Are we our own worst enemy?

Aidy

davmaggs wrote:

Also the part turn of the cab tells everyone (except for the idiots on the bikes it seems) what he is going to be doing next, along with the indicators.

Someone else made the point, but this is a bit harsh - you can't assume that the lorry was there first.

I know I'm often squeezed at junctions (although, for the most part lorry drivers are good), even though I tend to stop in primary.

keyser__soze

lardboy wrote:

Keyser__Soze wrote:

I think it's more related to the ban on HGVs/deliveries outside of 'social' hours for residential noise reduction than the building lobby.

These type of accidents tend not to happen on residential streets.

Because anyone delivering something to a residential street will only drive on residential streets from the minute they get off the motorway of course :roll: Besides, you'd be surprised what streets HGVs are forbidden from outside the daytime. HGVs are permitted only on a handful of trunk routes between 9pm and 7am: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London ... ayout1.pdf

notsoblue

The OP really could be about any road user. You just have to accept that all road provision is there to protect you from yourself and others to some extent.

bigmat

If the lorry's blind spot is that massive, should it really be allowed onto the road? I mean, it wouldn't take anything that radical to massively reduce the blindspot. All you'd need would be a couple of mirrors at differing angles so that the driver had a wider range of rear vision. I appreciate that the driver only has one set of eyes, but he could then select the appropriate mirror for what should be a slow speed manoeuvre and would have sight of all those cyclists. I don't think its good enough to just accept that lorry drivers are practically driving with their eyes closed - for them or us.

MonkeyMonster

suzyb wrote:

iPete wrote:

Happens all the time, especially along embankment.

If I was driving in London and making a left turn I'd squeeze the curb. I'd wee-wee of a few of the 'must get near the front' crowd but it'd save them from their own stupidity.

See something like this most days..

I didn't realise the blind spot was quite that big :shock:

Think of the angle of the mirror on the cabin's left hand side.

TommyEss

No - I think we do have to accept that lorries have massive blind spots - there are improvements that can be made - the proximity sensors, alarms, fresnel lenses and better training, but there will be times when that just isn't enough, and you do find yourself in situations through no fault of your own where you are in grave danger.

Imagine if I was positioned to the left at lights and a massive lorry pulled up alongside me with his indicator on? I'd be getting onto the pavement or jumping the red light to get out of his way - or even just go frigging left - whatever it takes to not be under him. Fact is it doesn't matter if you are "in the right" if you're dead under a lorry - and from what the OP was saying, plenty of people are surviving more through luck than judgement.

lardboy

Keyser__Soze wrote:

lardboy wrote:

Keyser__Soze wrote:

I think it's more related to the ban on HGVs/deliveries outside of 'social' hours for residential noise reduction than the building lobby.

These type of accidents tend not to happen on residential streets.

Because anyone delivering something to a residential street will only drive on residential streets from the minute they get off the motorway of course :roll: Besides, you'd be surprised what streets HGVs are forbidden from outside the daytime. HGVs are permitted only on a handful of trunk routes between 9pm and 7am: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London ... ayout1.pdf

My point is that it's somewhat perverse to allow the vehicles which year in, year out kill the most cyclists onto streets which have been designated as primary cycle routes at the time when there will be most cyclists on there. To then design cycle lanes so that cyclists position themselves where they will be most at risk from a turning HGV is insane. It's almost as if it's designed to kill cyclists.

keyser__soze

lardboy, I agree with you. I was merely pointing out why HGVs are on the streets at the time they are and why they aren't delivering at night when there are much fewer cyclists around. Sadly I doubt any amount of campaigning will get a ban on lorries in 'rush hour' due to the already restricted times they are allowed to operate and the residential lobby won't easily budge on the overnight ban.

Applespider

Undertaking normal cars etc where there's room to safely do so (i.e. not by having to scoot along with one foot on the kerb) isn't so bad particularly if you also know the light phasing. If I'm doing that and then come to a car/van that's indicating or any bus/lorry that isn't, I stop. Sometimes that means I'm now blocking the route to the ASL and sometimes I get shouted at by cyclist who are more interested in potentially committing suicide than me by going down the side but tough.

