Nasty accident in Bristol

TheBrogueadier

Never a pleasant junction, and I realise how much dread the phrase 'Life changing injuries' instils in me.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html

attica

nasty

fingers crossed that the early prognosis is wrong.

gert_lush

Oh no, thats bad, lets hope they are ok

nicktheluddite

and the comment posters kick off the playground arguments which won't change anyone's minds, just raise hackles.

sarajoy

Poor woman.

Some bloke in the comments reckons he saw the whole thing, and she squeezed into the space where the lorry was turning.

Can lorries not be fitted with one more mirror on the passenger-side, allowing the cab to see down the left side of the vehicle? Surely it can't be that hard?

She may (or may not) have done a stupid thing, but everyone makes a bad decision once in a while, I'm sure everyone's taken a deep breath after either avoiding a mess due to someone else's stupidity or thanking the Lord that someone else avoided suffering from their own daft mistake.

A rational comment left after the article (was it one of you?):
"It's an indictment of our roads - and some people that use them - that someone suffering severe injuries can generate such bile and cruelty. I guess to some people cyclists are legitimate targets. I'm a road user as a pedestrian, driver, cyclist and public transport user. It doesn't matter how you travel, we're all people, and we all need to respect each others' right to be there. This isn't about pavement cycling or red light jumping or 'not paying road tax' (there's no such thing). It's not censorship as someone suggests. It's about treating other people with some sense of dignity and humanity."

steve_l

I came by about 35 minutes after the accident, took some photos which are up on the Bristol Traffic site
set1 : http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2009/12/life-changing-injuries-on-cotham-hill.html
set2 : http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-cotham-hillwhiteladies-road.html
At the roadside, people were saying broken leg, but it now sounds worse. I hope it isn't that bad; "life changing" implies wheelchairs and things, things that don't get better. Ever.

baronsouthside

Just checked out the pictures.

Looks like the lorry would have been hanging out wide only to swing back in to get the angle for the turn. Because of this, She probably never even showed up in the drivers mirrors. The poor lady maybe misread the lorries intentions thinking he was going straight on. I do hope she recovers.

One thing the photos do show is how vunerable we all are on bikes when you see the size of the cab and the size of bike.

Stay safe everyone.

glenncampbell

Crikey - pictures like that aren't nice.... Hope she gets much better soon and that her injuries aren't too serious - doesn't sound good though.

downfader

Dear Christ, Ala and Moses what the HELL is up with some of the commenters on that site..? :shock: :roll:

I have heard of similar accidents where the leg has to be amputated. I'm guessing, and its only a guess, that the poor woman might face this possibility.

If it is an undertaking error its a rookie mistake that can cost you dearly, but those new to cycling who face the chance of doing this probably dont read the cycling press, probably dont come on forums like this... so how do you reach out to them and help educate them? For the past year I have been of the notion that if I see someone do it I will politely mention the risks. :?

steve_l

what the HELL is up with some of the commenters on that site..?

The Bristol Evening Post is a regional outpost of the Daily Mail. In any RTC involving pedestrians, you will find the same "Blame the victim" mindset. Indeed, most traffic articles are fairly controversial. Those people that do have the time and motivation to comment on the paper's articles, clearly hate bicycles and pedestrians. Are they representative of the city's drivers? Who knows

downfader

steve_l wrote:

what the HELL is up with some of the commenters on that site..?

The Bristol Evening Post is a regional outpost of the Daily Mail. In any RTC involving pedestrians, you will find the same "Blame the victim" mindset. Indeed, most traffic articles are fairly controversial. Those people that do have the time and motivation to comment on the paper's articles, clearly hate bicycles and pedestrians. Are they representative of the city's drivers? Who knows

Ahh yes, the old Daily Mail. I find that newspaper both humerous and idiotic in its credulity.

I find myself on the TIBristol site quite a bit (and your blog too) as I'm interested in the development of the cycling city scheme and how it might fair elsewhere. I found myself quite in shock at some of the comments (this is rare) - some were perhaps bordering on slander at times. The paper needs to be careful what it allows through or else families of RTC victims or drivers involved may end up oneday suiing them. :?

dugga

I emailed the BEP earlier this afternoon asking that comments be closed or disabled given that many of the posts were in such poor taste. Other than an automatic acknowledgement I've heard no further. The comments are largely unmoderated and as the above poster notes, any article involving traffic tends to be filled with spit flecked anti-bike / pro-car invective. I assume that as with all newspaper websites today it's about click thrus and unique users to bump up figures and ad revenue.

