Problems with lorries

bails87

I've been thinking (no, really!)......

With there being yet another lorry vs cyclist fatality in London, I wondered what it is that stops other people getting into dicey situations with them? "Don't ride up the left" seems so obvious. Are all the people killed at junctions doing this?

Are some just unfortunate enough to be hit straight from behind by a cataract riddled HGV driver?

Or is there some other roadsense at work that keeps us alive, that others might be lacking?

The only trouble I've had with lorries is close overtakes, not much can be done about those. But I stay behind them if they're near the front of a queue of traffic at junctions/lights.

So what dicey situations have riders in more congested locations experienced with HGVs? What have they seen happen to other riders? Is it down to combination of blindspots and less than perfect driving or does it require a mistake on the part of the cyclist too?

I'm not 'victim blaming' but if we don't ask these questions we won't get the answers, which could help someone reading this.

rick_chasey

Saw a cyclist on the lane left of the lorry (just before that lane turned off onto the slip road), when the lorry suddendly decided it too wanted to join the slip road. Pulled out immediately as it was indicating, obv. didn't see the cyclist and kissed his rear wheel - not enough for him to fall off.

Not much the cyclist could have done. Was in a totally different car lane!

il_principe

The problem in London (sorry) is that there are too many HGV's on roads which aren't meant for them. Operating in congested traffic it's little wonder that collisions occur. The sheer amount of construction going on atm doesn't help either. I think delivery hours should be restricted, or they should be forced to use out of town hubs where they transfer to smaller, more city-friendly vehicles. At any rate it's becoming clear that some action needs to be taken... doesn't matter how careful you are, if one of them clobbers you well...

Gussio

Il Principe wrote:

The problem in London (sorry) is that there are too many HGV's on roads which aren't meant for them. Operating in congested traffic it's little wonder that collisions occur. The sheer amount of construction going on atm doesn't help either. I think delivery hours should be restricted, or they should be forced to use out of town hubs where they transfer to smaller, more city-friendly vehicles. At any rate it's becoming clear that some action needs to be taken... doesn't matter how careful you are, if one of them clobbers you well...

Agree in principle, but find myself feeling as vunerable around delivery vans as HGVs. All need to be treated with respect.

The roads in London are, IMO, at their most dangerous at this time of year. Extra delivery vans for Christmas, poor weather and drivers who had "just the one" at lunchtime. That said, I had to drive up the M1 today and I'd swap that experience for a commute by bike beleagured with HGVs, white vans and unpredictable drivers!

Initialised

The fundamental problem is that freight haulage migrated from the rails to the road with the collapse of local railways. I'd go further by taxing freight off the roads in cities with massive levies like The Congestion Charge which would be set aside for improving road layout. Ironically most of the old railway lines are now rather nice cycle ways now so re-railing the country would require paving over ever more.

dondare

Lorries are more dangerous to cyclists than cars are to cyclists.
Lorries are also more dangerous to motorists than are cars.
Every time a cyclist is killed it gets reported. Usually, when a motorist gets killed it doesn't.

itboffin

Almost every time I use the main road route home in the evening i get passed by two Big Green Parcel Company lorries the first alternates between close and okay the second which is a double trailer job passes so close i usually have to get off the road, normally the first cab is close the trailer would squash me if i didnt move.

This isnt just on one occasion it's most times :evil:

This arseh0le can see me i'm like a moving xmas tree, perhaps if he wasnt tailgating the lorry in front he might have a bit more manoeuvre time or perhaps he's just a human stain?!

As for London everyday I watch mostly female cyclist squeeze along the inside of buses and lorries on Waterloo bridge north side, why? why put yourself at risk like this?

If they're that interested in saving 30 seconds perhaps they should learn to ride faster, FFS!!!

EKE_38BPM

itboffin wrote:

Almost every time I use the main road route home in the evening i get passed by two Big Green Parcel Company lorries the first alternates between close and okay the second which is a double trailer job passes so close i usually have to get off the road, normally the first cab is close the trailer would squash me if i didnt move.

