Stopped by the police - this time tax pounds spent properly!

kipper1972

Happliy in my own world on the way to work today and in a back street in Lewisham i was stopped by police - 12 of them.
Oh crap . . what is going on here . .

An awareness campaign was being put on by the police and the council bike people around trucks and bikes. Basically it was telling you the obvious about don't go up the inside of trucks. What made this really good was that they had an HGV there, all 50 foot of it and one by one the volunteers (yes we were all asked if we wanted to stop) got into the drivers seat to see the drivers view - the blind spots and how small a cyclist looks in a wing mirror on a bloody big truck.

I knew a lot of what they were saying but the perspective of what can be seen from up there is alarming.
There was 12 police folk, the truck driver and lewisham cycling people handing out free dayglo rucksac covers.
It wasn't anything madly innovative but i found it really useful. And given the nasty squishing when trucks turn left is all too common, I think this is dead good.

try it is you get the chance.

K

The Chingford Skinhead

So a free rucksack cover (good) and the alarming realisation that truck drivers simply can't see you (scary but worth knowing).

Good to see this kind of awareness campaign going on - though it does come back to the issue that if a truck has so many blind spots and can't pick up other road users with its mirrors should it really be allowed out on the road, after all it isn't just cyclists at risk but peds, scooters, motorbikes and even other cars

AndyManc

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

- though it does come back to the issue that if a truck has so many blind spots and can't pick up other road users with its mirrors should it really be allowed out on the road,

Correct, if there's a problem it needs to solved and not ’managed’ by 'awareness days' for cyclists put on by the police.

Anyone that knows anything about health and safety understands that the first course of action is to remove/address the problem, just advising/informing others that there is a problem is the last resort.


.

Eau Rouge

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Good to see this kind of awareness campaign going on - though it does come back to the issue that if a truck has so many blind spots and can't pick up other road users with its mirrors should it really be allowed out on the road, after all it isn't just cyclists at risk but peds, scooters, motorbikes and even other cars

As long as those other road users are aware that it's a truck, and not just a bigger car, so it should be dealt with differently to a car, trucks are no more of a problem than cars. There are already lots of extra regulations around their use.

Being on the inside of a truck doesn't sound like a good place to be, whether the driver knows you are there or not.

don_don

AndyManc wrote:

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

- though it does come back to the issue that if a truck has so many blind spots and can't pick up other road users with its mirrors should it really be allowed out on the road,

Correct, if there's a problem it needs to solved and not ’managed’ by 'awareness days' for cyclists put on by the police.

Anyone that knows anything about health and safety understands that the first course of action is to remove/address the problem, just advising/informing others that there is a problem is the last resort.
.

But fresnel mirrors have just been made a legal requirement have they not? And coupled with an awareness campaign like this, new cyclists are educated and old hands reminded of the dangers of undertaking long vehicles.

So, I suppose the argument would go, that coupling an awareness campaign with the new legislation will reinforce the message to everyone.

We could go back over the 'remove HGVs from town centres' argument, but that might be missing the point. As far as I am concerned, a cyclist has as much responsibility for their own safety as the driver of an HGV. So, by educating cyclists in this way, they can take more responsibility for themselves. By educating HGV drivers, they can be made more aware of the danger their vehicles pose to more vulnerable road-users. And, by enforcing the use of fresnel mirrors, those drivers are put in a position where they are more able to contribute to cyclist's safety than before.

Isn't that a positive thing?

Eat My Dust

Maybe someone should tell this guy.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fYAAiWbdCfs

The Chingford Skinhead

don_don wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

- though it does come back to the issue that if a truck has so many blind spots and can't pick up other road users with its mirrors should it really be allowed out on the road,

Correct, if there's a problem it needs to solved and not ’managed’ by 'awareness days' for cyclists put on by the police.

Anyone that knows anything about health and safety understands that the first course of action is to remove/address the problem, just advising/informing others that there is a problem is the last resort.
.

But fresnel mirrors have just been made a legal requirement have they not? And coupled with an awareness campaign like this, new cyclists are educated and old hands reminded of the dangers of undertaking long vehicles.

