We're at fault on the roads, over deaths involving HGV's

Classic33

Question:

Which of the following methods should be used to reduce risks for cyclists on the roads?

Proper enforcement (Including fines) of cyclists ignoring the rules of the road. 87% (97%)*

More training for cyclists on large vehicle blind spots. 85% (94%)*

Physical segregation of cyclists from other road users. 60% (77%)*

Lift bans to allow trucks to deliver before and after rush-hour period. 51%

More training for drivers. 48%

Redesign junctions to be safer. 48%

Voluntary fitment of safety equipment to vehicles. 26%

Mandatory fitment of safety equipment to vehicles. 23%

Other(Not Specified, my words). 14%

Ban cyclists from the rush-hour period. 11%

Ban trucks from the rush-hour period. 7%

No methods required to reduce risks for cyclists on roads. 1%

Majority of respondents (82%) feel that the national & local media are biased against trucks when reporting incidents involving trucks & cyclists.

More than two thirds (68%) felt that the government is not right to promote cycling without appropriate safeguards in place.

One respondent said "There needs to be less emotion and more hard facts & analysis.

Cycling, especially in London, with the advent Boris bikes, has increased rapidly. With many of the new cyclists having no training or experience of riding in a busy city. This has led to a number of fatal incidents which although they have also involved cars, buses & a coach or two, have concentrated on trucks because they are always seen as dirty, smelly, noisy & dangerous."
One driver said " The government & media should wake up to the reality that we all need to promote mutual respect for all road users. ............

..............Until people wake up to respecting each other's right to use the roads & start to respect other road users, there will always be stupid mistakes that costs lives. Cyclists: look out for vehicles & respect their size. Large vehicle drivers: respect the vunerability of cyclists"

Another driver said "I sometimes cycle; you don't realise how some vehicles get to you when passing until you have been on a bike yourself. Since I started cycling, I now give cyclists much more room when travelling behind them or overtaking. Until you cycle, you won't know how many people do not give way for bikes"



While many respondents were keen to point the finger of blame at cyclists, for the sake of balance only 35% of respodents said they had sent their drivers on on vunerable road user awareness training. Which type of haulier has embraced this the most: thats right, construction hauliers - nearly half (48%) use such training



*Figures in brackets represent Construction Hauliers response, compared to survey average.

Nearly 200 respondents, which will have included haulage companies as well as drivers, took part in the survey.



Survey link was posted on here. So where do we go from here.

We can sit on the fence looking at our side of the problem, whilst everyone one else does the same. Somewhere on that fence, lies the solution.


Also posted on TruckNet UK THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM & OWNER AND FLEET OPERATORS FORUM.

Pross

So the bulk of truckers feel that the blame in the majority of these accidents lies with the cyclists and that they are the scapegoats? Hardly a surprise. I suspect they are right to a degree with regards to educating cyclists but the truck drivers need to appreciate that they are large and dangerous pieces of equipment and that they also need to take great care at all times and especially when in urban areas. Odd that so few think additional safety equipment on their vehicles is a good idea, you would think that they would want everything available to them to stop being that driver involved in a fatal RTC.

Classic33

The survey wasn't just aimed at drivers. It was industry based with that question being given over to/because of recent events in London.

Rough cost for the equipment to become compulsory if Labour win the next General Election.
Figures given for typical 18-tonner.
Reversing Alarm: £130.
Rear-view Camera: £450.
Flashing Lights & Beacons: £650.
Daytime Running Lights: £350.
Class VI(Cyclops) Mirror: £25.
Rear Warning Signs For Cyclists: £3
The above to be fitted within a month of the election, the following by December 2017.
Side Underrun Guards: N/A.
Blind Spot Elimination Devices: £450.
Audible Warning For Cyclists: £130.
Comes to about £2,200.
An Artic would cost disproportionately more & Tipper Operators can add a further £2,500 for Side Underrun Bars & Sheeting System.

Uncertainty yet as to wether the beacons will be required to be on at all times. If so what about vehicles already oblliged to have these fitted & in operation when on the road.

Make us even more popular with them.

florerider

You only have to see HGV behaviour on the motorways, notably tailgating, to form an opinion independantly of cycling.

weadmire

I think all the mirrors, cameras signs and safety devices fitted to trucks will ultimately have little effect. I believe the way urban traffic is managed is to blame for the injuries to vulnerable road users. To add mirrors, cameras, signs etc to trucks will not address that problem.

In 1983 an Australian Doctor questioned received wisdom in the treatment of stomach ulcers - Zantac treated the symptom not the cause. He asked a pathologist to analyse the contents of his patient's stomachs. In about 90% of cases there was a particular bacteria present. Their conclusion was that the bacteria must be causal rather than coincidental. A particular antibiotic cures stomach ulcers simply, quickly and cheaply. Long story short the doctor and the pathologist, Barry Marshal and Robin Warren, were awarded the Nobel prize for Medicine in 2005, 22 years later.

