Should it be made illegal to ride up the left of a lorry?

londonbairn

I don't even debate in my head wether to go right or left, I stay behind. It's getting worse and worse this year with cyclists barging through with no care for safety. There is too much pride that people need to extinguish as frankly who cares if you are front of the line or whatever, it only matters on the open road

I saw a guy last night which looked like a brand new Focus road bike plough through every red light, even if it was a busy junction, the bike being an extremely poor fit, squeezing through tight gaps next to indicating cars and nearly falling off a few times...he isn't the only case, I see a lot every day

I'd say the majority of incidents can be prevented if the cyclist employs a bit of common sense...

tgotb

oscarbudgie wrote:

Cyclists who filter on the left hand side of HGV's at lights are not the problem its the lorries who don't look in their mirrors or have insufficient mirrors who are the problem. I should say emphatically that I'm not advocating anyone should filter to the left of HGV's but it seems that there is a trend towards apportioning partial blame to (maybe naive or inexperienced) cyclists who are victims of HGV's. HGV drivers only have to look in their mirrors to solve this problem.

If it's the lorry drivers' fault, then you'd expect the demographic of casualties to reflect the demographic of cyclists as a whole. This is clearly not the case; IIRC something like 80% of fatalities in London last year were female, whereas my observation is that the majority of London cyclists are male. Therefore, either:
1. Some cyclists are doing something which makes them much more likely to become victims
2. The lorry drivers are looking in their mirrors and actively deciding which cyclists to run over

If we assume that the first assertion is correct, it's nonsensical to say that the cyclists don't have the ability to improve their chances of staying alive. If it's all the fault of HGV drivers, how do male cyclists manage to do such a good job of staying alive?

Banning lorries makes about as much sense as banning female cyclists.

jedster

I think the diagram above makes pretty clear that there are situations in which the driver cannot be EXPECTED to know that a cyclist is in a danger position. For example, it would be fairly easy to get from the rear blindspot tpo the nearside blindspot without the driver seeing you if he had his attention on other hazards for a couple of seconds. Simply sticking more mirrors on the truck will not avoid the problem - you cant be looking in all of them simultaneously.

That is why Oscar's comment is a load of old ballcocks

Cyclists who filter on the left hand side of HGV's at lights are not the problem its the lorries who don't look in their mirrors or have insufficient mirrors who are the problem.

Obviously they are BOTH problems.

Given that the average HGV driver is massively better trained than the average cyclist, I think it is probably fair to say that cyclists are more in need of further education.

At the risk of being repetitive, cyclsist need to recognise that they can't RELY on other people to to keep themselves safe. Whovere you believe SHOULD make the most allowances, as a cyclist you need to make sure you are not relying on others.

BTW I'm a cyclist not a truck driver.

BTW2 Soneone posted a link to a pretty good ROSPA vidshowing how cyclists can avoid truck hazards on thepreventing accidents thread.

J
J

Porgy

It's funny - most of the complete idiots on bikes - who seem to know no fear - are blokes. So does being a fearless idiot keep you alive?

Porgy

jedster wrote:

Given that the average HGV driver is massively better trained than the average cyclist, I think it is probably fair to say that cyclists are more in need of further education.

Here's your problem - better trained - better in what terms? Cycle awareness - or how to get from A to B more effeciently?

I saw soemthing on tv a few nights ago that implied significant numbers of drivers turen off their tachographs so that they can drive longer than is legal - and that this practice is often encourged by the operating companies.

I think your assumption is incorrect.

owenlars

It's amazing isn't it how some people cannot recognise that staying behind any HGV completely eliminates the risk of it running you over?

Doesn't mean you shouldn't ever filter, but know under what circumstances you can and cannot do it, what to look for, understand the path an HGV will take (back and front) when moving off and above all take responsibility for yourself.

DonDaddyD

For congestion reasons alone I think HGV's of a certain tonnage should be banned from the capital from 7am - 11am and 3pm - 6pm.

