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

easyboy

With the introduction of improved mirror coverage,then blindspot photo is very misleading

Each lgv since 2006 has to have a front of vehicle downward facing wide-angled mirror
this shows the driver if anything is in the front of vehicle blindspot

Also the blindspots to the near-side and off-side have been drastically reduced to virtually zero by using extra wide-angled mirrors on either of the vehicle

But one thing is certain that as the driver sets off and begins looking for his turning point they are not looking in the mirrors for twp reassons
1...They are looking forward to the direction of travel and gauging the safest way around the turn
2...As soon as the driver begins the turn there is a blind spot that you could hide another truck in (articulated,rigids have a similar but not as extreme problem)

shouldbeinbed

oscarbudgie wrote:

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

sorry I'm late to the debate, Overwhelmingly what I see on the roads and what I read in reports (most recently on here the girl in Leeds and the long debate over Tony Speight(?) in Wakefield is a cyclist arriving behind an already stationary vehicle, making a deliberate undertaking move, making no effort to alert the stationary driver that they are there and suffering the consequences of their choice to put themselves in what is effectively a killing zone and stay there when the truck moves off

and you think that the cyclists should carry no responsibility in this situation?

easyboy wrote:

With the introduction of improved mirror coverage,then blindspot photo is very misleading

Each lgv since 2006 has to have a front of vehicle downward facing wide-angled mirror

this shows the driver if anything is in the front of vehicle blindspot

The blindspot diagram can only possibly be misleading then for trucks that were built after 2006, How many of the total fleet is that?

can you provide a similar post 2006 diagram to back up your assertions?

it will take years and years before these improvements become ubiquitous as older trucks are phased out and newer better covered ones replace them. Do the drivers of newer trucks get familiariation and awareness training and instruction to use the additional mirrorage and instruction in how to spot e.g. a dark clothed cyclist in the shadow side of a lorry on an otherwise bright day. or any cyclist in drizzle or rain picking out the real from the distortions on wet or dropleted mirrors.

Mirrors work best/properly on a neutral, dry day to pick out a cyclist with a high contrast to their background. Otherwise they can be little more than useless in some cases however many there are of them.

conversely any cyclist, however attired and in whatever weather thst doesn't see or consider evasive measures to avoid the enormous clearly visible and audible truck that they're rolling up behind or which rolls up by them, isn't fit to be on the roads.

easyboy

There are already on test further advances with lgv blindside technology that should elliminate blind spots around the entire vehicle
A large lgv manufacturer is testing camera mirrors which not only show the driver every side of the vehicle but also record the details for evidence (last 12 minutes)
Quote shouldbeinbed
truck that they're rolling up behind or which rolls up by them, isn't fit to be on the roads.

truck that the cyclist rolls up behind i understand,but which rolls up by them,isnt fit to be on the roads...why if the truck rolls up along side them,then the driver of the truck is fully aware of the cyclist whereabouts or are you summising that all truck drivers are blind and have a 2 second memory
Also if the truck manages to roll up along side the cyclist,and then causes an incident with the cyclist how is this the cyclists fault and why is this innocent cyclist not fit to be on the roads

Cunobelin

It's up to your skills and knowledge, especially local.

On my commute there is an ASL approached via a left hand cycle / feeder lane.

Street View


Aerial View

I know the light sequence well enough that if the traffic is approaching, on Southampton Road, or from the left (Allaway Avenue)then I have sufficient time to safely progress to the ASL.

If the traffic in the parallel road (Cheltenham Road) is moving then I don't so I take the primary and merge with the traffic flow.

Common sense, awareness and local knowledge allow me to cross this junction safely every day, HGV's or not

OldSkoolKona

Its also worth pointing out to those who say that lorry bans are not possible that there is already currently one in place in London; 9pm to 7am:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freigh ... cheme.aspx

Perversely this probably makes the situation worse, better it was moved to also cover the morning rush hour, something that wouldn't be difficult by extending it by 2 hours from the current 7am finish, perhaps starting at midnight.

Only covers lorries over 18 tonnes though

shouldbeinbed

easyboy wrote:

Quote shouldbeinbed

truck that they're rolling up behind or which rolls up by them, isn't fit to be on the roads.

truck that the cyclist rolls up behind i understand,but which rolls up by them,isnt fit to be on the roads...why if the truck rolls up along side them,then the driver of the truck is fully aware of the cyclist whereabouts or are you summising that all truck drivers are blind and have a 2 second memory
Also if the truck manages to roll up along side the cyclist,and then causes an incident with the cyclist how is this the cyclists fault and why is this innocent cyclist not fit to be on the roads