This isnt just on one occasion it's most times :evil:

This arseh0le can see me i'm like a moving xmas tree, perhaps if he wasnt tailgating the lorry in front he might have a bit more manoeuvre time or perhaps he's just a human stain?!

As for London everyday I watch mostly female cyclist squeeze along the inside of buses and lorries on Waterloo bridge north side, why? why put yourself at risk like this?

If they're that interested in saving 30 seconds perhaps they should learn to ride faster, FFS!!!

ITB, you really should complain to Big Green about the bad driving.
+1 on mostly female cyclists putting themselves in dangerous situations. I'm happy to see them on the road (giggity) but I don't want to see them spread all over the road.

snooks

It's sadly very easy to stereotype those who are likely to be involved in a fatal accident and the type of accident.

Usually female, usually lorry turning left.

There are of course exceptions, hit from behind and male cyclists, but by far the majority of fatalities are women.

So why is this?

Firstly the responsibility of the LGV driver must not be overlooked, mirrors are springing up on traffic lights all the time, but in order to get near a cyclist, the cyclist has to put themselves in danger (taking the overtake and left hook, or hit from behind out of the equation)

So why do they do it?

I believe it's mainly a lack of education (about the risks, not at school) and the lack of assertiveness on the road.

Education is the big one, however on the road a lot of the time I see a monkey see, monkey do mentality. One cyclist jumps a red, and then others think it's alright, and do the same. Now this is where we can all make an effort, we all go up the inside of LGVs when it's safe. However we know when it's safe. We might have seen the light go red and decided we have enough time to get to the front before it turns green. We've clocked they aren't indicating left so we go, get to the front and off we go.

What does the in experienced cyclist behind see? Another cyclist ahead go up the inside of the LGV, they do the same, get half way along, light goes green, LGV indicates left, cyclist doesn't see it, end of story. They don't know why we made the decision to do what we did, they just saw us doing it and did the same, maybe they will be lucky, but may be they won't. I made the decision I didn't want others to learn my bad habits, so most of the time I have stopped doing them.

This is why most of the time (if a truck is at the lights) I'll stop behind the truck in the middle of the cycle lane to deter anyone from trying to get past.

Most of the ads about going up the inside I've seen have been in the freebie papers, naff all good to anyone who cycles in. The thing that annoys me is that Tfl/skyride must have a massive mailing list, so next time there is a sky ride and they send out Emails, why don't they just add a warning about going up the inside of lgvs on the bottom?

W1

snooks wrote:

This is why most of the time (if a truck is at the lights) I'll stop behind the truck in the middle of the cycle lane to deter anyone from trying to get past.

And then some lemming brushes past you to run up the inside of the lorry. I've had that happen a number of times.

Whilst it is impossible to generalise as every accident is different, a cyclist can only be killed by a left turning lorry if the lorry has overtaken and then turned, or the cyclist has come alongside a lorry at or near a junction. Whilst I have seen a few near misses of the former, I see regular examples of the latter.

As to "banning" lorries, that will never happen. Banning cyclists would end the problem though.... Or just accept that neither is likely and we're all going to have to just do our best to get along.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

snooks wrote:

This is why most of the time (if a truck is at the lights) I'll stop behind the truck in the middle of the cycle lane to deter anyone from trying to get past.

And then some lemming brushes past you to run up the inside of the lorry. I've had that happen a number of times.

Whilst it is impossible to generalise as every accident is different, a cyclist can only be killed by a left turning lorry if the lorry has overtaken and then turned, or the cyclist has come alongside a lorry at or near a junction. Whilst I have seen a few near misses of the former, I see regular examples of the latter.

As to "banning" lorries, that will never happen. Banning cyclists would end the problem though.... Or just accept that neither is likely and we're all going to have to just do our best to get along.

They could stop lorries travelling down busy cyclist roads during rush hour.

Right now anything that would further hurt small businesses won't happen though.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

snooks wrote:

This is why most of the time (if a truck is at the lights) I'll stop behind the truck in the middle of the cycle lane to deter anyone from trying to get past.