The other thing that bugs me about the original scenario is that if you did stop in the sensible position behind the van, you're now being held up by the idiots down the side that the driver is having to 'wait' for - which discourages others from doing the sensible thing.

mar_k

BigMat wrote:

If the lorry's blind spot is that massive, should it really be allowed onto the road? I mean, it wouldn't take anything that radical to massively reduce the blindspot. All you'd need would be a couple of mirrors at differing angles so that the driver had a wider range of rear vision. I appreciate that the driver only has one set of eyes, but he could then select the appropriate mirror for what should be a slow speed manoeuvre and would have sight of all those cyclists. I don't think its good enough to just accept that lorry drivers are practically driving with their eyes closed - for them or us.

I am hgv1 driver ( artics ) so I can explain
Unfortunately the blindspot on the near side is that big,
Once the lorry starts turning all you can see is the side of the trailer and nothing down it,

They are safe to drive on the road however in my experience Car drivers and cyclists will squeeze themselfs into any gap they can with no thought to their own safety or even how they are affecting others.

I have been in that exact dilema that the poster shows.

Im sat at a set of lights, straddling both lanes, which helps me position the truck which allows me to get round the corner and also stops cars on my off side putting them selfs in a dangerous position.
However in doing this I have a larger gap on the near side ( kerb side ) which cyclists tend to slide down.
Some times I have already started my turn and already have the front turnt down the road I want to go down and I will just catch a glimpse of a cyclist who wasn't there before I started the turn.

I really think cyclists need educating more on the way some vehicles have to move.

I have lost count of the times Im given abuse for taking up 2 lanes even though it is the only way to take some corners and it also the way you are taught.


At the end of the day I have undergone a training course and taken a test which allows me to drive the vehicle in a safe and controlled manner, but any idiot can jump on a bike and become their own worst enemy and think they know it all.

Im not saying all lorry drivers are good and take care because that would be a lie,
But the good out weigh the bad.

Cyclists need to take responsibility for their own safety and think alittle more about where they postition themselfs



Please dont think I am anti cyclist as Im not,
I am massively for the cyclist and try to defend them when this topic crops up in our tea room however there are some people on bikes who just don't seem aware or situations they are putting them selfs in

mar_k

I will take some pictures from the drivers seat of my lorry tomorro at various stages of a turn, I will be off the road and the vehicle wont be moving when I take the pics so I will remain legal.
That way it may give you a better understanding as its quite hard to word correctly

TommyEss

mar_k that'd be very much appreciated - thanks mate!!

hjghg5

I tend to spend my commute tutting at other cyclists. I will pretty much always sit behind traffic rather than filtering alongside it unless I know from experience of the route that I can get ahead before the lights change and be 100% confident they've seen me.

After being hit by a car (in a SMIDSY sort of way where I was cycling along a free flowing main road and they turned across me without looking) I know how much cars hurt and I'd rather be uninjured than right. So I'm even more cautious now. I'm also more cautious in the car - before I gave cyclists as much room as I thought a confident cyclist needed. Now I give them enough room for a nervous one...

But back to the point yes, *some* cyclists do stupid stuff.

jds_1981

mar_k wrote:

BigMat wrote:

If the lorry's blind spot is that massive, should it really be allowed onto the road? I mean, it wouldn't take anything that radical to massively reduce the blindspot. All you'd need would be a couple of mirrors at differing angles so that the driver had a wider range of rear vision. I appreciate that the driver only has one set of eyes, but he could then select the appropriate mirror for what should be a slow speed manoeuvre and would have sight of all those cyclists. I don't think its good enough to just accept that lorry drivers are practically driving with their eyes closed - for them or us.

I am hgv1 driver ( artics ) so I can explain
Unfortunately the blindspot on the near side is that big,
Once the lorry starts turning all you can see is the side of the trailer and nothing down it,

I think we understand that - shows a massive design flaw which potentially makes them unsuitable for use on town roads.

At the end of the day I have undergone a training course and taken a test which allows me to drive the vehicle in a safe and controlled manner, but any idiot can jump on a bike and become their own worst enemy and think they know it all.

Come now, car drivers and motorcyclists and taxi drivers also take various tests. Didn't stop a moped rider almost taking me out after they ran a red light on my way home tonight. Or the car driver turning across me requiring me to skid stop, nor this HGV driver technically running a red light http://vimeo.com/20082252

However, will agree, lots of cyclists do stupid things...

