Safer Lorry Scheme (safety guidelines to protect cyclists)
blamptey
Posts: 7
So in the London this past week legislation has just been passed to better equipt HGV (Heavy goods vehicles) with guardrails and additional mirrors to prevent collisions with cyclist. Read the full article by clicking the link below
http://bit.ly/1iwG4ST
http://bit.ly/1iwG4ST
0
Comments
-
This is an excellent start. I am a frequent rider in central London - and rode very frequently when I still lived there.
The Safer Lorry Scheme should have a positive impact (no pun intended).
There are more cyclists now than when I lived there - and I see more close shaves than I did.
I have never witnessed one of the awful left-turning HGV collisions that make gory headlines, but like many riders in London I have witnessed many, many near misses that were inches from being much worse.
In many cases - and I am not victim blaming as there is no victim in a near miss - it is the cyclist who is culpapble for his or her own relative invisibility. And also for not appreciating how HGVs and buses negotiate bends and junctions.
These new regulations will address the very serious matter of HGV drivers not being aware of what is around them. Some responsibility also rests with London cyclists - a responsibility to avoid blind spots and anticipate.
But hurrah nonetheless for these new Regs. I hope they will make a difference.0 -
I echo that sentiment. It's truly scary how much 'lack of vision' the hgv vehicle actually has. Maybe another scheme to make all cyclists, cycle responsibly could help the incident statistics drop also.0
-
That's definately what's needed in the UK also. There are too many road users that get complacent and far too many cyclists that dice with the bigger vehicles unnecessarily0
-
In London in particular there are a lot of cyclists that do not have a driving license and have never even had lessons. They have just bought a bike and headed out on to the roads with no understanding of how roads work.0
-
In London in particular there are a lot of cyclists that do not have a driving license and have never even had lessons. They have just bought a bike and headed out on to the roads with no understanding of how roads work.
That is undoubtedly the case, but it is not the whole of the cause of the issue. I did not have a driving license when cycling through SE1 to my day school, aged 11 to 16. I'm sure I was a mobile hazard to many of the motorists back in those days, but I did have an essential fear of big, noisy, rumbling diesel things that turned across the road in front of me.
Back then, the fear was more one of buses squishing cyclists against pedestrian fencing to their nearside when swinging left. But all larger vehicles were a bit scary.
I do believe that some familiarity with controlling and guiding other vehicle types helps with awareness, but that is not the whole of the issue. I think that the issue is in part one of having lived (in many cases) a slightly sheltered life where well-meaning parents have kept beloved offspring away from anything potentially hurty. These cocooned youth grow into adults with little sense of risk or ability to gauge risk. I do not say that is the whole of the issue, but I feel sure it is part of it.
I am, as ever, right. Dissent is pointless.0 -
I was under the impression that undertaking (even stationary) traffic in the same lane on a bike is illegal on UK roads, is that not the case?0
-
I was under the impression that undertaking (even stationary) traffic in the same lane on a bike is illegal on UK roads, is that not the case?
Highway code 163 suggests otherwise:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
[various stuff not relevant]
-only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signaling to turn right, and there is room to do so
-stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left.
As the code states 'should' and not 'must' not obeying this bit would not be illegal anyway, but it does seem to suggest undertaking a queue of slow moving traffic is ok (obviously depending upon the circumstances).
On another note given how quickly this thread (and others) have moved away from the lorry's design to cyclist behavior I'm becoming more in favour of presumed liability. Then at least it would be made clear to the population as a whole that if you take a 40 Tonne vehicle into the vicinity of people it is very capable of crushing you have a greater duty of care then if you take a 10kg vehicle into the same area.0 -
I was under the impression that undertaking (even stationary) traffic in the same lane on a bike is illegal on UK roads, is that not the case?
Highway code 163 suggests otherwise:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
[various stuff not relevant]
-only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signaling to turn right, and there is room to do so
-stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left.
As the code states 'should' and not 'must' not obeying this bit would not be illegal anyway, but it does seem to suggest undertaking a queue of slow moving traffic is ok (obviously depending upon the circumstances).
On another note given how quickly this thread (and others) have moved away from the lorry's design to cyclist behavior I'm becoming more in favour of presumed liability. Then at least it would be made clear to the population as a whole that if you take a 40 Tonne vehicle into the vicinity of people it is very capable of crushing you have a greater duty of care then if you take a 10kg vehicle into the same area.
I'm not sure that this is a correct interpretation of this rule, especially as section 163 is not referring to cyclists, but to motorists. I think this simply means that if your left hand lane is moving quicker than the traffic in the lane to your right, you can overtake/undertake. Think of traffic jams on the motorway and the 'must overtake on the right' doesn't apply - you quite often see the left hand lanes moving quicker than the 'overtaking' lanes.0 -
I was under the impression that undertaking (even stationary) traffic in the same lane on a bike is illegal on UK roads, is that not the case?
Highway code 163 suggests otherwise:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
[various stuff not relevant]
-only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signaling to turn right, and there is room to do so
-stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left.