And then some lemming brushes past you to run up the inside of the lorry. I've had that happen a number of times.

Whilst it is impossible to generalise as every accident is different, a cyclist can only be killed by a left turning lorry if the lorry has overtaken and then turned, or the cyclist has come alongside a lorry at or near a junction. Whilst I have seen a few near misses of the former, I see regular examples of the latter.

As to "banning" lorries, that will never happen. Banning cyclists would end the problem though.... Or just accept that neither is likely and we're all going to have to just do our best to get along.

They could stop lorries travelling down busy cyclist roads during rush hour.

Right now anything that would further hurt small businesses won't happen though.

They could stop cyclists using busy lorry roads too. I don't think that argument washes either way. And what is a "busy" cycling road anyway?

Banning lorries and or restricting delivery times will simply increase the cost of products in shops, which as you say will hurt small businesses and consumers. I doubt such a move will have much support.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

snooks wrote:

This is why most of the time (if a truck is at the lights) I'll stop behind the truck in the middle of the cycle lane to deter anyone from trying to get past.

And then some lemming brushes past you to run up the inside of the lorry. I've had that happen a number of times.

Whilst it is impossible to generalise as every accident is different, a cyclist can only be killed by a left turning lorry if the lorry has overtaken and then turned, or the cyclist has come alongside a lorry at or near a junction. Whilst I have seen a few near misses of the former, I see regular examples of the latter.

As to "banning" lorries, that will never happen. Banning cyclists would end the problem though.... Or just accept that neither is likely and we're all going to have to just do our best to get along.

They could stop lorries travelling down busy cyclist roads during rush hour.

Right now anything that would further hurt small businesses won't happen though.

They could stop cyclists using busy lorry roads too. I don't think that argument washes either way. And what is a "busy" cycling road anyway?

Banning lorries and or restricting delivery times will simply increase the cost of products in shops, which as you say will hurt small businesses and consumers. I doubt such a move will have much support.

It's not uncommon to restrict access times for heavy vehicles.

Busy cycling roads are easily defined.

Or even, roads where serious accidents with heavy vehicles occur.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

snooks wrote:

This is why most of the time (if a truck is at the lights) I'll stop behind the truck in the middle of the cycle lane to deter anyone from trying to get past.

And then some lemming brushes past you to run up the inside of the lorry. I've had that happen a number of times.

Whilst it is impossible to generalise as every accident is different, a cyclist can only be killed by a left turning lorry if the lorry has overtaken and then turned, or the cyclist has come alongside a lorry at or near a junction. Whilst I have seen a few near misses of the former, I see regular examples of the latter.

As to "banning" lorries, that will never happen. Banning cyclists would end the problem though.... Or just accept that neither is likely and we're all going to have to just do our best to get along.

They could stop lorries travelling down busy cyclist roads during rush hour.

Right now anything that would further hurt small businesses won't happen though.

They could stop cyclists using busy lorry roads too. I don't think that argument washes either way. And what is a "busy" cycling road anyway?

Banning lorries and or restricting delivery times will simply increase the cost of products in shops, which as you say will hurt small businesses and consumers. I doubt such a move will have much support.

It's not uncommon to restrict access times for heavy vehicles.

Busy cycling roads are easily defined.

Or even, roads where serious accidents with heavy vehicles occur.

That's very different to banning lorries from busy cycling roads - which are most likely to be the busy trunk roads too.

In terms of banning vehicles from where accidents occur, surely that should depend on the cause of the accident? Which could justify banning the bikes and not the lorries....

rick_chasey

By and large, the cyclists are doing the dying, and, for want of a more neutral term, lorries are doing the killing.

Like I said, it's pretty standard to restrict access times for heavy vehicles. You'd think most deliveries occur before rush hour anyway.