MonkeyMonster

mar_k wrote:

extremely good comment

Cheers for that, I've always been impressed when watching reversing artics, doing it as a kid with a toy one was hard enough at times.

Cyclists are their own worst enemy and the majority need educating in this.

jonginge

TommyEss wrote:

mar_k that'd be very much appreciated - thanks mate!!

+1

MonkeyMonster

jds_1981 wrote:

I think we understand that - shows a massive design flaw which potentially makes them unsuitable for use on town roads.

I presume you are therefore advocating smaller vehicles to do the deliveries on all internal roads within a certain distance from motorways and all other large class roads. Both raising costs and also forcing the need for depots to allow for the larger transporters to divest into their small more road "safe" vans.

There are a number of fairly obvious points you've not considered in your point and I would ask that you re-consider your thoughts behind what is both an inflamatory and ill thought out statement.

rick_chasey

Re - lorries - especially of the articulated kind.

I am an advocate for restricting access for large lorries on busy route for cyclists during rush hour.

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Cyclists are their own worst enemy and the majority need educating in this.

You know, I really don't agree with this way of looking at things. The majority of incidents I've seen or heard of involving cyclists have not been due to reckless or negligent behaviour by cyclists. Sure, there have been a few, but in my opinion its wrong to say that cyclists are their own worst enemy and need educating.

In this specific case, you're right, cyclists do need educating about how to behave around large lorries. My problem with the sentiment though is that it implies a lack of personal responsibility on the part of "Cyclists" in general. Many, many non-cyclists have this opinion, and its part of what makes cycling in this country a relatively hostile experience for many, and probably more risky than it needs to be.

I know you're no apologist, MM, but I think perpetuating this idea that we (as a group) are our own worst enemy encourages the kind of "They shouldn't be on the road anyway" excuse that many motorists seem to come up with for poor driving around cyclists.

roger_merriman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Re - lorries - especially of the articulated kind.

I am an advocate for restricting access for large lorries on busy route for cyclists during rush hour.

I thought (i.e. i haven't checked so could be wrong) that it's smaller lorries that at least in central london that tend to be involved in KSI with cyclists with alarming regularity not the big articulated ones.

Don't get me wrong taking a big articulated lorry into areas where you'll have to do tight turns with huge blind spots has with it a risk of killing someone.

partially when this is not problem that couldn't be solved technically.

or to put it another way to shift the blame onto someone else who should know how your vehicle moves isn't one that i think holds much merit since I think it's very likely that they could do something about the blind spot if the wanted to.

MonkeyMonster

notsoblue wrote:

I know you're no apologist, MM, but I think perpetuating this idea that we (as a group) are our own worst enemy encourages the kind of "They shouldn't be on the road anyway" excuse that many motorists seem to come up with for poor driving around cyclists.

Hmm, perhaps. I might have had a few days of non-standard behaviour and thus more irate in general and thus a bit hasty with my stick
- people wanting to turn right from the far left side of the road with no shoulder check
- going up insdie of already left indicating vehicles
- pre-jumping green lights (which then caused 3 cars to all stutter forward and then have to brake)
- ignoring red lights
- ignorning stop lines
- going round entire block of waiting cars and other cyclists to sit at front and then block everyone by weaving side to side as you slowly start off
- no indication at all before turning
- no death checks when changing lanes or going round more stationary cars

All this week more than a few times. Destroys the cycling soul a little every day. Perhaps the racetrack has on average a higher rate of careful/considerate cyclist which given the numbers also means you can go for longer without seeing such fuck wittery.

notsoblue

You're going through SheBu up to Mornington Crescent right? I used to do that commute and there are more minor roads and its less busy than embankment. Traffic tends to move slower, I'd put the difference in cyclist behaviour down to that.

I sympathise with what you're saying but I can't really reconcile the implication of it... Cyclists aren't vilified to this extent in other countries. I'd imagine this is because road facilities for them in the UK are just pretty bad and this is what causes conflict. Otherwise the only explanation is that theres something about people who live in Britain that causes them to behave like douchebags when they get on bikes. :P The fact is that cycling (in London at least) has become hugely popular and cyclists numbers have increased without a meaningful improvement in road facilities for them.