I do so love a selective quote to hide the proper context of what was said :evil: :roll:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

consider evasive measures to avoid.......isn't fit to be on the roads

I'm surmising nothing of the sort about lorry drivers

But we all know that the vast majority of drivers (of all sorts of vehicles not just trucks) who have come up from behind a cyclist, do not sit there when the lights go green with an 'after you, you were here first' mentality.
They're on their way concerned primarily; if not totally; for their own progress, just the same as the cyclist is. unfortunately 13 stone of squidgy vs 20 tons+ of metal is a no brainer for who will win if there is a coming together and sometimes it is prudent and sensible as a cyclist to stop and let the thing manouvre or if it is a tight left hander and there is a chance the truck is left hooking, get off the bike and onto the pavement or at least to the railings (if its a fenced off junction for Pedestrian safety) to give them as wide a berth round the corner as possible.

hence

shouldbeinbed wrote:

consider evasive measures

Sometimes in the real world the normal rules and any perceived right of way go out of the window in favour of plain and simple self preservation.
If a cyclist that was there first is prepared to risk their life just because they were there first and are going to go no matter what the big thing beside them is doing, in the hope that s/he's a uniquely considerate driver and not in any sort of hurry themself, then they're bloody stupid, regardless of who's fault an accident may be judged as, you don't get better from crippled or dead and a self righteous sense of justice being done isn't a fair swap for either of those for me and my loved ones.

So yes I do think that any cyclist that doesn't consider evasive manouvres if a truck rolls up behind them isn't fit to be on the roads, whether they're innocent or guilty in the body bag.

easyboy

shouldbeinbed
While i agree in principal with what you are saying
I still cannot understand why a cyclist should consider evasive measures simply for being stood at a junction in which a truck pulls up alongside them,I dont know of any truck driver that would pull up alongside a cyclist if the cyclist is stood for whatever reason,normally the roads are not wide enough.
turning the tables a little bit......If the truck driver sees a cyclist then pulls up alongside them,surely it should be the truck driver that should have the hgv part of the driving licence withdrawn,

normaly i position myself in such a manner so a vehicle cannot place itself beside me.

Large goodsvehicles (over 16 tonnes laden) should be banned from all city centres regardless of time,unless authorised by way of permit,and those that are allowed should have camares fitted to give the driver good nearside/rear visibility
dont you think that a flashing red light on the rear of a bike is far easier to see from a distance than a solid red light.

spen666

easyboy wrote:

shouldbeinbed
While i agree in principal with what you are saying
I still cannot understand why a cyclist should consider evasive measures simply for being stood at a junction in which a truck pulls up alongside them....

Better safe than dead

OldSkoolKona

Some old vids relating to Eilidh Cairns. Very moving, but I post them to point out that fact that not all cycling fatalities with HGVs are due to left hooks or cyclists going up the inside. This case was neither:

http://vimeo.com/4545070

http://vimeo.com/3691223

rolf_f

jedster wrote:

Practically nothing is really delivered by rail (exceptions would be bulk stuff like coal and iron ore, aggregates, etc).

In practice, of course, our railways are not used that much for freight. The reason is quite simple, they are full with passenger trains.J

This isn't really true - there is a fair amount of freight on the rails though it depends on where and when you are if you are to see much of it - London certainly isn't a good place! On the other hand, the Midlands at night time, when there is more available track capacity, might paint a different picture. Furthermore, to say that bulk materials are the only form of railfreight is also wrong - there is a vast amount of all sorts of non bulk goods delivered by rail most of which is containerised. That stuff eventually ends up on the back of lorries for the final, hopefully relatively short haul journey.

Irrc, there was a container terminal in East London - at Stratford. The Olympics put paid to that. Presumably, hopefully, a new facility has been built elsewhere.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I saw a train in france hauling two decks full on cars (like those car deliver trucks you get.

We've had those in the UK since the 60s - these days they seem to be mostly boxed in so you can't see the cars (avoids damage).

sarajoy

This is one of the guys talking at Ignite Bristol (I did a talk there too) - simple message - you can get yourself wound up about what should and shouldn't happen, or who is in the right or wrong - OR you can jut take some responsibility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpweyQUajvU (hope the link works, can't access youtube from work).

Point being - indeed, if an HGV parks up next to you, the driver should know you're there and then either ensure you go first OR if you're going left, drive WIDE.

But, (s)he may still be an idiot and not do as (s)he should. In which case, take a little responsibility and ensure your own safety.

Yes there are laws and guidelines that should be followed but sometimes people are a bit rubbish and things don't work perfectly.

rml380z

sarajoy wrote:

This is one of the guys talking at Ignite Bristol (I did a talk there too) - simple message - you can get yourself wound up about what should and shouldn't happen, or who is in the right or wrong - OR you can jut take some responsibility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpweyQUajvU (hope the link works, can't access youtube from work).

