and then turning left - then thats who we need to target.

If it is the latter scenario - whats the point in trying mirrors or transparent doors when the driver hasnt even seen the bike when he's ahead ?

mcmullej

cougie wrote:

I think its pretty important. If say it was found to be inexperienced cyclists undertaking wagons - then thats who you need to target to make them aware.

If it is lorry drivers overtaking bikes and then turning left - then thats who we need to target.

If it is the latter scenario - whats the point in trying mirrors or transparent doors when the driver hasnt even seen the bike when he's ahead ?

You can't legislate for idiot drivers or idiot cyclists; you can't design a system that will completely prevent people from being stupid or selfish or lazy or forgetful...

What you can do is influence the amount of damage they cause when they're being stupid or lazy or selfish or forgetful.

In general terms, on busy city streets an idiot on a bike causes less harm than an idiot in a 45 tonne truck.

I don't think it's right to try to measure how much of the blame is the cyclist's when they're dead.

cougie

We could ban bikes from rush hour ? That would solver the problem too ? I bet that would be a sensible decision financially.

I think its perfectly sensible to work out why these accidents are happening.

Is it that HGV drivers training is failing ?

Is it that we have more novice cyclists riding now ?

Only once we understand the problem can we address it.

mcmullej

cougie wrote:

We could ban bikes from rush hour ? That would solver the problem too ? I bet that would be a sensible decision financially.
.

But, for the most part bikes don't kill anyone.

We should all drive around in armour-plated tanks? Each one bigger than the next to protect ourselves from all the other armour-plated tanks?

Monty Dog

A more practical solution and one often adopted in European cities is ban large trucks between certain hours in city centres - it keeps the traffic flowing and presents less of a risk to cyclists and pedestrians.

spursn17

mcmullej wrote:

You can't legislate for idiot drivers

Yes you can, it's called 'driving without due care and attention' or 'dangerous driving'

windbreaker

Writing as an ex lorry driver the article is reasonably balanced on the skills and visibility issues. I always was a cyclist when I was lorry driver (over 25 years ago now). The problem is generally not of skills for either drivers or cyclists but attitudes. There certainly were significant minority of drivers who hated cyclists (and possibly everyone). They took the view that as they shouldn’t be there they wouldn’t show much consideration. At the time I was a driver it was reasonably well paid job and keeping a cleanish licence was important to get the good trucks and jobs. This is no longer the case and lots of drivers have points accumulated and this does not affect their jobs. Drivers are also under more pressure to meet often illegal deadlines. I still read truck mags and they present the myth of the “professional driver” rather than the overstressed and underpaid driver.

Driving is a solitary occupation which attracts some loners who start to see vehicles on the road and not people. Cycling is the same, and the reverse attitudes towards traffic and motorists can start to affect behaviour. Just look at any of the anti-car threads to hear some prejudice against car and other drivers. I certainly find myself feel hatred towards a driver making a mistake – and interpreting a mistake as a hostile act. Often the kind of mistake I have myself made at some time. I’ve heard of fellow club riders giving a friendly toot to a club run and being faced with a barrage of V signs and f**k off!

I’m astonished when I see other cyclists how close they get to blind spots and heavy Lorries turning. I’ll just bump onto an empty pavement or whatever I have to do to get past and out of the danger zone quickly. (Yes I know that really p****s off some cyclists, but I’ll take responsibility for any consequences) I never forget how tired I sometimes was when driving and how easily a momentary loss of concentration could have serious consequences. On the other hand every so often I observe pure bad driving or psychopathy on the road. Here in Scotland I mostly have a pretty positive picture of lorry drivers, and do what I can to help – stopping to help them reverse etc. When in London it feels like being an extra on Mad Max at times.

The best solution is to increase cycling levels and cycling experience for everyone so that there are more drivers who are or have been cyclists.

lost_in_thought

windbreaker wrote:

Writing as an ex lorry driver the article is reasonably balanced on the skills and visibility issues. I always was a cyclist when I was lorry driver (over 25 years ago now). The problem is generally not of skills for either drivers or cyclists but attitudes. There certainly were significant minority of drivers who hated cyclists (and possibly everyone). They took the view that as they shouldn’t be there they wouldn’t show much consideration. At the time I was a driver it was reasonably well paid job and keeping a cleanish licence was important to get the good trucks and jobs. This is no longer the case and lots of drivers have points accumulated and this does not affect their jobs. Drivers are also under more pressure to meet often illegal deadlines. I still read truck mags and they present the myth of the “professional driver” rather than the overstressed and underpaid driver.

Driving is a solitary occupation which attracts some loners who start to see vehicles on the road and not people. Cycling is the same, and the reverse attitudes towards traffic and motorists can start to affect behaviour. Just look at any of the anti-car threads to hear some prejudice against car and other drivers. I certainly find myself feel hatred towards a driver making a mistake – and interpreting a mistake as a hostile act. Often the kind of mistake I have myself made at some time. I’ve heard of fellow club riders giving a friendly toot to a club run and being faced with a barrage of V signs and f**k off!

I’m astonished when I see other cyclists how close they get to blind spots and heavy Lorries turning. I’ll just bump onto an empty pavement or whatever I have to do to get past and out of the danger zone quickly. (Yes I know that really p****s off some cyclists, but I’ll take responsibility for any consequences) I never forget how tired I sometimes was when driving and how easily a momentary loss of concentration could have serious consequences. On the other hand every so often I observe pure bad driving or psychopathy on the road. Here in Scotland I mostly have a pretty positive picture of lorry drivers, and do what I can to help – stopping to help them reverse etc. When in London it feels like being an extra on Mad Max at times.

