HGV ban blog article

maccant wrote:

Hi W1,

Happy to answer your questions, don't worry about stirring, it's not a heated debate so happy to oblige!

Re the safety campaigns I think you'll find that the LCC and CTC both advise never to cycle down the nearside of HGVs in their advice about sharing the road (see their websites). The same advise is re-iterated on TfL's cycling web pages. There are videos on Youtube aimed at cyclists showing how blind spots in mirrors work. There have also been a load of events (in London, but it's central London we are talking about here) where cyclists can climb inside cabs of lorries and experience what it is like for themselves (I'd recommend it, it's a fascinating experience)

Re delaying drivers my point is that surely any demo that happens in central London is going to delay 'drivers', whether that's an anti-war demo, people calling for the license fee to be scrapped picketing Westminster or a bunch of cyclists showing they care about an issue. That's the inherent nature of protest. The cabin crews of BA are doing it as we speak (p*ssing off flyers instead) Gandhi did it in India (to p*ss off the Brits) and won.

My interest in this is purely of a cyclist who writes (a lot) about my opinions on the state of cycling in London. I am not a member of any political groups (well, I've got LCC membership, but that was more for the bike shop discount!) I try and make my blog totally accountable by showing who I am ( http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html ) and by allowing people to leave comments. But there is no agenda in terms of politics here: if people don't like what I write, it's just that, my opinion: they are equally welcome to go off and write their own blogs.

I do all of this because I care passionately about the state of cycling in London and want it to improve: both in terms of numbers on the road and in terms of cyclist's safety. If, to achieve that goal, the private motor car has to be slightly disadvantaged, as a motorist and a cyclist, I'm ok with that. As you say cyclists may be held in more contempt by motorists if they are slightly delayed (say, by a CM) but I believe in the decency of the individual: I'd like to think most right-minded motorists would think 'Yeah, I wouldn't feel comfortable riding on the road myself, good on 'em, these cyclists, for standing up for what they believe in and trying to improve their lot."

So, what's yours?

Thanks Mark, I was just interested to know whether you were actively involved in this particular plan or not - it adds a lot more to the "conversation" if we understand your position. I think your article was interesting and informative, as you can see my concern is with the connection to CM.

I'm just a regular commuter who has learnt a lot (and had my life saved, perhaps) from useful information on this forum, and who obviously has a heart stopping moment when I hear of another cyclist fatality. I've not been commuting long compared to some on here (about 5 years, around 3,000 miles a year) but I feel I have sufficient experience to have a valid opinion on this subject. I just wonder whether "we" (and by that I mean cyclists) understand how we look from drivers' perspectives, and the public in general. Anything thta makes a driver think negatively about a cyclist (be it a purposeful delay or running a red light) impacts on us all and may alter that driver's attitude towards cyclists to our general detriment. Instead we should be encouraging more people to ride, enforcing postive images where possible and via that route assisting our safety. I can't say that CM does that, and following that chain through, I think this connection with CM on this key issue is unfortunate. The difference between cyclists causing a delay and another protest is that drivers and cyclists interract daily, which gives drivers the opportunity to act on their frustration (rare, but not unheard of).

As to the safety campaigns, it's not about educating CTC members (who are probably interested enough to already know), it needs to be much more widespread than that, along the lines of the THINK adverts. The London events need more publicity too. That is probably pie in the sky though....

duplicated post

@Crapaud "How will CM turn up the pressure on the HGV issue? As I touched on before, CMers go along to promote their own agenda" <well that's exactly the point, we can get enough people along who care about the HGV issue (and I've had commitments from many) to make it about the HGV issue. Therein is the thing about the organisational structure of CM, you can make it whatever you want just by attending.

And regarding No2ID, anti-capitalism etc, I haven't seen many of 'those sorts' at CM for a looooong time; for at least a year now the more left of field contingent has been a firm minority on the CMs I have been on and the focus has been very much on cycling.

I think the point that the posts here make is that CM divides opinion. If you think of running a safety campaign like running an advertising campaign then you start to question whether you want to link your product to a tarnished brand.

Whether you like CM or not, the division of opinion of this self-selected group of cycling enthusiasts shows that the CM brand has negative associations even here amongst real fans of two wheels. To tie a well intended HGV issue to such a tarnished reputation is surely going to damage the message.

Take the lesson on board and accept that if enthusiasts here have issues with CM, then linking yourself to them certainly isn't going to fly any more with the public.

I'm going to this ride as I lost a dear friend after she was hit by a lorry last year.

Critical Mass or not I think this issue needs to get all the attention it can as not enough is being done. Why all the gripes? Two cyclists died within 2 days! This will be a good thing that brings together a lot of people who often feel these tragedies alone.

Great blogs I thought.

unfortunatley , imo, as usual, a very one sided point of view on that blog,

again, imho, To work towards reducing the casualty figures needs an entirely arbitrary approach, not the usual ‘blame and burn’ culture.

What are the real numbers? Any statisticians out there wihtout an agenda?

Are the number of cycling deaths on London's streets increasing out of all proportion to the increase in the number of cyclists?