I hope the cyclist makes a speedy recovery.

dugga

[double post]

downfader

dugga wrote:

I emailed the BEP earlier this afternoon asking that comments be closed or disabled given that many of the posts were in such poor taste. Other than an automatic acknowledgement I've heard no further. The comments are largely unmoderated and as the above poster notes, any article involving traffic tends to be filled with spit flecked anti-bike / pro-car invective. I assume that as with all newspaper websites today it's about click thrus and unique users to bump up figures and ad revenue.

I hope the cyclist makes a speedy recovery.

We had the same issue for a while on my local paper's website. Had a good chat via email with the webteam guy and he just said that if I felt something was a bit off to flag it and they'd take a look.

A few pages of news ended up with comments having to be removed iirc.

snailracer

Lorries can install ultrasonic proximity warning systems, like I have in the back bumper of my car. Not rocket science, but the operators just can't be arsed

redvee

sarajoy wrote:

Can lorries not be fitted with one more mirror on the passenger-side, allowing the cab to see down the left side of the vehicle? Surely it can't be that hard?

Various attempts have been made to solve this problem like mirrors that turn with the motion of the lorry in a turn. Once an articulated turns and the trailer/cab deviate from the straight ahead position, the efficiency of the mirrors reduces. In this incident all the driver qwould see in his nearside mirror would be the side of the trailer and in the offside mirror he would see fresh air.

Hope the cyclist recovers soon.

The Rookie

snailracer wrote:

Lorries can install ultrasonic proximity warning systems, like I have in the back bumper of my car. Not rocket science, but the operators just can't be arsed

Of course and driving through town street like that they would be going off all the time so would be no use at all....your reverse sensors only come on when in reverse for a reason, they would drive you mad otherwise!

Engage brain before typing finger!

Simon

jedster

horrible. just horrible.

I'm not sure there is a really good technology solution to this kind of problem.

snailracer

The Beginner wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Lorries can install ultrasonic proximity warning systems, like I have in the back bumper of my car. Not rocket science, but the operators just can't be arsed

Of course and driving through town street like that they would be going off all the time so would be no use at all....your reverse sensors only come on when in reverse for a reason, they would drive you mad otherwise!

Engage brain before typing finger!

Simon

ORLY?

"Building materials group CEMEX has been recognised for its Cycling Safety Initiative to reduce accidents involving lorries and cyclists in the Construction Products Association's 2009 edition of Construction Products Innovation and Achievement.

CEMEX research found that there is a particular danger at road junctions where cyclists are on the nearside of large vehicles turning left. As a result, the company introduced the following features on its trucks, to improve driver visibility and safety for cyclists:

•A new mirror (fish / frog eye) to improve visibility to the near side (blind spot) and front of the vehicle
•A cyclist warning sign to the nearside rear of all of our vehicles, warning of the dangers of undertaking Large Goods Vehicles (LGV)
•A proximity sensor 'side-scan' system on all new vehicles to warn the driver if anything is in the danger zone to the left side of the vehicle.
•Side under-run bars on tippers, as extra protection for cyclists and other vulnerable road users."

source: http://www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net ... sp?id=6247

kingmho

The Beginner wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Lorries can install ultrasonic proximity warning systems, like I have in the back bumper of my car. Not rocket science, but the operators just can't be arsed

Of course and driving through town street like that they would be going off all the time so would be no use at all....your reverse sensors only come on when in reverse for a reason, they would drive you mad otherwise!

Engage brain before typing finger!

Simon

Perhaps the system only turns on when the lorry is moving below, say, 15mph? Any faster and the lorry presumably isn't about to make a sharp left turn.

snailracer

kingmho wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Lorries can install ultrasonic proximity warning systems, like I have in the back bumper of my car. Not rocket science, but the operators just can't be arsed

Of course and driving through town street like that they would be going off all the time so would be no use at all....your reverse sensors only come on when in reverse for a reason, they would drive you mad otherwise!

Engage brain before typing finger!