The trouble with allowing HGV's into London is that with the increasing need to meet deliveries and the ever increasing construction work going on there is a growing demand for bigger, larger, heavier lorries to carry out those deliveries and it's the big ones that are proper scary and slow traffic down.

On Tuesday I saw a lorry so big it couldn't try right up Merton road (road works on one side meant that traffic had to pass on the other side of the road and the other side was full of traffic anyway). as it turned left the passenger had to get out and direct opposing traffic to move out of the way. When the lorry finally entered the road it was carrying the biggest digging contraption I've ever seen. This was in the morning when people are in a rush to work on a major road (A24 I think - whatever one has South Wimbledon on it) going into the city.

Porgy

That guy on the Brompton wrote:

[If it's the lorry drivers' fault, then you'd expect the demographic of casualties to reflect the demographic of cyclists as a whole..

Unless there were two (or more) seperate factors at work which together led to a serious accident - one arising from cyclists' behaviour and another arising from HGV behaviour.

It's probably a far more complex set of factors than anyone here is assuming. In fact - I don't like unfounded assumptions - either study the phenomena and establish the true situation or assume everything.

rjsterry

I believe that Cycling Silk chap had something on the legal position on whether it was the responsibility of drivers to be aware of others behind them, and related to this, the whole thorny issue of contributory negligence.

With a bit of luck, the research CP was promoting will throw up something to explain the skewing of the stats towards female victims. I know we don't want to blame the victim, but being the victim does not automatically absolve you of all responsibilities.

Monkeypump

owenlars wrote:

It's amazing isn't it how some people cannot recognise that staying behind any HGV completely eliminates the risk of it running you over?

Doesn't mean you shouldn't ever filter, but know under what circumstances you can and cannot do it, what to look for, understand the path an HGV will take (back and front) when moving off and above all take responsibility for yourself.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me!

oscarbudgie

Craggers wrote:

I saw a tipper yesterday which had two car numberplates stuck on the back at eye level, one on each side.

The one on the left said 'SUICIDE'.......on the right it said 'SAFE SIDE'

Pretty cool I thought!

it's been a slow day

Not cool - basically its saying screw you and 'I'm not responsible' to anyone unwise enough to filter the wrong side.

tgotb

oscarbudgie wrote:

Not cool - basically its saying screw you and 'I'm not responsible' to anyone unwise enough to filter the wrong side.

Whereas you're basically saying that you shouldn't have to take responsibility for your own safety?If you get yourself into a dangerous situation and then have an accident it's someone else's fault?

If you go round a corner too fast in the wet, have an off and break your collar bone, whose fault is it? Are you going to sue your LBS (for selling you an unsafe tyre), the council (for having an unsafe road) or the Met Office (for having unsafe weather)?

There are too many people these days who aren't willing to take responsibility for their own actions, and it really annoys me...

We should do everything we can to give all cyclists the tools to make sensible decisions about their safety; education is the way to do this, demonising lorry drivers helps no-one.

Clever Pun

Monkeypump wrote:

owenlars wrote:

It's amazing isn't it how some people cannot recognise that staying behind any HGV completely eliminates the risk of it running you over?

Doesn't mean you shouldn't ever filter, but know under what circumstances you can and cannot do it, what to look for, understand the path an HGV will take (back and front) when moving off and above all take responsibility for yourself.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me!

the risk taking thread on lfgss MikeC swears blind on going round the offside and rlj'ing he justifies it by saying he's been fine with it and if you're behind a truck it might reverse

massive logic fail

Craggers

Craggers wrote:
I saw a tipper yesterday which had two car numberplates stuck on the back at eye level, one on each side.

The one on the left said 'SUICIDE'.......on the right it said 'SAFE SIDE'

Pretty cool I thought!

Not cool - basically its saying screw you and 'I'm not responsible' to anyone unwise enough to filter the wrong side.

So HGV's having eye catching signs on the back warning of the danger of squeezing up the inside says 'screw you, I'm not responsible if you die'? I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking old boy...

oscarbudgie

That guy on the Brompton wrote:

oscarbudgie wrote:

Not cool - basically its saying screw you and 'I'm not responsible' to anyone unwise enough to filter the wrong side.

