Preventing lorry vs. bike collisions

vertical

Hello everyone.

I've been lurking around the BikeRadar forums for the past year or so, but this is my first contribution...

Unfortunately this post has been prompted by the continuing death toll from lorry vs. bike collisions. Without judging any individual case, it seems that there are two ways in which such incidents might be avoided:

* Educate lorry drivers / cyclists as to the dangers and how to avoid them. *Actively make lorry drivers more aware of the proximity of cyclists.

So I was thinking, what if there could be an audible alarm in the cab of a lorry to warn the driver of a cyclist near their vehicle?

I've been wondering whether this could be achieved RFID based scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID).

Cycles would be fitted with passive RFID tags (similar to those used for timing chips in races). Lorries would be fitted with RFID detectors connected to an alarm in the cab. Aerials would be fitted to the front / sides of the lorry to detect nearby cyclists. It seems that passive RFID allows for ranges tuneable up to 10m, which should be more than enough.

Obviously the idea would only work if bikes had the tags and lorries had the detectors.

Passive tags are very cheap (single-digit cents) so sticky ones could be distributed to cyclists or they could be integrated into accessories. Detectors seem to cost a few dollars so hopefully an integrated system (detector / aerials / alarm) fitted to large vehicles wouldn't come in prohibitively expensive, especially if there could be some kind of incentive for hauliers to fit them.

Anyone care to chip in with comments - e.g. whether a proximity alarm is even a good idea in the first place, the likelihood of getting adoption if it were? I'm quite happy to be told it's a stupid idea.

Anyone with more knowledge about RFID care to comment on the technical feasibility of such a system?

Anyone with any better / more workable ideas?

Thanks!

holybinch

I think the idea is good, but it will never be adopted:
Let's imagine it would, lorry driver drives in London, thing keeps on beeping every 5 secs.
Lorry driver either end up ignoring it or ends up disabling it.

Mind you, it could help make them more liable...

il_principe

vertical wrote:

Hello everyone.

I've been lurking around the BikeRadar forums for the past year or so, but this is my first contribution...

Unfortunately this post has been prompted by the continuing death toll from lorry vs. bike collisions. Without judging any individual case, it seems that there are two ways in which such incidents might be avoided:

* Educate lorry drivers / cyclists as to the dangers and how to avoid them. *Actively make lorry drivers more aware of the proximity of cyclists.

So I was thinking, what if there could be an audible alarm in the cab of a lorry to warn the driver of a cyclist near their vehicle?

I've been wondering whether this could be achieved RFID based scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID).

Thanks!

Some lorries are already fitted with warning systems - supposedly the Keltbray fleet is:

14 May 2009

Keltbray has implemented a range of measures to provide a high level of safety for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
According to the Department for Transport, more than half of all cyclist deaths in London are caused by collisions with goods vehicles due to the nearside blind spot. Keltbray has adopted a range of safety measures to combat this problem including joining the Freight Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) and fitting a range of Brigade Electronics safety devices.

Keltbray’s Haulage Operations Director, Adrian Scott said: “We do everything over and above what is required of us to ensure a high level of safety, and to give our drivers and members of the public the opportunity to be safe.”

Keltbray control a fleet of 32 tipper lorries, taking waste to be recycled or restored, or to specialist landfill sites. Each tipper weighs around 32 tonnes, and the length and height of each tipper creates huge blind spots, particularly to the rear and nearside.
Keltbray fitted Brigade’s Sidescan movement sensors to its entire fleet of tipper lorries to detect anyone in the nearside blind spot, warning them when a vehicle is about to turn, whilst also warning the driver.

The four sensors were fitted along the bottom of the cab to the nearside, with a Backchat speaker (audible warning system) fitted behind the cab. The sensors are linked to the left indicator, providing a visual and audible warning to alert the driver when anything is in the danger zone, and a spoken message warning pedestrians and cyclists that the vehicle is about to turn left. The dual function sensors alert both parties to the dangers, allowing them to exercise appropriate precautions.

Mr Scott said: “Since Sidescan has been fitted by Brigade, we are confident that we are achieving a very high standard of health and safety on public highways both for Keltbray and other road users. Sidescan is a superb system and hopefully it will be taken up by a lot more haulage companies.”