Why is this relevant? Because traffic lights are present in more than 90% of cycling fatalities in London, they are causal rather than coincidental. I don't carry any kind of torch for HGV drivers but taking an HGV through London must be exhausting and distracting for their drivers in every way. The pain of stopping and starting about every 100 meters must be beyond tedious and it must cause a driver's attention to wane. The sooner we extend the shared space experiment in Exhibition Road, flawed as it is by being shared space lite, to London as a whole, rolling back the rising tide of traffic lights, the better. The idea road users should abdicate responsibility to dumb traffic lights is flawed.

Marco Panettone

So instead of looking at what causes the danger to cyclists and other vulnerable road users and then thinking of the best ways to reduce these dangers based on research you think it's more accurate and valuable to ask a tiny, biased sample what thoughts they have about the issue?

Why not look at where cycling is safest and most widespread in an urban environment? Why not look at how that situation was created and follow suit?

weadmire

Marco Panettone wrote:

So instead of looking at what causes the danger to cyclists and other vulnerable road users and then thinking of the best ways to reduce these dangers based on research you think it's more accurate and valuable to ask a tiny, biased sample what thoughts they have about the issue?

Why not look at where cycling is safest and most widespread in an urban environment? Why not look at how that situation was created and follow suit?

Marco is this addressed to me? If so look into how traffic is managed in Drachten in Holland: population circa 60,000 total number of traffic lights, zero. The traffic flows, at significant benefit to everyone on the planet through reduced air pollution, meanwhile there are fewer injuries to vulnerable road users than otherwise. There is quite a lot more evidence I can quote and have in the past quoted.

If traffic lights make you feel safe you are deluded. Try looking for traffic not lights and act accordingly.

edhornby

totally correct weadmire - only issue is that the lights are there for enabling traffic* flow not safety - so asking Boris to do something that inconveniences people and, by inference, reduces the viability of London to support business is onto a loser off the bat. folk think that traffic lights are a good thing and you'd need to be a hell of a salesman to change minds and prove the benefits - and yes there is supporting evidence but it's still gonna be a big leap of faith to start removing them

* traffic being cars not anything else that may use the roads :-/

Marco Panettone

weadmire wrote:

Marco Panettone wrote:

So instead of looking at what causes the danger to cyclists and other vulnerable road users and then thinking of the best ways to reduce these dangers based on research you think it's more accurate and valuable to ask a tiny, biased sample what thoughts they have about the issue?

Why not look at where cycling is safest and most widespread in an urban environment? Why not look at how that situation was created and follow suit?

Marco is this addressed to me? If so look into how traffic is managed in Drachten in Holland: population circa 60,000 total number of traffic lights, zero. The traffic flows, at significant benefit to everyone on the planet through reduced air pollution, meanwhile there are fewer injuries to vulnerable road users than otherwise. There is quite a lot more evidence I can quote and have in the past quoted.

If traffic lights make you feel safe you are deluded. Try looking for traffic not lights and act accordingly.

Haha! Sorry - no. Addressed to the OP. You've clearly looked at some actual evidence, which is definitely the way forward rather than asking some people that don't cycle how to make cycling safer (as the OP seems to have done).

I much prefer riding without traffic lights - it makes for an easier journey. Even setting the lights for a 'green wave' for those travelling at cycling speeds works.

weadmire

Marco,

Apologies, I was hasty and presumptive.

You are right these sort of questionnaires are rarely put together by someone without an agenda. They remind me of something a flambouyant advertising potentate, Mr Allen of Allen Brady and Marsh, said of market research in the late 70's: "Market research is used much as a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination". That prince among socialist r soles and wannabe supreme leaders, Ken Livingston, oversaw a huge expansion of the use of traffic lights as Mayor. When cyclists and particularly female cyclists started dying while obeying the 'king lights he'd had installed he tried to apply the sticking plaster of ASLs. When that made things worse rather than better he had some research done by the Road Transport Laboratory. Was he really interested in their conclusions? One of their controversial and for some counter intuitive conclusions: that women cyclists in London were being killed at a rate about three times higher than might be expected because they were more likely to obey the lights than male cyclists, was an uncomfortable read. Self evidently if it is safer for males cyclists to jump lights and similarly safer for female cyclists to jump lights it is safer for everyone to jump lights. That is road users should look for traffic, not lights and act accordingly. Put another way it would be best for everyone if the lights were not there. Thus one of Livingstone's preferred means of controlling the population - "icking them around as they seek to get from A-B, should be stopped and indeed reversed. But where would that end up? Livingstone knew it was most unlikely to enhance his authority. No surprise therefore that nothing was done and said traffic lights continued to be installed with increasing frequency.

weadmire

Edhornby,

People believe traffic lights are a good thing? You are right. I was astonished when the proposal to remove a little used pedestrian light on Gt Eastern St was voted down to the obvious approval of the LB Hackney. I attended a farty meeting at The Hoxton Hotel that had this item and The Old St roundabout on the agenda. (said roundabout is as good an example of lights = carnage as you will come across) I think the proposal to remove the lights failed because the media and politicians are constantly selling everyone anxiety. However I do not believe it will need a big leap of faith to start removing them. And I think cyclists are doing their bit to erode traffic light compliance. But there is room for improvement in this regard. As cyclists we should always look for traffic not lights.