Whereas you're basically saying that you shouldn't have to take responsibility for your own safety?If you get yourself into a dangerous situation and then have an accident it's someone else's fault?

If you go round a corner too fast in the wet, have an off and break your collar bone, whose fault is it? Are you going to sue your LBS (for selling you an unsafe tyre), the council (for having an unsafe road) or the Met Office (for having unsafe weather)?

There are too many people these days who aren't willing to take responsibility for their own actions, and it really annoys me...

We should do everything we can to give all cyclists the tools to make sensible decisions about their safety; education is the way to do this, demonising lorry drivers helps no-one.

That isn't what I'm saying at all - as well you know. I don't do it but I see it all the time and because of whats at stake (injury or death for the cyclist) it has to be the HGV drivers who carry the responsibilty because it them who do the damage

Porgy

oscarbudgie wrote:

That isn't what I'm saying at all

That should be the byline on any thread on this forum. State your opinion then watch those who disagree deliberately misinterpret what you said.

It's not funny really. :evil:

Craggers

it has to be the HGV drivers who carry the responsibilty because it them who do the damage

So what your saying is the equivalent of saying that you don't need to look when crossing the road because the driver of the car that is bearing down upon you will take responsibility for your stupidity and take the appropriate evasive measures???

I know that's not actually what you're saying of course, but surely what the HGV driver is doing is going about his daily business in his lorry and not doing anything stupid or illegal, checking his mirrors and what not, whereas a cyclist (naiive, inexperienced or otherwise) squeezing up the inside in the blind spot before the HGV driver makes his left turn IS committing a stupid act....basically if YOU do something stupid that puts YOU in danger...it's YOU that needs to take responsibility

Putting signs on the back of the HGV is helping the inexperienced (or daydreaming) cyclist to choose the right course of action.

rjsterry

oscarbudgie wrote:

That guy on the Brompton wrote:

oscarbudgie wrote:

Not cool - basically its saying screw you and 'I'm not responsible' to anyone unwise enough to filter the wrong side.

Whereas you're basically saying that you shouldn't have to take responsibility for your own safety?If you get yourself into a dangerous situation and then have an accident it's someone else's fault?

If you go round a corner too fast in the wet, have an off and break your collar bone, whose fault is it? Are you going to sue your LBS (for selling you an unsafe tyre), the council (for having an unsafe road) or the Met Office (for having unsafe weather)?

There are too many people these days who aren't willing to take responsibility for their own actions, and it really annoys me...

We should do everything we can to give all cyclists the tools to make sensible decisions about their safety; education is the way to do this, demonising lorry drivers helps no-one.

That isn't what I'm saying at all - as well you know. I don't do it but I see it all the time and because of whats at stake (injury or death for the cyclist) it has to be the HGV drivers who carry the responsibilty because it them who do the damage

On that basis, if you swerved onto the opposite side of the road into oncoming traffic and it hit you, it would be the traffic's fault. As far as I understand it, the general responsibility is always with the vehicle behind to take account of the vehicle in front's possible actions - stopping distances, only overtaking when safe to do so, and so on - and it is unreasonable to expect drivers to pay more attention to vehicles behind them than those in front. I know a cyclist will always come off worst when hit by an HGV, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with responsibility in this situation. If the HGV has already taken reasonable steps through warning stickers, and extra mirrors, then I think it's back to the cyclist.

To take a non-cycling example: If you were chopping down a large tree with a chain saw, you could be reasonably expected to cordon off the area and maybe put up some warning sign, but if someone still decides to chase their football under the falling tree, or run into your chain saw (to be melodramatic), that would not be your fault even though you/the tree had caused the damage.

Porgy

Craggers wrote:

it has to be the HGV drivers who carry the responsibilty because it them who do the damage

So what your saying is the equivalent of saying that you don't need to look when crossing the road because the driver of the car that is bearing down upon you will take responsibility for your stupidity and take the appropriate evasive measures???