What is the total number of accidents involving cycle v ALL motor vehicles? (a hard number to come by as I would guess most non injury ones are not reported) , point here would be,
what proportion of the total cycle V motor vehicle are in fact cycle v large goods vehicle (I would suggest LGV is all vehicles over 7.5t gvw) and how does that number compare to the proportion of LGV miles/ journeys versus the rest, e.g. if LGV only equate to 1 % of the motor vehicle traffic (miles/journeys not just quanity as there are of course more cars but most of them do not spend their day driving around like LGV do) but is involved in 10% of ALL cycle V motor vehicle accidents then the target is clear,
If not then the more serious issue is of course death and serious injury accidents, regardless of proportions this number needs to be reduced,
I wrote the below on another forum some time ago but would still say it holds largely true, mainly the point that the' type' of 'LGV 'involved needs focus and might also suggest the 'type' of cyclist (altough so much harder to quantify) is also considered, very difficult when the cyclist is inevitably the casualty and there are friends and loved ones who may not wish to hear or admit that their loved one may have been, at least in part, architects of their own downfall.

Extract of a previous forum post,
This is a big subject with a great many issues on both sides of the discussion. I, for my sins, run a transport operation from 2 sites on the outskirts of London. I am apathetic to both sides but not sympathetic to those that take undue risk and cause danger to others by not paying proper attention or progressing in a bullying manner (whether truck driver, car driver or cyclist)

One the whole the average Truck Driver (certainly those in my employ) does not drive with disregard for other road users. As in most walks of life, professions, etc there are Outstanding, Good, Mediocre and the rest, hopefully with the rest being the vast minority. The problem is when that minority is in charge of a truck, the error, misjudgment or in extreme cases total disregard for others the result is multiplied by the mass, power and momentum of the machine being driven along with the resultant perception and reaction to of same on the person or persons on the receiving end.

All of us have most likely suffered and survived side swipes; cut offs etc from various other road users (including other cyclists and pedestrians) and in all but very rare occasions suffered no more than personal upset. Unfortunately this is not so often the case when it involves a LGV (even when we do survive uninjured our perception of what nearly happened is much magnified as we are conscious of the potential carnage that a truck can cause.

As in so many fields no matter how much training is given to some trucks drivers they will never be good enough, this would need a major overhaul of the training, licensing and testing system with much more stringent focus on observations and road positioning being a major focus. I would however say that the average LGV driver is much more competent that the average car driver (if he were not it is unlikely that he would get more than a very few miles in a cityscape without major incident) and certainly more so than the average cyclist (taking the definition as a person sat astride a bicycle on the public road rather than the generally more aware ‘club’ type cyclist).

That said, my perception (based on absolutely no research at all) is that there should be some analysis on the type of truck that is typically being involved in 'serious' accidents with cyclists. For the UK this should be a relatively simple task, there are only in the region of 250,000 heavy trucks in the UK (a figure that has not changed since the 1950's) it is relatively easy to obtain the breakdown of what percentage of each type this is made up of. How many artics, how many tippers, how many cement trucks etc. Total truck figures for all above 7.5t etc have actually reduced from 461,000 in 1958 to around 440,000 in 2008 or a redcution of 4.5%. I have not included European trucks in the figures, this would add approx or upto 1% to the total in any given time. Note worthy is the concerning fact that a foreign truck is 8 times more likley to be involved in an injury accident that a Domestic, that said the vast majority of these tend to be on the motorway or major trunk roads (predominantly 'side swipe' accidents) rather than involving us, cyclists (In many respects the foreign truck is potentially less likely to be involved in an accident with a cyclist due to the fact the driver sits on the left).

My perception is that too often when reading about a cyclist /truck accident it tends to be the 'tipper' cement truck, municipal vehicle, specialist vehicle that is involved, now from industry knowledge there is a hierarchy amongst trucking with tanker drivers, being at the top and 'generally' the best able, best qualified, most experienced and well trained and unfortunately, again generally, tipper drivers, etc being at the bottom of this scale. This coupled with some construction and use issues in relation to the vehicle types makes these same vehicles, not more susceptible to being involved in this type of accident, but due to the nature of 'body design' that may pose a bigger threat when an incident does occur, (lack of side guards, ancillary equipment that can catch on clothing, non-uniform sides, overhangs, etc etc. Plus the likleyhood of a less skilled, less risk aware, less risk averse driver being behind the wheel is perhaps why we hear of serious accidents that involve these types of vehicles.

In the UK there is now a new training requirement that from this year requires all drivers whether newly qualified or not to undergo a quantified amount of annual training in order to maintain their license, whilst the content of the training is not mandatory, each training course has to be ratified by the training body as acceptable and certified as such. For most operators accident prevention and avoidance is high on the training agenda for this due to the financial pressures of insurance costs, litigation costs etc associated with them (unfortunately the human cost is too often a collateral consideration. Other focus has been the addition of extra wide angle blind spot mirrors which are mandatory from March this year. So some steps are being taken within the industry.