I think the answer is to improve the roads for slow/inexperienced cyclists by not forcing them to mix with faster moving traffic. Rather than to continue as we are and to just hopelessly wait for a spontaneous improvement in behaviour. Thats not realistic.

jds_1981

MonkeyMonster wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

I think we understand that - shows a massive design flaw which potentially makes them unsuitable for use on town roads.

I presume you are therefore advocating smaller vehicles to do the deliveries on all internal roads within a certain distance from motorways and all other large class roads. Both raising costs and also forcing the need for depots to allow for the larger transporters to divest into their small more road "safe" vans.

There are a number of fairly obvious points you've not considered in your point and I would ask that you re-consider your thoughts behind what is both an inflamatory and ill thought out statement.

Nope, think they should fix the design flaw. Not sure what you think is inflammatory about pointing out something shouldn't be used if not fit for purpose?

veronese68

I must say I find the 7.5 tonners more of a worry. You don't need HGV to drive them and they're small enough that some people seem to think that they can throw them around like a small car. Most of the artics I come across seem to be a lot more aware of cyclists.
I also think that when people on here are saying cyclists need training and we are our own worst enemies what they mean is;
Some people riding bicycles don't think and seem blissfully unaware of the dangers around them and their bad attitude makes life difficult for those of us that try to do things the right way.
Unfortunately it's easier to say "Bloody cyclists"

roger_merriman

fairly normal around here kingston/richmond quiet(er) roads

it's the rusty chain lot, oddly I don't think they normally come to much harm.

it's the lycra lot filtering at speed that normally make me wince.

MonkeyMonster

jds_1981 wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

I think we understand that - shows a massive design flaw which potentially makes them unsuitable for use on town roads.

I presume you are therefore advocating smaller vehicles to do the deliveries on all internal roads within a certain distance from motorways and all other large class roads. Both raising costs and also forcing the need for depots to allow for the larger transporters to divest into their small more road "safe" vans.

There are a number of fairly obvious points you've not considered in your point and I would ask that you re-consider your thoughts behind what is both an inflamatory and ill thought out statement.

Nope, think they should fix the design flaw. Not sure what you think is inflammatory about pointing out something shouldn't be used if not fit for purpose?

It is fit for purpose (and obviously so imho) in a large number of cases is my counter point - there is a need for large scale delivery vehicles in london, I grant you not in small towns or in some of the tiny london streets but (for example) embankment is a fairly large artery for central london. If an artic needs to turn left to go into a more central part then why are we blaming it for not being able to see down the left handside of it when if its been indicating for likely a long time and the driver will be making sure he doesn't hit anything wth the right side of the vehicle MUST he also look out for people deliberately ignoring safefy signs and common sense and forging a path up the inside? Why is the onus on the vehicle or driver being at fault?

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

If an artic needs to turn left to go into a more central part then why are we blaming it for not being able to see down the left handside of it when if its been indicating for likely a long time and the driver will be making sure he doesn't hit anything wth the right side of the vehicle MUST he also look out for people deliberately ignoring safefy signs and common sense and forging a path up the inside? Why is the onus on the vehicle or driver being at fault?

Its just courtesy as much as safety to give large vehicles space at junctions. Even if they do see you coming on the left hand side they have to wait until its entirely clear before they can turn left. I just stay back and let them do their thing unless I can get through quickly and safely.

MonkeyMonster

Actually i'll stop there, i've seen some god awful cycling the last few days and far better car behaviour and my brother has just been passenger doored this morning (fortunately not going too fast but bits of the bike are write-offs) too so I'm not best placed to give nice arguements.
We've all seen bad cyclign, we've all seen bad driving. Afaik we already have times when artics aren't allowed on roads. We've got educational campaigns on both sides - how can we better get the message across rather than debating something we can't change. How can we get to the point whereby cars respect our space and we respect theirs?

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

How can we get to the point whereby cars respect our space and we respect theirs?

Well, I think the problem is that we have to share the same space.

davmaggs

jds_1981 wrote:

Nope, think they should fix the design flaw. Not sure what you think is inflammatory about pointing out something shouldn't be used if not fit for purpose?

All vehicles, including you on your bicycle have blind spots.

These cannot be designed out completely so it will always be down to each road user to appreciate and anticipate what others are doing, and to read the clues they are being given.