(and I never said anything about 'banning' :P)

It's pretty rare to get lorry drivers being killed in accidents on small roads in London I suspect.

jedster

What does the in experienced cyclist behind see? Another cyclist ahead go up the inside of the LGV, they do the same, get half way along, light goes green, LGV indicates left, cyclist doesn't see it, end of story. They don't know why we made the decision to do what we did

I think this is a very good point. Herd mentality is a powerful thing. Another example is when you get a stream of cars in the fast lane of the motorway all far too close together. Many drivers seem to think their distance is OK because its the same as the others...

On banning trucks, I think we need to keep things in perspective. While cyclist deaths by trucks are horrific and should be avoidable they are still relative rare - it's not a big killer versus other hazards in life. An example would be road deaths due to bad driving by young male drivers (their premiums are high for reason).

In 2004 33 per cent of dangerous driving/causing death or bodily harm by dangerous driving offences were committed by men aged 17-20. Male drivers of this age are estimated to account for only three per cent of the driving population.
Women, including young women, were responsible for just one per cent of those convictions in 2004.

I don't think the scale of the truck/bike carnage justifies extreme measures like banning LGVs in London. You could make a much stronger case for banning men from driving until they were 21. The reality is that we need to educate and send strong signals through punishment for people who don't take their responsibilities seriously.

I think the reason why most of us don't have near misses with trucks very often is because we are experienced, risk aware cyclists. I've been cycle commuting for 7 years and the necessary disciplines of thinking ahead to what COULD possibly go wrong and minimising the likelihood/severity by road positioning/signalling/shoulder checking/negotiation/managing speed etc hav become ingrained. It has improved my driving a lot too.

I was reading the book "Bounce" by Matthew Syed. It's mainly about sport and what determines excellence. He is of the view that in complex sports (technical, hand-eye coordination, intricate team work) it is all about 10000 hours of PURPOSEFUL practice. He illustrates the point about purposeful by saying out that his driving has not really improved despite about 10000 hours of practice because he is generally not highly focused on doing so. I think lots of us are really attentive to what we are doing when cycling (knowing that the consequences of not doing so can be quickly very painful!). My guess is that some of the people we see doing stupid high risk/low reward filtering are thinking about anything but cycling at the time.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

By and large, the cyclists are doing the dying, and, for want of a more neutral term, lorries are doing the killing.

Like I said, it's pretty standard to restrict access times for heavy vehicles. You'd think most deliveries occur before rush hour anyway.

(and I never said anything about 'banning' :P)

It's pretty rare to get lorry drivers being killed in accidents on small roads in London I suspect.

Whilst trying to keep to language that doesn't offend (and without being presumptious) - are the lorries "killing" or are the cyclists putting themselves into a position where they can be killed?

As I said, the cause of the accident is what is relevant to any arguments about curbing or restricting vehicle use. Of course the cyclists will come off worse in an accident - but that doesn't equate to the vehicle automatically being the cause of the accident.

I'm not going to be drawn into a circular argument - suffice to say that if there is an argument for restricting lorries, then there is an argument for resitricting cyclists - unless every accident between a lorry and a cyclist is caused by the lorry, which is simply untrue.

DrLex

I'd like to think that all HGVs could be required to fit warning sensors (to alert both driver & cyclist) as Cemex have done, but the Government won't even get LH drive waggons to fit extra mirrors for driving in this country.

bails87

jedster wrote:

I think lots of us are really attentive to what we are doing when cycling (knowing that the consequences of not doing so can be quickly very painful!). My guess is that some of the people we see doing stupid high risk/low reward filtering are thinking about anything but cycling at the time.

*Shudder* <---absolutely preventable, in fact there's another cyclist shouting at him not to go there, but he does anyway.

That's so bad it's into the 'deliberate stupidity' category, but I'm sure people do far less and get caught out.

snooks

A couple more videos of numpties:

http://youtu.be/3-lZPeAWye4

http://youtu.be/03GGcZ8dA8c

jedster

Wow - That shudder video - just wow...

snooks

I was waiting behind a Keltbray lorry yesterday and as it turned left I could just make out a "Caution" spoken warning.