Coincidentally that everything flows better without them is being demonstrated as I type. The lights at the junction of Gt Eastern, Shoreditch High St and Commercial Street have failed this morning. Everything is flowing way way better than is the norm.

Pross

weadmire wrote:

I think all the mirrors, cameras signs and safety devices fitted to trucks will ultimately have little effect. I believe the way urban traffic is managed is to blame for the injuries to vulnerable road users. To add mirrors, cameras, signs etc to trucks will not address that problem.

In 1983 an Australian Doctor questioned received wisdom in the treatment of stomach ulcers - Zantac treated the symptom not the cause. He asked a pathologist to analyse the contents of his patient's stomachs. In about 90% of cases there was a particular bacteria present. Their conclusion was that the bacteria must be causal rather than coincidental. A particular antibiotic cures stomach ulcers simply, quickly and cheaply. Long story short the doctor and the pathologist, Barry Marshal and Robin Warren, were awarded the Nobel prize for Medicine in 2005, 22 years later.

Why is this relevant? Because traffic lights are present in more than 90% of cycling fatalities in London, they are causal rather than coincidental. I don't carry any kind of torch for HGV drivers but taking an HGV through London must be exhausting and distracting for their drivers in every way. The pain of stopping and starting about every 100 meters must be beyond tedious and it must cause a driver's attention to wane. The sooner we extend the shared space experiment in Exhibition Road, flawed as it is by being shared space lite, to London as a whole, rolling back the rising tide of traffic lights, the better. The idea road users should abdicate responsibility to dumb traffic lights is flawed.

I need to put you in touch with my colleague who (as a highway engineer) has been banging this drum for the past decade and did a lot of research over in Belgium including meeting with Hans Monderman. He's gradually starting to get interest at parish council level where they see the benefits of an enhanced environment but it's a battle getting fellow highway engineers and the general public to consider new ideas. The problem with road design is everyone considers themselves an expert on what is 'safe' purely on the basis that they use the end product. If you point out that such schemes provide safety benefits elsewhere the standard response is 'yes, but we aren't like the Dutch / Danes'. That may be so by there's no reason why we can't be.

weadmire

Pross,

Thank you. Monderman is someone WeAdmire.net should admire, I will mention it to our designers.

With regard to lights there was an employment tribunal case involving a traffic light technician whose job it was to fix those lights that failed. As I recall he was on call for 24 hrs a day with an alternating three days on/four off, four on/ three off work pattern. I think he worked for Birmingham City Council. The ruck revolved around his money which was reported as being in excess of £90k pa. It was more than 10 years ago. I still can't jump a set of lights without thinking about it. The government wants to save a few billion, traffic lights would be a good place to start.

rickeverett

You are pretty thick if you dartdown the inside if any truck or lorry no matter if its turning left or not.

I see it a lot.it's not just truck drivers fault.

slap_my_bass_up

rickeverett wrote:

You are pretty thick if you dartdown the inside if any truck or lorry no matter if its turning left or not.

I see it a lot. it's not just truck drivers fault.

Bingo! It's amazing how many cyclists are oblivious to vehicle indicators. I've seen plenty of cyclists behind an indicating lorry/car only to dart up the inside and make said vehicle wait for them!

I honestly believe that the deaths in London that are at junctions, are the careless actions of the cyclist. Yet, the driver is automatically the one at fault.

I think this government and the mayor need to realise that our infrastructure is too small to have pointless, road painted segregation for cyclists. Cyclists should need to undergo a practical ability test with a similar theory test to driving. Also, fewer headphones and more helmets!

On the flip side, driver attitude needs to change as well. Arrogance, short temperament and speeding happens so easily when you get behind the wheel of a car.

slowbike

slap_my_bass_up wrote:

I think this government and the mayor need to realise that our infrastructure is too small to have pointless, road painted segregation for cyclists. Cyclists should need to undergo a practical ability test with a similar theory test to driving. Also, fewer headphones and more helmets!

Cyclists need to take care of themselves - that much is true - riding up the left side of a vehicle that is about to turn left is never a good idea - but how do you know they're about to turn left. If they're stopped at lights with no indicators on then you can't be sure - it could be safe to go to the front or it might not be - never black and white.