So, I suppose the argument would go, that coupling an awareness campaign with the new legislation will reinforce the message to everyone.

We could go back over the 'remove HGVs from town centres' argument, but that might be missing the point. As far as I am concerned, a cyclist has as much responsibility for their own safety as the driver of an HGV. So, by educating cyclists in this way, they can take more responsibility for themselves. By educating HGV drivers, they can be made more aware of the danger their vehicles pose to more vulnerable road-users. And, by enforcing the use of fresnel mirrors, those drivers are put in a position where they are more able to contribute to cyclist's safety than before.

Isn't that a positive thing?

Don - I'm not saying that what has been done is not positive. I just think that more radical thinking needs to be done. After all:

1. The mirrors are only a legal requirement on the most recent trucks - there are several thousand trucks exempt due to age - why? because it costs a few pounds to install each mirror and frankly the lives of cyclists and peds are not worth it - or at least less important thatnthe profits for the shareholders / owners of the trucking companies, apparently.

2. Awareness campaign or not, per population on our roads, HGVs and other long vehicles are responsible for a very high and disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries. The problem is therefore not solved by saying the potential victims need to be more aware. Unlike air or rail accidents where any death is taken very seriously, deaths on the road are sadly worth less. HGV drivers should be regularly put on bikes or motorbikes to remind them of their responsibilities.

cjw

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

. Awareness campaign or not, per population on our roads, HGVs and other long vehicles are responsible for a very high and disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries. .

Sorry, can't let that go....

They are not. According to the latest Dft report into accidents vehical involvement rates for HGVs are about half that of the average traffic population.

For all motor vehicals, there are 62 incidents of all severity per 100 miliion km with 8.4 killed or seriously injured.

For HGV there are 36 incidents of all severity per 100 million km with 6.6 killed or seriously injured (this is a little lower than for cars at 7.5).

Note that this is the analysis of which vehicals were involved in an accident, not whether they were a passenger in that vehical.

Eau Rouge

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

2. Awareness campaign or not, per population on our roads, HGVs and other long vehicles are responsible for a very high and disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries. The problem is therefore not solved by saying the potential victims need to be more aware. Unlike air or rail accidents where any death is taken very seriously, deaths on the road are sadly worth less. HGV drivers should be regularly put on bikes or motorbikes to remind them of their responsibilities.

You don't think HGV drivers are already well aware that they drive big dangerous vehicles?

Most people never think twice about how to drive a HGV and just assume it's like a bigger car. It's not, it's nothing like a car. It's being different to a car is no more dangerous than a motorbike being different to a car is, provided people are aware that HGV's are not big cars and don't drive like them.

Yes, do what can be done with HGV's to make them even safer, but there is a huge awareness gap in the general population about HGV safety, and closing that gap amongst vunerable road users is a productive thing to do.

Retrospectivly adding things to any vehicle is near impossible to do, it's not a concession to HGV's. Pre1972 cars don't need seatbelts for the same reason pre-2009 trucks don't need these mirrors. I know someone with a pre-72 car that has seatbelts, he takes them out for the MOT so they can't fail.

Coriander

don_don wrote:

We could go back over the 'remove HGVs from town centres' argument, but that might be missing the point. As far as I am concerned, a cyclist has as much responsibility for their own safety as the driver of an HGV. So, by educating cyclists in this way, they can take more responsibility for themselves. By educating HGV drivers, they can be made more aware of the danger their vehicles pose to more vulnerable road-users. And, by enforcing the use of fresnel mirrors, those drivers are put in a position where they are more able to contribute to cyclist's safety than before.

Isn't that a positive thing?

A voice of reason at last. I do agree quite vehemently with you DD. If a cyclist takes responsbility for his own safety and doesn't go down the side of an HGV then it's going to be harder for the vehicle, no matter how good or bad the sight lines of the driver are, to crush him.