Never come across it before, and because I wasn't close enough I couldn't make out what it was saying, but I guess it was something about the lorry turning left.

Seemed like a good idea

rjsterry

snooks wrote:

I was waiting behind a Keltbray lorry yesterday and as it turned left I could just make out a "Caution" spoken warning.

Never come across it before, and because I wasn't close enough I couldn't make out what it was saying, but I guess it was something about the lorry turning left.

Seemed like a good idea

Really?

You hear it a lot on building site vehicles and also rubbish lorries. One of the sillier ones is the Cardiff rubbish lorries, which are of course bi-lingual: "Attention! This vehicle is reversing", followed by "Sylw! Mae'r cerbyd yn cael ei bacio". (or something like that. By the time you'd worked out what was going on, it would have run you over.

Applespider

The company that I work for has lots of HGVs and delivery trucks. I wrote and asked the head operations bod what provision the trucks had for 'cycling' warnings/extra mirrors and what, if any, training drivers got re cyclists. I got a good reply back about them retrofitting mirrors as the trucks were being serviced and instigating a cyclist awareness course as part of driver training. If your company have any form of delivery vehicles, it might not hurt to ask.

And yes, the lemming theory of going up the side of trucks is so valid. I quite often just wait behind if there's not much room - I hate unclipping and having to push along on the kerb - but the abuse you can get for doing so can be ridiculous.

My only 'close' shave was an HGV deciding that he wanted to use the lane I was already in and just coming straight across into it. Thankfully, I'd heard him and slowed down accordingly so that his rear end didn't take me out as he completed the move.

Drfabulous0

W1 wrote:

I'm not going to be drawn into a circular argument - suffice to say that if there is an argument for restricting lorries, then there is an argument for resitricting cyclists - unless every accident between a lorry and a cyclist is caused by the lorry, which is simply untrue.

Not really, there are major routes round me which don't allow HGVs during peaks times, not only is it a little safer for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, it also helps relieve congestion. HGV drivers do not have any issue with this as it is much cheaper for a lorry to be parked than stuck in traffic, they simply avoid these routes at these times. I also reckon that trying to enforce restrictions upon cyclists would be hilarious.

Jay dubbleU

Anyone see the article on visibility from lorries in Cycling Plus - frightening how little they can see in the immediate vicinity - very little on the left if you're near the cab and nothing in front if you're within two meters. I read about the lorry that pushed a car along the motorway and wondered how he could not have realised - after that article I realised he probably didn't know it was there.

jedster

Not really, there are major routes round me which don't allow HGVs during peaks times,

Really? Where's that then? Which roads? I've never heard of that in the UK.

HGV drivers do not have any issue with this as it is much cheaper for a lorry to be parked than stuck in traffic, they simply avoid these routes at these times

.

The drivers might not but the truck owner/operators will. I'm not sure how it's much cheaper for a truck to be parked. Sure you save some fuel burn (but you'll be paying that when the truck starts moving again). But you still have the cost of the driver/capital cost of the truck/VED/insurance to pay even if it isn't moving.

Wallace1492

jedster wrote:

Not really, there are major routes round me which don't allow HGVs during peaks times,

Really? Where's that then? Which roads? I've never heard of that in the UK.

HGV drivers do not have any issue with this as it is much cheaper for a lorry to be parked than stuck in traffic, they simply avoid these routes at these times

.

The drivers might not but the truck owner/operators will. I'm not sure how it's much cheaper for a truck to be parked. Sure you save some fuel burn (but you'll be paying that when the truck starts moving again). But you still have the cost of the driver/capital cost of the truck/VED/insurance to pay even if it isn't moving.

"HGV Ban in Bath City Centre
Bath City Council has voted in favour of a HGV ban on the edge of Bath City Centre"

Quick Google search shows a few city bans/ restrictions.

If you are aware of the ban, you plan accordingly, delivery probably gets done quicker when it eventually happens, therefore saving in time and fuel. You just adjust to fit. Simples.