Source

OldSkoolKona

Some lorries currently have a system similar to what you describe, along with additional mirrors.

However, the problem is many lorry companies who either don't install such devices, don't maintain them, or override them. You can put in lots of safety systems, but it is behaviours that utimately have to change.

By rights, in the case of the first fatality yesterday, the lorry was on a road that the route management plan for the construction work at the Shard should not have allowed them on. There had been complaints from locals about this, but nothing was done. The behaviour was to ignore the 'safety system' of a route management plan for the lorries.

Agree with you on driver education - again a lot of companies do this. Unfortunately, many of the smaller outfits don't invest in this sort of safety initiative and they are often the ones involved in incidents.

holybinch

Which brings us to the usual: As long as you don't hit them hard enough on the wallet, they won't understand.
It's about risk mitigation I'd think. Even if you have very small chances of an accident happening, but in case of an accident the company's boss is legally liable and sentences are quite high, they might think twice...

deptfordmarmoset

It's been a deeply distressing couple of days, hasn't it?

There's a clip on the ''cycling safety'' section of this BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/p ... 201618.stm. The lorry bit come in at 1:49 into the clip. £400 for a proximity system with no need to tag cyclists.

I'm also very interested to see how the so-called ''trixie'' mirrors work out. They're low-tech and put some driver accountability into knowing what is in their sweep path.

il_principe

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

It's been a deeply distressing couple of days, hasn't it?

Yes. I've been trying to get the missus back on the bike - she's not ridden since I got hit. The last 2 days have put her right off, esp as one was so close to the office.

RIP.

vertical

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I'm also very interested to see how the so-called ''trixie'' mirrors work out. They're low-tech and put some driver accountability into knowing what is in their sweep path.

Better mirrors are great, but even with the best will in the world a driver can't be looking where they're going and looking at all their mirrors all the time. So to my mind something a bit more active would be a useful addition.

These £400 proximity sensors... Anyone know if the haulage companies get insurance discounts for fitting them?

londonbairn

Without citing any specific accidents or taking away from these sad tradegies, are they the result of the cyclist being on the side of the lorry, and the lorry turning?

Surely one of the most effective is for cyclists to be more aware and sit behind in these instances. If I see a huge monster truck or what not in traffic, there is no way I will try and pass it or sit next to it. Seeing a cyclist recently pass a lorry about to turn on the left at Holborn shocked me, luckily the lorry saw her, I gave her a huge earful as it was stupid and careless.

that of course assuming an accident was caused as the result of a cyclist staying at the side of the lorry..

W1

Without wanting to even give the impression that this is what has happened in the recent accidents, the number of bikes I see just scooting up the inside of lorries (or awaiting along side them) is astounding. I think that just as much as we need truckers to look out for us, we need to make that as easy for them to do as possible. Maybe more of those events where cyclists can sit in a truck cab and see what's happening would be good?

I think that in some cases (of course not all) it evidently takes two to tango.

londonbairn

W1 wrote:

Without wanting to even give the impression that this is what has happened in the recent accidents, the number of bikes I see just scooting up the inside of lorries (or awaiting along side them) is astounding. I think that just as much as we need truckers to look out for us, we need to make that as easy for them to do as possible. Maybe more of those events where cyclists can sit in a truck cab and see what's happening would be good?

I think that in some cases (of course not all) it evidently takes two to tango.

exactly, more or less what I just posted too

roger_merriman

It has been a gruesome few days, but numbers are very low. It makes news unlike other deaths.

But in no way does it make cycling dangerous. Nothing is with out risk and such low numbers over such a big city seems very good odds to me.

amnezia

Anyone that wants apply to the cycle to work scheme should have to attend a mandatory road safety session in order to qualify.

pastryboy

W1 wrote:

Without wanting to even give the impression that this is what has happened in the recent accidents, the number of bikes I see just scooting up the inside of lorries (or awaiting along side them) is astounding. I think that just as much as we need truckers to look out for us, we need to make that as easy for them to do as possible. Maybe more of those events where cyclists can sit in a truck cab and see what's happening would be good?