I know that's not actually what you're saying of course, but surely what the HGV driver is doing is going about his daily business in his lorry and not doing anything stupid or illegal, checking his mirrors and what not, whereas a cyclist (naiive, inexperienced or otherwise) squeezing up the inside in the blind spot before the HGV driver makes his left turn IS committing a stupid act....basically if YOU do something stupid that puts YOU in danger...it's YOU that needs to take responsibility

Putting signs on the back of the HGV is helping the inexperienced (or daydreaming) cyclist to choose the right course of action.

It'd not the way the law works though - if kids break into a building site and get themselves killed - the building site will face prosecution. And becasue of that - building sites are a lot more secure than they used to be.

If HGV's carried a higher proportion of the responsibilty then there wouldn't be blind spots - every lorry would be kitted out with the proper mirrors and every driver would get cycle awareness safety training as a matter of course - and HGVs wouldn;t do some of the stupid things I see them doing on the roads round my way - tailgating people or taking short cuts down stupidly narrow residential streets.

If someone walks straight into the path of a HGV despite all this then I can't see that the courts would end up throwing the driver in jail - but justice would be seen to be done - with the driver answering in court and a proper investigation into the incident. Which isn't what happens now.

rjsterry

Porgy wrote:

Craggers wrote:

it has to be the HGV drivers who carry the responsibilty because it them who do the damage

So what your saying is the equivalent of saying that you don't need to look when crossing the road because the driver of the car that is bearing down upon you will take responsibility for your stupidity and take the appropriate evasive measures???

I know that's not actually what you're saying of course, but surely what the HGV driver is doing is going about his daily business in his lorry and not doing anything stupid or illegal, checking his mirrors and what not, whereas a cyclist (naiive, inexperienced or otherwise) squeezing up the inside in the blind spot before the HGV driver makes his left turn IS committing a stupid act....basically if YOU do something stupid that puts YOU in danger...it's YOU that needs to take responsibility

Putting signs on the back of the HGV is helping the inexperienced (or daydreaming) cyclist to choose the right course of action.

It'd not the way the law works though - if kids break into a building site and get themselves killed - the building site will face prosecution. And becasue of that - building sites are a lot more secure than they used to be.

If HGV's carried a higher proportion of the responsibilty then there wouldn't be blind spot - and HGVs wouldn;t do some of the stupid things I see them doing on the roads round my way - tailgating people or taking short cuts down stupidly narrow residential streets.

It comes down to reasonableness (is that a word?). It's reasonable to put up a secure hoarding round a building site to protect children from falling down holes (children BTW being generally considered to be not responsible unlike adults). Similarly it is reasonable to require HGVs to have warning signs (visible and perhaps audible), side rails to prevent you going under the trailer, and extra mirrors to reduce blind spots (few bikes have mirrors BTW and even we have blind spots when looking ahead). It is also reasonable to expect a driver to check these mirrors before executing a turn. But it is also reasonable for him/her to expect cyclists to not put themselves in a position that is generally known to be very dangerous, having already been warned (if they were unaware) by the stickers on the back of the vehicle.

Porgy

and of course children ride bikes too - even on the road. And not every adult is fully responsible: mentally ill, autistic, low IQ, etc, and imo they have the right to a level of protection, which we as a society have to think about. How safe should we make our roads?

Yes - reasonableness is a word. It is a good word.

Craggers

It'd not the way the law works though - if kids break into a building site and get themselves killed - the building site will face prosecution. And becasue of that - building sites are a lot more secure than they used to be

Well I don't know about you but I'm not going to rely on the law to keep me safe

Porgy

Craggers wrote:

It'd not the way the law works though - if kids break into a building site and get themselves killed - the building site will face prosecution. And becasue of that - building sites are a lot more secure than they used to be

Well I don't know about you but I'm not going to rely on the law to keep me safe

I'm not saying rely on the law - but if the law supports you in your efforts to stay safe then it should be a lot easier.