Simon

Perhaps the system only turns on when the lorry is moving below, say, 15mph? Any faster and the lorry presumably isn't about to make a sharp left turn.

Anticipating a sharp left turn isn't rocket science, either. After all, even a self-cancelling indicator stalk knows how far the steering wheel is off-centre.

davmaggs

this isn't a comment on this case, more some insight into how lorries actually work. If you've bought anything, eaten anything or drunk anything in a pub then a truck was used to get it to you.

In many town centres the width of the lorry means that it runs very close to pavements or parked cars so any such alarm would have severe limitations. I suspect that sensory overload would soon kick in and it would no longer be effective. That truck does have a downward facing mirror, but all the angles can't be covered. In addition the driver is constantly flicking his vision to each mirror, the front to recheck the road, and so on very rapidly to cover it all and a small object moving swifty can easily be in a blind spot.

When turning lorry drivers are taught not only to indicate, but also to "steal the lane" (e.g. block it) because people will do just about anything to get into that free space no matter how many yellow lights you have flashing to say that you are turning, and you need to try and save people from themselves.

Road users don't seem to appreciate at all that a large vehicle can crush them without even hearing it. They just see a space and go for it. However the flaw in trying to protect people by lane blocking is that bikes are by their nature nimble and make it around the edges.

I agree that technical measures should be used (signs on the back seem extremely logical), but I think we'd still see deaths. Safety can't just be down to the driver of an individual vehicle, but is also the responsbility of the other users interacting with them.

again, not a comment on this sad case.

snailracer

davmaggs wrote:

...
In many town centres the width of the lorry means that it runs very close to pavements or parked cars so any such alarm would have severe limitations. I suspect that sensory overload would soon kick in and it would no longer be effective.
...

My car's proximity warning system can tell a moving object from a stationary object, even when I am reversing - just don't ask me HOW it knows.

davmaggs

My car's proximity warning system can tell a moving object from a stationary object, even when I am reversing - just don't ask me HOW it knows.

I don't know how it works either, but I suspect it is sending a signal to a fixed object like a parked car and does some maths to work out stuff. It probably turns off when you go above a certain speed rather than using maths to analyse every object only to find out that you are zipping along at 70mph and the cars behind you aren't stationary. As bicycles are moving all the time the parking sensor isn't the best example.

A truck going at 10mph is going to be passing static objects like lamp posts and cars, but also moving objects like pedestrians or vehicles in other lanes. How would it know what was what? I suspect that the Cemix system focuses on a narrow area and other checks (like steering being used) to limit false warnings.

Anyone else know?

snailracer

davmaggs wrote:

My car's proximity warning system can tell a moving object from a stationary object, even when I am reversing - just don't ask me HOW it knows.

I don't know how it works either, but I suspect it is sending a signal to a fixed object like a parked car and does some maths to work out stuff. It probably turns off when you go above a certain speed rather than using maths to analyse every object only to find out that you are zipping along at 70mph and the cars behind you aren't stationary. As bicycles are moving all the time the parking sensor isn't the best example.

A truck going at 10mph is going to be passing static objects like lamp posts and cars, but also moving objects like pedestrians or vehicles in other lanes. How would it know what was what? I suspect that the Cemix system focuses on a narrow area and other checks (like steering being used) to limit false warnings.

Anyone else know?

I just asked my electronics engineer mate...
The sensors send out a pulse of ultrasound and measure how long it takes for the first echo to come back - the time taken is an accurate measure of the distance to the nearest object. A buzzer will sound if something is closer than a set minimum distance. Any later echoes are ignored, so anything further away is ignored - good background rejection. The system doesn't even measure the volume of the echoes, but a threshold is set so it doesn't get a false trigger from leaves, dust, crisp packets, etc.
Successive pulses are measured to estimate if the object is moving towards or away from the sensor. If something is approaching fast, the system sets off the warning buzzer early, even if it might be a bit further away than the minimum stationary distance. There is very accurate control over what the trigger distances are and what the approach speeds need to be to set off the alarm.
Given this explanation it seems that you just set the alarm distance to, say, 18 inches, and I can't think of a good reason why the sensor shouldn't beep when something gets closer. By the sounds of it, background clutter just isn't an issue, only the nearest object is detected.
Well, I hope I explained it clearly.