I think that in some cases (of course not all) it evidently takes two to tango.

Indeed - a few lorries I've seen say 'if you can't see me then I can't see you' written on them.

Common sense is to stay the hell away from lorries if there's any chance they're about to turn - the drivers are just too high up to see a cyclist unless they're well in front.

amnezia

pastryboy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Without wanting to even give the impression that this is what has happened in the recent accidents, the number of bikes I see just scooting up the inside of lorries (or awaiting along side them) is astounding. I think that just as much as we need truckers to look out for us, we need to make that as easy for them to do as possible. Maybe more of those events where cyclists can sit in a truck cab and see what's happening would be good?

I think that in some cases (of course not all) it evidently takes two to tango.

Indeed - a few lorries I've seen say 'if you can't see me then I can't see you' written on them.

Common sense is to stay the hell away from lorries if there's any chance they're about to turn - the drivers are just too high up to see a cyclist unless they're well in front.

Some of the lorrys in london have audible alarms saying something along the line of 'This vechicle is turning left', i've watched people undertake while the alarm is sounding.

Tonymufc

Let me just point something out here. A truck has many blind spots. I've had cars that have been on the inside of me and I've not been able to see them, so what chance do think a 10 stone cyclist has. The key here as someone has already pointed out, is education, on both sides.

nwallace

pastryboy wrote:

Indeed - a few lorries I've seen say 'if you can't see me then I can't see you' written on them.

Common sense is to stay the hell away from lorries if there's any chance they're about to turn - the drivers are just too high up to see a cyclist unless they're well in front.

Seen some with "Dinnae Undertake" stickers on the near side rear as well.

Being on the offside of a lorry going into a circle in a car is uncomfortable enough.
Have had the driver of the car behind going nuts at me for holding back from a circle where I know anything longer than a car has no choice but to use both "lanes"

lost_in_thought

amnezia wrote:

Anyone that wants apply to the cycle to work scheme should have to attend a mandatory road safety session in order to qualify.

See, I think that's a really good idea. Those of us who know what we're doing may learn something, and it won't be a big hassle, and it may save lives.

OldSkoolKona

lost_in_thought wrote:

amnezia wrote:

Anyone that wants apply to the cycle to work scheme should have to attend a mandatory road safety session in order to qualify.

See, I think that's a really good idea. Those of us who know what we're doing may learn something, and it won't be a big hassle, and it may save lives.

I got Mrs OSK to do the two hours advanced level cycle training provided for free when you work in the City of London (provided by CTUK) when she got her new bike on Cycle to Work. She really rated it and learned a lot from it.

But it works on both sides, there is some horrific driving out there and there are fatalities (e.g. Eildh Cairns being a good example) where filtering up the side was not a factor)

Therefore, please lets not jump to conclusions in either direction. The one thing that is clear, in the first incident, the lorry was on a road it was not supposed to be on according to the procedures of the construction site.

CiB

I may be an old pessimist but forcing would-be cyclists to take a course before being allowed access to the C2W thing would more than likely act as a barrier to uptake.

A much simpler approach would be for new cycles to be supplied with big warning packs that clearly and unambiguously spell out the potential for death & serious injury caused by passing large vehicles. By the time the cyclist reads it he / she has already paid for the bike and got it home.

Similar notices supplied with the purchase of a cycle helmet spelling out that a helmet offers only limited protection, with more graphic descriptions / explanations of the consequences of passing large vehicles on the inside, would probably get the message across more directly.

il_principe

lost_in_thought wrote:

amnezia wrote:

Anyone that wants apply to the cycle to work scheme should have to attend a mandatory road safety session in order to qualify.

See, I think that's a really good idea. Those of us who know what we're doing may learn something, and it won't be a big hassle, and it may save lives.

Whereas I think it might just put people off. I seriously think that more should be done to discourage people from driving in Central London. So limit the hours HGV's are allowed to be on the roads. Also hike the CC massively and link it to earnings - the more you earn the more you pay. At the moment it's hugely weighted in favour of mr fat cat who can happily cruise to work in his 7 Series. All this money could then be ploughed back into PT (assuming of course that tfl can find contractors to work with who can actually do their f*cking job, as oppose to taking our money and then taking the p1ss).