And before anyone says anything, I am only talking about incidents where cyclists go down the inside of an HGV. Obviously an HGV overtaking and then turning immediately in front of a cyclist is an entirely different matter.

don_don

Thanks Coriander

I think I may have been mistaken earlier on though; I thought that those stick-on fresnel mirror things were being made compulsory for all HGVs but it looks like I was wrong

I'll go back and have another look at the press releases

The Chingford Skinhead

CJW - if I’m wrong on the HGV accident rate as a proportion of other traffic then I apologise. I’m pretty sure however that when this was all big news recently my interpretation of the figures was the one most commonly used.

I fully support raising awareness and agree that all road users have responsibilities not to go up the wrong side of bigger vehicles. That said, I’ve not seen a single lorry or van driver in the last week use an indicator while sitting at a road junction waiting to turn out into a main road – kind of limits my choices down to sitting behind said vehicle inhaling its fumes. However, the greater responsibility lies with the person controlling the thing with the biggest risk of causing death or accident – for example parents have a responsibility to stop their children getting too close to dangerous dogs but if dangerous dogs attacking children becomes a problem it is the dangerous dog that has to be tackled (not that I’m likening HGV drivers to dangerous dogs, or cyclists to children for that matter).

Eau Rougue – I’m sure most lorry drivers are fully aware that they drive big vehicles and don’t go out to intentionally endanger others (apart from the guys in the films Duel and Jeepers Creepers!) – but like all of us it is easy to get complacent and to forget the perspective of others – that is why employers in inherently dangerous industries have to continually reinforce H&S messages. How many people would fail a driving test today if they had to re-sit it because they’ve got into bad habits (no mirror – signal - manoeuvre, crossing arms when turning, etc).

I presume that retro fitting seat belts in old cars is difficult due to design problems (suitably strong anchor points for example). I’d be intrigued to know what design problems make it “near impossible” to stick a few mirrors on windows.

Eau Rouge

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

That said, I’ve not seen a single lorry or van driver in the last week use an indicator while sitting at a road junction waiting to turn out into a main road – kind of limits my choices down to sitting behind said vehicle inhaling its fumes.

It's fumes are coming out way in front of the back of the trailer, up by the tractor unit. It's not a car, remember. I drive a BMW, so naturally I ignore indicators and don't expect others to use them either, much safer that way

We should pop over to TruckRadar.com, maybe there already are threads about customs people handing out leaflets at Dover to remind drivers to look for cyclists?

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

I presume that retro fitting seat belts in old cars is difficult due to design problems (suitably strong anchor points for example). I’d be intrigued to know what design problems make it “near impossible” to stick a few mirrors on windows.

It's usually a logistics/regulation problem, not a design one, as far as I understand.

Headhuunter

Dammit, I live in Lewisham (borough) and missed out on a free dayglo rucksack cover...

don_don

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

However, the greater responsibility lies with the person controlling the thing with the biggest risk of causing death or accident

Seems logical, but I think in practise this is not always the case.

If an HGV driver stops at a junction waiting to turn left and the space immediately to his/her left is clear, then he/she can only make a judgment based on the information he/she has at that time.

We already know that some HGVs have a large blind spot to the left of the cab (hence the introduction of the fresnel mirrors), so it seems reasonable to assume that a cyclist could enter this blind spot without being seen by the driver. If this wasn't reasonable, then surely there would have been a lot more prosecutions regarding cyclists who have been killed or injured by left-turning lorries?

If a cyclist moves in to this blind spot by their own volition, who has created the risk - the cyclist or the HGV driver?

I don't want to start the legal arguments again because I have no experience in that area. However, I still believe that the cyclist is equally responsible for their own safety when it comes to making their own decisions.

Again, like Coriander said, this doesn't necessarily include the situations where an HGV cuts up a cyclist while overtaking.

Oddly, I now sound like I am saying that drivers of vehicles don't bear the greater responsibilty towards more vulnerable road-users - ie. what Chingford is saying I think :?

I don't think I mean that! I mean that you can't excuse the cyclist from responsibility if they choose to undertake an HGV...

If you know what I mean!

lost_in_thought

Coriander wrote:

don_don wrote:

We could go back over the 'remove HGVs from town centres' argument, but that might be missing the point. As far as I am concerned, a cyclist has as much responsibility for their own safety as the driver of an HGV. So, by educating cyclists in this way, they can take more responsibility for themselves. By educating HGV drivers, they can be made more aware of the danger their vehicles pose to more vulnerable road-users. And, by enforcing the use of fresnel mirrors, those drivers are put in a position where they are more able to contribute to cyclist's safety than before.