On the few times I drove my car during the winter weather, I went out ten minutes before I wanted to head off so I could start the engine and to scrape all the snow and ice off all the windows. This meant I could then drive off on time with clear visibility all round, and without a chance of any window fogging up. As you say, I'm responsible for the safe use of my own vehicle.

If I'd just wiped a porthole on the windscreen so I could just about see out of the front, I could have - quite rightly - been stopped by the police because I was unable to safely see what was going on around me. Why, then, is it ok for lorries to be driven on the roads when the drivers are unable to see all round their own vehicles?

I'm sure most cyclists are quite aware they have to be responsible for their own safety but idea that we have to also compensate for other road vehicles that aren't responsible for their own actions is just ridiculous. What about the responsibility of lorry- and cars-drivers to be more careful around more vunerable road users?

sarajoy

rml380z wrote:

I'm sure most cyclists are quite aware they have to be responsible for their own safety but idea that we have to also compensate for other road vehicles that aren't responsible for their own actions is just ridiculous. What about the responsibility of lorry- and cars-drivers to be more careful around more vunerable road users?

Oh, I quite agree.

However, there are idiots everywhere and you have to be prepared to take evasive measures - because you simply can't trust that everyone is on the ball and doing everything they should be.

spen666

rml380z wrote:

....

I'm sure most cyclists are quite aware they have to be responsible for their own safety but idea that we have to also compensate for other road vehicles that aren't responsible for their own actions is just ridiculous. What about the responsibility of lorry- and cars-drivers to be more careful around more vunerable road users?

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

snailracer

All this talk of changing laws, banning lorries, etc. is pointless and mirrors are rubbish. What we really need are ultrasonic sensors:

http://www.tnn.co.uk/IndustryNews/plone ... 7252845154

rml380z

spen666 wrote:

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree with you and I do ride safely and defensively, especially around lorries, but why are cyclists responsible for their own movements on the roads but also, apparently, responsible for the movements of all the vehicles around them? If I'm not aware of a lorry on the road, that's my fault; if the lorry driver can't see me, oh that's also my fault.

How can it be right that there is any vehicle on the road where the driver cannot see all around their vehicle? That's not just irresponsible but dangerous to all other road-users, and many pavement-users too.

londonbairn

snailracer wrote:

All this talk of changing laws, banning lorries, etc. is pointless and mirrors are rubbish. What we really need are ultrasonic sensors:

http://www.tnn.co.uk/IndustryNews/plone ... 7252845154

I am pretty certain of fellow cyclists approached HGVs with more caution (i.e. give them space, don't try and cut inside etc) the amount of deaths would decrease significantly.

snailracer

londonbairn wrote:

snailracer wrote:

All this talk of changing laws, banning lorries, etc. is pointless and mirrors are rubbish. What we really need are ultrasonic sensors:

http://www.tnn.co.uk/IndustryNews/plone ... 7252845154

I am pretty certain of fellow cyclists approached HGVs with more caution (i.e. give them space, don't try and cut inside etc) the amount of deaths would decrease significantly.

Yes, but I think that educating millions of cyclists would be harder than persuading a few lorry manufacturers to install some extra kit.

goco

rml380z wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree with you and I do ride safely and defensively, especially around lorries, but why are cyclists responsible for their own movements on the roads but also, apparently, responsible for the movements of all the vehicles around them? If I'm not aware of a lorry on the road, that's my fault; if the lorry driver can't see me, oh that's also my fault.

How can it be right that there is any vehicle on the road where the driver cannot see all around their vehicle? That's not just irresponsible but dangerous to all other road-users, and many pavement-users too.

When you are in your car, would you be able to see a small child standing right behind your rear bumper? Ok, far less likely scenario, but it has happened. All vehicles have blind spots.

W1

rml380z wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree with you and I do ride safely and defensively, especially around lorries, but why are cyclists responsible for their own movements on the roads but also, apparently, responsible for the movements of all the vehicles around them? If I'm not aware of a lorry on the road, that's my fault; if the lorry driver can't see me, oh that's also my fault.

How can it be right that there is any vehicle on the road where the driver cannot see all around their vehicle? That's not just irresponsible but dangerous to all other road-users, and many pavement-users too.

it's not about fault it's about being dead or alive. Your call.

snailracer

goco wrote:

rml380z wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree with you and I do ride safely and defensively, especially around lorries, but why are cyclists responsible for their own movements on the roads but also, apparently, responsible for the movements of all the vehicles around them? If I'm not aware of a lorry on the road, that's my fault; if the lorry driver can't see me, oh that's also my fault.

How can it be right that there is any vehicle on the road where the driver cannot see all around their vehicle? That's not just irresponsible but dangerous to all other road-users, and many pavement-users too.

When you are in your car, would you be able to see a small child standing right behind your rear bumper? Ok, far less likely scenario, but it has happened. All vehicles have blind spots.