Of course this will never happen.

lost_in_thought

I see your point CiB, but I think that big old warning packs are more likely to put off a new cyclist than a bit of training. They don't provide a balanced view, and (if people actually read them) are likely to scare people away from cycling, which, as we all know, isn't inherently that dangerous.

I do think anyone starting to cycle in a city, well, certainly in London, would be happy to take up a couple of hours of lessons, a good number of friends have bought a bike with the intention of cycling and never started because of nervousness about how to cope with the traffic etc.

And OSK, of course, you're right, but it can't do any harm.

EDIT: IP, the last line of your post is spot on.

navt

What baffles me is why such vehicles are allowed on the roads in the first place? Lorries have an inherent design fault. They are designed to suck up cyclist and spit them out. Yes they're big, but so are buses.

Quite simply, if the design of a vehicle does not allow it to be driven safely around other road users, it should never be permitted on the roads.

If needs require, then restrict access between the hours of midnight and daybreak. Live with it.

One can only dream.

CiB

Lit - my point was that the warnings etc would be included in the gumff that comes with the bike, the stuff that you don't see until you've got the thing home. Warnings don't need to be written in the language of 'You're all going to die' - it needs to be informative, concise and clear to make the point that it's easy to put yourself in danger, and just as easy to keep out of it, as long as you have an awareness of what constitutes danger.

For many people the point of sale contact when buying a bike and / or helmet is the only opportunity to get this information across. Asking or expecting the great unwashed to do something over & above for no perceived benefit means that it tends not to happen.


None of this prejudges the causes or outcomes of this latest batch of fatalities.

W1

Any sort of restriction on cars (or lorries, which would just put up costs/prices for everyone) on the basis of cyclists' safety will just add more weight to the Daily Mail hand-wringers. As I've said before, anything that drives a wedge between various road users perpetuates a "them and us" sentiment which is not in the interests of anyone. The safest roads are where everyone looks out for eachother. Frankly I don't agree that we need to restrict traffic - in fact I think that would simply increase the road speed of the cars that are driving around us, whereas I prefer it when I can match the speed of the traffic and ride "within" the cars, rather than being an obstruction.

I'd support C2W training - in fact, I'd do it myself even without buying a C2W bike if my employer offered it. I do feel - strongly - that the weakest point of the chain here is education of cyclists. I base this on the daily evidence I see of cyclists doing stupid things around trucks, rather than vice versa (though I absolutely accept that lorries do somethimes do stupid things around cyclists).

lost_in_thought

CiB wrote:

Lit - my point was that the warnings etc would be included in the gumff that comes with the bike, the stuff that you don't see until you've got the thing home. Warnings don't need to be written in the language of 'You're all going to die' - it needs to be informative, concise and clear to make the point that it's easy to put yourself in danger, and just as easy to keep out of it, as long as you have an awareness of what constitutes danger.

For many people the point of sale contact when buying a bike and / or helmet is the only opportunity to get this information across. Asking or expecting the great unwashed to do something over & above for no perceived benefit means that it tends not to happen.


None of this prejudges the causes or outcomes of this latest batch of fatalities.

Sorry, should have been clearer, yes I got that.

For one, most people are likely to just chuck that stuff out, but the ones who sit down and read it are the cautious types anyway. I know 3 people (my current housemates) who have bought bikes on cyclescheme or C2W, and decided after getting the bike, helmet and everything home that in fact it is too scary. They're the people I think would be very put off by a set of warnings about how cycling may result in impending doom.

And I really don't think it would be such a hurdle to do an hour's course - if a company is starting a C2W scheme they could offer it to all their employees, before handing out the vouchers or something.

CiB

lost_in_thought wrote:

For one, most people are likely to just chuck that stuff out, but the ones who sit down and read it are the cautious types anyway. I know 3 people (my current housemates) who have bought bikes on cyclescheme or C2W, and decided after getting the bike, helmet and everything home that in fact it is too scary. They're the people I think would be very put off by a set of warnings about how cycling may result in impending doom.