Isn't that a positive thing?

A voice of reason at last. I do agree quite vehemently with you DD. If a cyclist takes responsbility for his own safety and doesn't go down the side of an HGV then it's going to be harder for the vehicle, no matter how good or bad the sight lines of the driver are, to crush him.

And before anyone says anything, I am only talking about incidents where cyclists go down the inside of an HGV. Obviously an HGV overtaking and then turning immediately in front of a cyclist is an entirely different matter.

+several.

Government legislation shouldn't have to protect people who are unwilling to protect themselves.

The Chingford Skinhead

don_don wrote:

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

However, the greater responsibility lies with the person controlling the thing with the biggest risk of causing death or accident

Seems logical, but I think in practise this is not always the case.

If an HGV driver stops at a junction waiting to turn left and the space immediately to his/her left is clear, then he/she can only make a judgment based on the information he/she has at that time.

We already know that some HGVs have a large blind spot to the left of the cab (hence the introduction of the fresnel mirrors), so it seems reasonable to assume that a cyclist could enter this blind spot without being seen by the driver. If this wasn't reasonable, then surely there would have been a lot more prosecutions regarding cyclists who have been killed or injured by left-turning lorries?

If a cyclist moves in to this blind spot by their own volition, who has created the risk - the cyclist or the HGV driver?

I don't want to start the legal arguments again because I have no experience in that area. However, I still believe that the cyclist is equally responsible for their own safety when it comes to making their own decisions.

Again, like Coriander said, this doesn't necessarily include the situations where an HGV cuts up a cyclist while overtaking.

Oddly, I now sound like I am saying that drivers of vehicles don't bear the greater responsibilty towards more vulnerable road-users - ie. what Chingford is saying I think :?

I don't think I mean that! I mean that you can't excuse the cyclist from responsibility if they choose to undertake an HGV...

If you know what I mean!

Yes, I know what you mean Don . And I agree, if a cyclist undertakes any large vehicle by a junction then they are responsible for taking the foolish risk. Back to my child - dangerous dog analogy, it isn't the dog's fault if the child climbs over the fence, unlocks the cage and then crawls in with a sharp stick with which to poke the dog

I'm all in favour of raising awareness of those risks - I was just trying to say in my earlier post that a lot of accidents seem to be caused by lorries passing cyclists and then turning across them - the driver (like lots of car drivers - may simply have got the judgement wrong on how fast the cyclist is moving and thought they had time. The fact that the inherent design of the lorry means that they can't see the cyclist is what concerns me.

pintoo

In general, awareness for all road users is sadly lacking. This sounds like a good scheme, but I'd like to see something a little more widespread.

When large vehicles - HGVs, buses, whatever, turn a corner, they HAVE to run wide. Some road users try to squeeze through the inside gap because they don't know this basic law of physics. Anyone on two wheels is of course more vulnerable in that position and just shouldn't be there. However, it is only motorcyclists who are taught this as part of their training. Not scooterists and we know that cyclists' training is totally voluntary.

I am not for banning things; more education all round. Cyclists owe it to ourselves to take care before yelling at other road users (I know that's not been the thrust of this thread).

But London cabbies...! Bastards.

AndyManc

don_don wrote:

If a cyclist moves in to this blind spot by their own volition, who has created the risk - the cyclist or the HGV driver?

Cyclists come in all ages, experience, maturity.

Humans also make judgement errors, as seen by the number of fatalities following accidents between cyclists and large vehicles.

If the problem can be addressed by legislation and/or design (road layout/vehicle design) then it should be.

Of course there's the further argument about who should receive preferential consideration in our local communities when if comes to the implementation of road infrastructure, at present it's motor vehicles, when clearly it shouldn't be.



.

flamite

stopped by police the morning while on the pavement, not on bike but off it with one foot on pedal pushing myself along.... petty or what!

what is the definition of "riding".....