Ultrasonics is the correct answer.

lost_in_thought

snailracer wrote:

goco wrote:

rml380z wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree with you and I do ride safely and defensively, especially around lorries, but why are cyclists responsible for their own movements on the roads but also, apparently, responsible for the movements of all the vehicles around them? If I'm not aware of a lorry on the road, that's my fault; if the lorry driver can't see me, oh that's also my fault.

How can it be right that there is any vehicle on the road where the driver cannot see all around their vehicle? That's not just irresponsible but dangerous to all other road-users, and many pavement-users too.

When you are in your car, would you be able to see a small child standing right behind your rear bumper? Ok, far less likely scenario, but it has happened. All vehicles have blind spots.

Ultrasonics is the correct answer.

ARE the correct answer...

Am I helping?

:P

the_hundredth_idiot

spen666 wrote:

rml380z wrote:

....

I'm sure most cyclists are quite aware they have to be responsible for their own safety but idea that we have to also compensate for other road vehicles that aren't responsible for their own actions is just ridiculous. What about the responsibility of lorry- and cars-drivers to be more careful around more vunerable road users?

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree. When I was training for my motorbike test 20 odd years ago, my instructor always said it's good to be right, but bad to be dead right. A bit cheesy and facile - but easy to remember.

dilemna

For those who lack common sense then I suppose a law to prohibit their own stupidity would seem prudent. However it doesn't cover the situation where an HGV is culpable and there in no fault on the part of the cyclist.

Bikerbaboon

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

spen666 wrote:

rml380z wrote:

....

I'm sure most cyclists are quite aware they have to be responsible for their own safety but idea that we have to also compensate for other road vehicles that aren't responsible for their own actions is just ridiculous. What about the responsibility of lorry- and cars-drivers to be more careful around more vunerable road users?

I hope you will be happy in the knowledge you were morally and legally right when you are lying in the hospital or morgue.

Better to be safe than right & injured/ dead

I agree. When I was training for my motorbike test 20 odd years ago, my instructor always said it's good to be right, but bad to be dead right. A bit cheesy and facile - but easy to remember.

Funny my instructor said the same thing.... but on my test i was give a minor fault for behing overly cautious.

There was a non articualted lorry trying to do a 3 point turn at a cross roads controlled by traffic lights and makeing a right hash of it. I just sat behind the white line and waited even though i was on a green light. I was told that i should have used my bikes speed to get clear of the situation. :shock:

easyboy

I dont think that the proximaty sensors idea would really work as there are so many different things that could trigger the sensors which would become annoying to the driver.
There are cameras fitted to trucks in Europe and the UK that give a good clear wideangled picture of the nearside blind spot,which i think could be more effective both in cost and in effectiveness for the driver
But both of these ideas are only as good as the driver who sees/hears the imformation

shouldbeinbed

snailracer wrote:

londonbairn wrote:

snailracer wrote:

All this talk of changing laws, banning lorries, etc. is pointless and mirrors are rubbish. What we really need are ultrasonic sensors:

http://www.tnn.co.uk/IndustryNews/plone ... 7252845154

I am pretty certain of fellow cyclists approached HGVs with more caution (i.e. give them space, don't try and cut inside etc) the amount of deaths would decrease significantly.

Yes, but I think that educating millions of cyclists would be harder than persuading a few lorry manufacturers to install some extra kit.

why aren't drink driving campaigns aimed at a few alcohol manufacturers rather than millions of drinkers?

there's lots of lorry manufacturers/operators, and not just in this country, how could we police a worldwide system to ensure all lorries on our roads conform to our laws when they may be different in their countries of origin?

Also there is a recession on companies going to the wall every single day (but even if there wasn't it would be the same) the transport lobby is bigger, more powerful and has far more economic sway with the government that the cycling lobby - whos going to win if we say to the lawmakers, please force all lorry manufacturers / haulage companies to fit / retro fit safety kit to their lorries that will cost them quite a bit of money for their entire output / fleet that they will pass on to their customers and so on until all of the general public are paying for it just in order to solve a problem that impacts (no pun) on a tiny fraction of the other road users.

Better to try in the first instance at least, A two pronged media approach of a gore and heart strings campaign aimed at cyclists. offal and a mangled bike being scraped off the road, a weeping spouse saying goodbye as the life support machine is turned offf and a bunch of kids giving the mummy/daddy I miss you routine. Allied with a heartbroken lorry driver being lead back to the holding cells, shouting I'm sorry to the grieving relatives in the public gallery with the words of the judge & his employer ringing in his ears as he's convicted & sacked, and his family going mad as the baliffs take the TV away / house is reposessed cos he's not there as a breadwinner anymore.

still doesn't address the foreign drivers problem, unless theres some way of using passport control to get into their ribs and at least try to put the message home to them.

for me 100% agree with better safe than dead and I'd chuck in education over regulation.