Oh. I'm really surprised at that TBH, but then it shouldn't be any surprise at all. If people do take that approach - buy all the kit, give it a go and then decide not for me thanks, then that negates my suggestions.

A mandatory course sounds good. I'd support it. <discards old pessimist's hat.> It still misses out on the large number of cyclists who don't buy through C2W though.

davmaggs

I don't think that any course for cycling should be mandatory. It'll just be a burden on cyclists and a nice earner for the safety lobby. If you look at the theory test for driving LGVs it is mostly a waste of time and the price goes up and up as its a monopoly. The last thing cycling needs is government regulation.

As for the idea that lorries shouldn't be on the road at all is madness. If you live in a building, buy stuff online, wear clothes, or eat, then that stuff came using trucks. In fact the bike you use came by truck.

zanes

Thing is, we can all sit round and discuss ever cleverer ways of alerting lorry drivers/restricting them/training them but I think simple education of cyclists ((turning) lorries = DANGER) would go a long way. I've watched people on bikes under take lorries indicating left, follow them to uni and point out what they did and get met with a shrug and a "oh, what could have happened??" look. These people just don't (for whatever reason) realise that a truck can do real harm to a cyclist in other ways than a simple head on collision.

I wonder how many incidents could be prevented by cyclists staying the hell away from trucks that are signalling/manouvering (although in london etc I guess this might be difficult). Obviously this wouldn't stop the "lorry up the backside" problems, but I'm not sure there's any statistics on what the lorry was doing when it struck a cyclist.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

Also hike the CC massively and link it to earnings - the more you earn the more you pay. At the moment it's hugely weighted in favour of mr fat cat who can happily cruise to work in his 7 Series.

F*ck off, commie.

If you like Russia so much, why don't you move to Moscow, etc, etc.


[In fairness, the point IP makes underlines why the congestion charge is not remotely about reducing congestion, but is all about raising revenue. If you want to reduce congestion, either (a) ban cars, or (b) set the CC at some outrageous level like £250 per day. Presto: instant and long lasting reduction in congestion. If, OTOH, you want to make money, set it at a level which most people can afford to pay regularly, even if they begrudge having to do so. Presto: instant income stream.

Canny Jock

Much as it would be nice to see lorries off central city roads, I just can't see it happening - think of all the construction going on which requires them, and the money associated with city centre developments. These are often 'flagship' offices and development which have local government and big business backing. I can't even see them being time limited, it would be a huge vote loser for government/mayor etc. I think there should though certainly be a continuation of the moves to reduce traffic in general, with a focus on improving the alternatives such as cycling and public transport.

There is no single simple solution which will fix this, but quite a few of the suggestions above could be implemented to varying degrees without a huge cost impact. Education of cyclists is a major one, although I'm not sure how you enforce this. There does need to be some sort of carrot or stick approach, maybe a government scheme to offer free cycle insurance for people who do go on training?

As a simple start, I'm a big fan of lorries having signs on the back left to warn cyclists not to filter inside them at junctions. When I first started commuting I saw a few of these and it certainly made me think.

The proximity sensor is also a good idea, and I think it could be properly enforced, in the same way that the driver time limits are. Yes it can potentially be bypassed, but the vast majority would I'm sure use it properly. Spot checks with serious fines could be used to enforce it, and if a lorry driver was involved in a collision with a cyclist and didn't have a working system, they or their employers would be automatically penalised (severely!) regardless of the circumstances.

One problem with both of the above is that it probably couldn't be applied to foreign trucks, unless it was an EU law. I don't know what powers our government or local authorities have to enforce standards to vehicles outside of their jurisdiction?

I think there needs to be more information out there for drivers and cyclists to fully understand the dangers, and in particular to explain what happened and who was at fault in each major incident so that dangerous behaviour can hopefully be reduced. Fortunately there aren't a huge volume of these so it should be possible.

I do think that advertising targeted at cyclists and drivers which shows the consequences for both would be useful - obvious that the cyclists view is on major injury or death, for drivers fines/loss of license/loss of job/jail. For this to be meaningful though I think we need to see more serious penalties properly enforced.

And of course the road planners need to look at existing and future infrastructure to provide the safest roads for all users.

Sorry for the long post but I thought it was worth getting this down.