Besides I'm not just thinking about myself - I'm assuming people like the bloke who I saw trying to undertake a lorry in a narrow space this morning don't really have the same perspective on safety that we do - and I don;t really want people like him to get squashed even though he was an idiot.

Luckily for him the driver seemed responsible and had used his left mirror and took appropriate action and then probably muttered soemthing under his breath about idiot cyclists. Nothing compared to what I said to the idiot cyclist later though.

roger_merriman

In a word no.

Now there are times such as gridlocked traffic that the left side may be the safest filtering.

Filtering has it's risks but since only 12 people died this is more of "something must be done" nothing is risk free and I agree it's curious that it's mostly ladies but with such low numbers it's guess work, as to the why.

Craggers

But it is also reasonable for him/her to expect cyclists to not put themselves in a position that is generally known to be very dangerous, having already been warned (if they were unaware) by the stickers on the back of the vehicle.

Exactly. There is reasonable level of action the HGV driver can take to prevent cyclists undertaking....when these fail what can he do? Just not turn left?

Porgy

well, not turn left if there's a cyclist there - yes.

But consider that there must be HGV drivers who do not follow the rules - we're assuming they're all little angels - the ones who do not check their mirrors, do not indicate, or try to cut a cyclist up in order to turn left - happened to me last year in Deptford and I was lucky - I'd been overtaken and the guy went straight into turning left - I slammed my brakes on but that probably wouldn;t have saved me if the guy hadn't seen me at the last moment.

and then there's the ones that tailgate you when you take the lane in order to prevent the sort of thing described above from happening.

sarajoy

Porgy wrote:

It's funny - most of the complete idiots on bikes - who seem to know no fear - are blokes. So does being a fearless idiot keep you alive?

This makes me wonder too. I wonder if a woman is more likely to trust that those who decided where to place the bike lanes know what they are doing - and consider it the safe place to be...

Craggers

But consider that there must be HGV drivers who do not follow the rules - we're assuming they're all little angels - the ones who do not check their mirrors, do not indicate, or try to cut a cyclist up in order to turn left - happened to me last year in Deptford and I was lucky - I'd been overtaken and the guy went straight into turning left - I slammed my brakes on but that probably wouldn;t have saved me if the guy hadn't seen me at the last moment.

Yes but the point here is cyclists undertaking lorries waiting at junctions.

And I've just noticed the quote in your signature "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" ~ Robert A. Heinlein

Says it all doesn't it! If everyone were responsible for their own actions there would be no issue.

Porgy

Craggers wrote:

But consider that there must be HGV drivers who do not follow the rules - we're assuming they're all little angels - the ones who do not check their mirrors, do not indicate, or try to cut a cyclist up in order to turn left - happened to me last year in Deptford and I was lucky - I'd been overtaken and the guy went straight into turning left - I slammed my brakes on but that probably wouldn;t have saved me if the guy hadn't seen me at the last moment.

Yes but the point here is cyclists undertaking lorries waiting at junctions.

And I've just noticed the quote in your signature "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" ~ Robert A. Heinlein

Says it all doesn't it! If everyone were responsible for their own actions there would be no issue.

Yes I take responsibilty for myself - but I'm not sure that's a universal law that applies to everyone. The way I see it fully functional humans are in short supply - most people are essentially like children or idiots, or maybe just scared, and need guidance (something that Robert Heinlein would have agreed with).

And the point about undertaking - the near hit I described above - with no witnesses - could easily have been blamed on me undertaking but I wasn't - just becasue I appeared to be undertaking and the driver may well have reinforced this if I'd been killed - it doesn't mean I was.

Craggers

most people are essentially like children or idiots and need guidance.

Exactly! My original point was that it was good for HGVs to have warning signs on the back and someone said:

Not cool - basically its saying screw you and 'I'm not responsible' to anyone unwise enough to filter the wrong side.

And yeah, I reckon you would definitely have been blamed if you got wiped out by that truck. This is the default position of the general public unfortunately....cyclists deserve everything that comes to them.