The best solution is to increase cycling levels and cycling experience for everyone so that there are more drivers who are or have been cyclists.

Good post - very interesting to hear from someone in the know!

pyro_maniac

totally agree with windbreaker, and a great post mate
i am a cyclist, and i am a truck driver, so can see both sides of the coin the same as windbreaker
i think the only solution to the problem is education, HGV drivers need to be educated and have a LOT more emphasis on driving through a city centre (re:blindspots, cyclists, lane discipline, attitude) and cyclist need to be more educated as to the dangers of large vehicles (be it a bus/truck/van or 4x4)
cyclists and drivers attitudes need to be changed, its ok trying to make undertaking on a cycle illegal but i doubt there would be enforcement to it, that same as RLJers i guess
all it will do is make people say 'well he was in the wrong to undertake its a shame they got squished'
i think that truckers mags and cycle mags should run regular articles on the dangers, so that the message can at least get out to some people and they take notice

_Brun_

pyro_maniac wrote:

i think that truckers mags and cycle mags should run regular articles on the dangers, so that the message can at least get out to some people and they take notice

I'm pretty certain the cyclists getting involved in these incidents never go anywhere near cycling magazines. Probably better off with Tatler, at least they could give some hints on how to get squashed with style.

Clever Pun

mcmullej wrote:

cougie wrote:

We could ban bikes from rush hour ? That would solver the problem too ? I bet that would be a sensible decision financially.
.

But, for the most part bikes don't kill anyone.

We should all drive around in armour-plated tanks? Each one bigger than the next to protect ourselves from all the other armour-plated tanks?

YES

charlie_lcc

I too am an ex-lorry driver, with over a million kms covered. When I was trained for HGVs the instructor told us to sit or stand up, and lean forward before moving off at road junctions. That was when mirrors were much smaller and there were no 'proximity' mirrors at all.
There are thousands of us who cycle and drive HGVs and I agree that windbreaker has made the most important points: its all about attitude and concentration on what you are doing, driving or cycling.

Today at 12.30 radio 4 is doing a spot on the introduction of the new Euro mirror system onto older lorries, but not the very old ones on the road before 2000 (there are about 100,000 of those out there.)

pyro_maniac wrote:

totally agree with windbreaker, and a great post mate
i am a cyclist, and i am a truck driver, so can see both sides of the coin the same as windbreaker
i think the only solution to the problem is education, HGV drivers need to be educated and have a LOT more emphasis on driving through a city centre (re:blindspots, cyclists, lane discipline, attitude) and cyclist need to be more educated as to the dangers of large vehicles (be it a bus/truck/van or 4x4)
cyclists and drivers attitudes need to be changed, its ok trying to make undertaking on a cycle illegal but i doubt there would be enforcement to it, that same as RLJers i guess
all it will do is make people say 'well he was in the wrong to undertake its a shame they got squished'
i think that truckers mags and cycle mags should run regular articles on the dangers, so that the message can at least get out to some people and they take notice

windbreaker

Thanks to all who contributed for allowing me to express long held views. I appreciate the positive feedback. There was a fatal collision in Edinburgh between a truck and a cyclist, at a junction I use frequently, earlier this year. I don’t know the outcome of the investigation, but it did focus my thoughts, as does regularly commuting past where NCN 75 crosses a truck entrance to land fill – where drivers on (illegal) bonus schemes have missed seeing me completely when I had right of way. One cycling driver can influence the attitudes of loads of colleagues. I believe that Halfords experimented with getting their drivers to have a day cycling as part of an induction scheme. Maybe this thread and the kind of programme described in the newspaper article is a start on changing some cyclists and driver attitudes. Road users are often described as belonging to different tribes – car drivers, truck drivers, bus passengers, cyclists, pedestrians, etc when most of us use a range of different methods of getting around, and do not pigeonhole ourselves.

snooks

From the London Fixed gear and Single Speed forum:

News Flash!!! LFGSS Cyclist / HGV campaign plan has been proposed!
We have a plan and it includes these elements, summarised as:

* A campaign message: action must be taken to prevent the death of cyclists due to HGV collisions
* An edgy theme which will apply to all campaign elements
* Viral Video to spread the message
* A campaign-specific website
* Engagement with the media to draw wide attention to the campaign
* Direct action (peaceful) targeting one HGV opperator involved in the recent death of a cyclist. We want them to lift their saftey standards.
* Flyers to hand out during our direct action
* All of this we will achieve within October

More details here:

http://www.londonfgss.com/post318077-518.html

Littigator

Finally catching up on this thread and some great posts. It's means so much more to get views from both sides.

I agree that it's really important to raise awareness with both groups, cyclists and HGV drivers as we're all there on the roads together.

Have a safe weekend all.

dondare

dondare wrote:

Thelondonpaper has a track record of potraying cycling as a highly dangerous and antisocial activity performed by idiots and criminals. I'm curious to see what letters they print in response to this article: expect red-light-jumping, the Highway Code, "road tax", compulsory insurance &c. &c. to be in the line-up.

Quote from thelondonpaper letters page:

"Rules for cyclists
Drivers pay tax to use the roads and take tests to show they know the Highway Code. Cyclists need the same rules. Maybe their road tax money can go towards cycle lanes so that it’s safer for everyone.
Nick"

Told you...

(And no, I didn't write that one.)