However cycling is totally un-regulated, barrier to entry being the limit on your credit card, common sense never mind road sense, is optional so whilst I would never advocate licensing, I would suggest some specialist training of enforcement bodies (police etc) not to raise fines but to try to educate some of the lemmings about the dangers cliffs pose? Having had 'the right of way' is not much use to write on a gravestone. If in doubt give way, always! Is will be a bit late lying under the wheels to find out you have encountered one of the less able or aware truck/car drivers, take the moral high ground of knowing you are right, give way, but still be fit and healthy to be right another day!

Any a bit of a ramble but a subject dear to both sides of my heart and one I certainly push with my drivers weekly if not daily.

Hi fnb1,

I really don't think it's a 'blame and burn' culture. The driver who killed my friend didn't do it intentionally, though it was certainly avoidable. If these vehicles were designed better and could see vulnerable road users then most of these cyclists would still be alive. I know we're not going to get a magical all seeing lorry in the near future so until then I don't think we should be sharing the road with something that can't see us. That in my eyes is not sharing.


We've had several discussions with The Road Hauliers Assoc. and they agreed that changing the access hours would help them and help us.

http://thebikeshow.net/lorry-hgv-lgv-an ... listeners/ - is not a CM fan, but gives his reasons why he will be at CM on Friday.

Good morning,
Firstly my condolences on the loss of your friend, although I know none of the details I feel able to agree with the fact it should not have happened and was avoidable.

I am sure the RHA repsonses were politcally correct but unfortunately they are a fairly toothless commercial body who does what it is told by goverment, although they will oft try to allign themsleves with 'good cause' lobbying' and try and take some of the credit if it comes off.
The view form the car of a well specified modern truck is far better than many suggest, and certainly the blind spots, although there, are far from as bad, on most trucks, as is oft reported. That said it can make a good defence case when well argued but if you consider in the fluid 3D traffic flow, for somehting or some one to 'dwell' in the blindpsot or be allowed to comes down to awareness and driver skill and most of all attention.
I am not a big forum contributor but as I say as a cyclist (who commutes) and a manager in the transport industry I try to take a very level view of what we can do to improve things.
Still maintain that awareness and driver training and discipline is key, does not matter if the truck was a mirror festooned fishbowl, if the driver ain't paying proper attention and driving with due regard the accidents will still happen, likewise for at least some of the cyclists (that I observe almost daily) on London's and other cities streets. I wish you well with your mission.

MadammeMarie wrote:

However, excellent driver: stayed way off the cycle lane, stayed off the ASL, and waited for me to move off.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't the light red the whole time? You were stopped at the ASL in full view of the lorry driver, so why would he turn into you when the lights go green? I can't see what he did that was so laudable, other than obey the law by not crossing the first stop line into the ASL with the light on red.

What you did isn't dangerous as long as you are SURE the lights won't change to green whilst you are alongside or in the blind spot of the lorry.

Crapaud wrote:

maccant wrote:

.......This is my main problem with CM: it hasn't effected any change, in over a decade of CMs, because it has no clear message and, If it had, because of its (dis)organisation, couldn't communicate it to any individual or authority that matters.

.....

You are making the assumption that the people on CM want to change things.

if I go, I go to see my friends and go for a meal after a ride round London with like minded people.

spen666 wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

This is my main problem with CM: it hasn't effected any change, in over a decade of CMs, because it has no clear message and, If it had, because of its (dis)organisation, couldn't communicate it to any individual or authority that matters.

.....

You are making the assumption that the people on CM want to change things.

if I go, I go to see my friends and go for a meal after a ride round London with like minded people.

Then the point of the 'organised coincidence' is ...? Why are they making an issue of HGVs if they don't want to change anything?

Why you go to CM is an irrelevance and a matter for you, Spen, and changes nothing about CM as a whole.

pete54 wrote:

fnb1 wrote:

If in doubt give way, always!

Definitely a good piece of advice for cyclists, but I think it applies even more to motorists when encountering a cyclist.

Drove in today, did that and got called a w@anker from the cyclist

Sometime you just can't win :roll:

It's these cyclist that need educating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-lZPeAWye4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03GGcZ8dA8c

JonGinge wrote:

@MadammeMarie
First incident: why didn't you wait and allow the car to pull out? Seemed like a bit of a cheeky manoeuvre to me.

Before the start of the vid, I had sort of sneaked in front of that car while riding up Kennington Oval, in order to turn right (while indicating, of course). The driver had to slow down a bit abruptly (he wasn't going too fast, though). Turns out, he was turning right, too, so I gave him way (start of video). Then he has to get out of way of white car, but stayed where he was to allow me to continue, so I said thank you.

JonGinge wrote:

Second: tricky. If you could see where the cab had stopped and were sure of the phasing of the light then I guess it would be ok to filter. The lights had been red for a while so I'd probably have stayed behind. Can be a split-second judgement call, though.

I lights had change with me in the "inside", I would have stopped on my tracks, no doubt about that. But I do believe the driver would have waited for me. While I was in the box waiting for lights to change, there was another cyclist behind me. I was worried he was on the blind spot next to the cabin. But since he didn't get crushed to death, my guess the driver waited for him, too.