As the code states 'should' and not 'must' not obeying this bit would not be illegal anyway, but it does seem to suggest undertaking a queue of slow moving traffic is ok (obviously depending upon the circumstances).
On another note given how quickly this thread (and others) have moved away from the lorry's design to cyclist behavior I'm becoming more in favour of presumed liability. Then at least it would be made clear to the population as a whole that if you take a 40 Tonne vehicle into the vicinity of people it is very capable of crushing you have a greater duty of care then if you take a 10kg vehicle into the same area.
I'm not sure that this is a correct interpretation of this rule, especially as section 163 is not referring to cyclists, but to motorists. I think this simply means that if your left hand lane is moving quicker than the traffic in the lane to your right, you can overtake/undertake. Think of traffic jams on the motorway and the 'must overtake on the right' doesn't apply - you quite often see the left hand lanes moving quicker than the 'overtaking' lanes.
section 163 refers to road users-that includes bikes as well as motorists. Also there is no such thing as "must overtake on the right" as far as I can see (although obviously if you had a collision while overtaking on the left in a motor vehicle you would almost certainly be held to be responsible in most circumstances as it is not reasonable to do so)-the only musts in the section on overtaking are:
165
You MUST NOT overtake
if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, ZPPPCRGD reg 24
Everything else is suggested only, meaning that although undertaking may not be advisable according to the Highway Code it is certainly not illegal. Personally I normally try to overtake queues of traffic on the right (which also is advised against, but is normally safe, particularly if you know the traffic light timings so can pull into the queue before they turn green)
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling gives some further guidance, including case law which is how it works in practice.0 -
I was under the impression that undertaking (even stationary) traffic in the same lane on a bike is illegal on UK roads, is that not the case?
Highway code 163 suggests otherwise:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
[various stuff not relevant]
-only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signaling to turn right, and there is room to do so
-stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left.
As the code states 'should' and not 'must' not obeying this bit would not be illegal anyway, but it does seem to suggest undertaking a queue of slow moving traffic is ok (obviously depending upon the circumstances).
On another note given how quickly this thread (and others) have moved away from the lorry's design to cyclist behavior I'm becoming more in favour of presumed liability. Then at least it would be made clear to the population as a whole that if you take a 40 Tonne vehicle into the vicinity of people it is very capable of crushing you have a greater duty of care then if you take a 10kg vehicle into the same area.
I'm not sure that this is a correct interpretation of this rule, especially as section 163 is not referring to cyclists, but to motorists. I think this simply means that if your left hand lane is moving quicker than the traffic in the lane to your right, you can overtake/undertake. Think of traffic jams on the motorway and the 'must overtake on the right' doesn't apply - you quite often see the left hand lanes moving quicker than the 'overtaking' lanes.
section 163 refers to road users-that includes bikes as well as motorists. Also there is no such thing as "must overtake on the right" as far as I can see (although obviously if you had a collision while overtaking on the left in a motor vehicle you would almost certainly be held to be responsible in most circumstances as it is not reasonable to do so)-the only musts in the section on overtaking are:
165
You MUST NOT overtake
if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, ZPPPCRGD reg 24
Everything else is suggested only, meaning that although undertaking may not be advisable according to the Highway Code it is certainly not illegal. Personally I normally try to overtake queues of traffic on the right (which also is advised against, but is normally safe, particularly if you know the traffic light timings so can pull into the queue before they turn green)
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling gives some further guidance, including case law which is how it works in practice.
For the example of the motorway I gave it does:
267
Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right.
Anyway, my point was simply that the quote from the highway code 'if the queue...' seems to refer to the traffic in a left hand lane being able to overtake the traffic in a lane to the right in slow moving traffic, not referring to being able to filter down the left of a single lane, which is what Haydn1 is referring to.
But anyway, just a question of interpretation - we've got more off topic.0 -
^ True, the main point I wanted to make was more the second one that it annoys me this type of thread always seems to come back to cyclist behavior as if safer lorries won't help (particularly as in something like 60-75% of cycling death/serious injuries among adults the cyclist is not a fault, not even slightly). Plus health and safety guidelines generally have a hierarchy of reducing risk from most to least effective which goes something like:
Elimination- physically removing the hazard. Banning Lorries at rush hour would do this for times of peak cycle flow, and is used in Paris I believe?
Substitution - change to something less hazardous. Smaller Lorries maybe, but would increase numbers so probably not?
Group Protection - protective equipment to protect groups of people. This is where retrofitting lorries comes in as, for example, the side skirts help to stop anyone going under the lorry, not just a single person.
Individual Protection - protective equipment to protect a single person. Helmet, high vis etc for the cyclist may come under this but it's hard to see how any PPE will help much when you're run over by a lorry.
Behavior - Rely on people not to be idiots. Note in my industry this is not the same as training-training helps you do the other points above properly. Unsurprisingly this is the least effective as pretty much everyone has moments of stupidity, yet seems to be where this type of thread ends up.0