I disagree with a mandatory practical ability test - granted there are ppl who believe themselves to be better than they are - but it's the same with cars & other vehicles where testing is done - so it's not as though a test would make a significant difference.
Easy access to voluntary education schemes - such as bikeability - would be good - and IMHO it should be done at all schools too. Teach them young - then back that up later in life too.

Creating a mandatory cycling test would be fraught with difficulties.
what do you do about existing riders - do they get an automatic pass as they did with cars?
what about young riders - is there an age limit - you wouldn't expect a 5yo to pass - so are they to be excluded from the roads altogether?
how do you police this? We'd need a cycling licence - and endorsements? renewable or lifetime? Is it a licence just for the road or for cyclepaths and bridleways too? What about mountainbikers or other offroad activites?
Then there's the cost - who is going to pay for this? Driving tests (theory and practical) cost >£90 - that's before you've had any lessons.

As a rough guide; the Driving Standards Agency research shows that the average person will need at least 47 hours of lessons and 22 hours of private practice before they pass their test. The cost of lessons varies according to area, with a national average of £24 per lesson.

47 hours at £24/lesson = £1128 - even if you assume cycling is going to be 1/2 that price that's still going to be £600 before you're allowed to get on a bike - a bike that could cost sub £100 from the supermarkets ...

So all that it will achieve is a massive reduction in cycling - it'll become the pasttime of those who want to cycle miles and miles - those who do it for travel savings will probably just give up as it will no longer save them money.

Dai Thom

florerider wrote:

You only have to see HGV behaviour on the motorways, notably tailgating, to form an opinion independantly of cycling.

All HGV's on the motorways have speed limiters fitted and set at 90 kph +/- 2kpm so tailgating usually means not enough extra speed to overtake.
And how many times do you see cyclists at a give way junction, when the first cyclist pulls out the following pack follow whether it is safe to do so or not?

letap73

Dai Thom wrote:

florerider wrote:

You only have to see HGV behaviour on the motorways, notably tailgating, to form an opinion independantly of cycling.

All HGV's on the motorways have speed limiters fitted and set at 90 kph +/- 2kpm so tailgating usually means not enough extra speed to overtake.
And how many times do you see cyclists at a give way junction, when the first cyclist pulls out the following pack follow whether it is safe to do so or not?

That is no excuse for tailgating, tailgating is dangerous, if a HGV smashes into the back of a vehicle the above wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Idiotic cyclists are likely to kill/injure themselves, idiotic HGV drivers are likely to kill/injure others.

turbotommy

letap73 wrote:

That is no excuse for tailgating, tailgating is dangerous, if a HGV smashes into the back of a vehicle the above wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Idiotic cyclists are likely to kill/injure themselves, idiotic HGV drivers are likely to kill/injure others.

I'm not trying to nit pick letap, but I don't think that's quite right

Idiotic cyclists do more than kill or injure themselves. They also help to reaffirm the stereotypes of cyclists. This in turn helps other road users to justify their attitudes towards cyclists. It's human nature and I feel it's a major factor in the hostile atmosphere on London roads between different types of road users.

fastandfurry

weadmire wrote:

Coincidentally that everything flows better without them is being demonstrated as I type. The lights at the junction of Gt Eastern, Shoreditch High St and Commercial Street have failed this morning. Everything is flowing way way better than is the norm.

Yes, I am sure the MOTOR traffic is flowing better.

How about children, elderly, physically disabled, blind or deaf people walking? How are they supposed to cross the road?

Regarding the original statement, it's clearly nonsense. In no other field of life would be say that group a are doing something that is killing members of group b if they make a mistake, and then blame the entirety of group b for some of their members making predictable, human, mistakes; it's nonsensical. If I walk down the road with an axe, it's my responsibility not to hit anyone with that axe, not everyone else's responsibility to stay out of my way! HGV drivers are being paid to do something that is dangerous to others, it's their responsibility to mitigate that risk - unless we're saying the normal rules of human society don't apply on the roads!

kajjal

As a cyclist all you can do is not put yourself in risky positions and stay aware of what is happening around you. This is a lot truer in busy rush hour urban situations where the roads are badly designed and maintained.

rpherts

When riding in London I follow simple rules:

1. NEVER undertake a large vehicle (bus, lorry, etc) if it is still moving.
2. If it has stopped, only undertake if you are CERTAIN you can get in front of it before it starts moving again.
3. Extra vigilance over the above at junctions.

The number of times I have stopped behind a bus or lorry at a set of lights, knowing there is no 'cycle space' in front so no room, and cyclist after cyclist rides past me and stops next to the vehicle. I've even been sworn at for 'getting in the way' of someone wanting to do this! And the sort of people who do this tend to be on Boris bikes or similar and take about 20 minutes to go from 0-15mph, wobbling their way from a standing position in a high gear.

Be sensible.