Trucks to be banned from turning left

[roachcoach]

RYH64E said:

creampuff said:

RYH64E said:

In this day and age I'm surprised that that's considered acceptable. I can't think of any industrial situation where a factory inspector would let an equivalent machine to be used if the factory manager said something along the lines of 'There is no way to go from stopped to moving in an HGV and be sure it's safe'. The factory would be closed down and if there was an accident resulting in death the Directors would find themselves in a lot of trouble.

You will find that all factories operate machinery on this premise. The basic premise is that reasonable safety precautions are taken. Infact safety precautions are taken to cover events well over and above what could be considered just "reasonable".

What can never be made safe is to eliminate incidents from idiots who either deliberately or because of a total, total lack of sense put themselves in danger. If you are looking for factory analogies, then the analogy would be you check a machine is clear, but you don't notice somebody hiding behind it, despite signs warning of the danger, then deliberately shoving their hand in some moving parts just before you start it up.

I've even seen cyclists cycle into a closing gap on the left hand side of a lorry which has actually started turning left! That is just fundamentally stupid and there is only so much you can do to legislate or take account for stupid.

From reading earlier posts people are saying that there's no way a truck driver can possibly know if it's clear or not, whether it's safe to proceed or not. Even if they look, check their mirrors, check again, substantial blind spots mean that they can't be sure that the road is clear. It's not a case of checking that the road is clear then someone jumping into the gap, they can't check that the road is clear beacuase their vision is obstructed. And as for warning signs, there aren't any. All there is in many cases is a piece of road coloured blue with a picture of a bike printed on it, that hardly indicates 'Danger, keep out' to an inexperienced biker.

Like I say, most things I see these days have these https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cyclist+beware+s... plastered all over the back.

Sample:



There comes a point where you rely on others to keep an eye on themselves too.

It's a two way street, we can't reply on the drivers to do everything - it's not realistic. Sure, drivers can be stupid, indeed are stupid at times - but that's a poor headstone, isn't? "RIP Joe Bloggs, he had right of way"

Yet as usual we have the typical us and them standoff where militants of either camp think it's all the other persons responsibility as opposed to the reality which is a combined effort from both parties.

[iambeowulf]

Dr Murdoch said:

iambeowulf said:

35 years driving HGV's (LGV) articulated and rigid ,12 years CPC holder (as in logistics business not the new driver CPC) and five years training drivers on tipper wagons (the one in the picture).

So yes. Quite qualified thanks.

Then I am even more puzzled with your response.

Mandatory reversing cameras? Since when are they mandatory?

The blind spots are very real, maybe not in the cabs you've driven, but they sure exist in the ones I have driven / studied as part of my job (road safety engineering / road safety auditing).

They do exist but not to the extent that that picture shows.

Sitting in a truck and going "beep beep" isn't driving. Stick to your desk job.

[creampuff]

RYH64E said:

From reading earlier posts people are saying that there's no way a truck driver can possibly know if it's clear or not, whether it's safe to proceed or not. Even if they look, check their mirrors, check again, substantial blind spots mean that they can't be sure that the road is clear. It's not a case of checking that the road is clear then someone jumping into the gap, they can't check that the road is clear beacuase their vision is obstructed. And as for warning signs, there aren't any. All there is in many cases is a piece of road coloured blue with a picture of a bike printed on it, that hardly indicates 'Danger, keep out' to an inexperienced biker.

That's not the way things work in London. I can see HGV drivers checking their mirrors. I can see that they can see me a safe distance back. I can see that the HGV driver has checked for bicycles. Lights change or congestion clears or whatever, HGV starts to move and a cyclist jams themselves into a closing gap, where if anybody makes any mistake, they are going to get killed. I have seen, many times, cyclists put themselves next to a HGV which was moving before they got to it and going into a gap which was reducing from about 2 feet to a few inches. Everybody had to stop, so the cyclist didn't get killed; I've actually been expecting to see bits of brain squashed onto the road. And I've seen this many times. So far these idiots haven't got killed, but that's only because the HGV driver has been looking. The only way to put it is that a small but significant proportion of cyclists are just fking stupid and put themselves in a position where if any mistake at all is made by anybody, they are going to end up dead. All I can say is they are fking lucky the standard of HGV drivers is as high as it usually is, because if HGV drivers drove half as bad as these idiots cycle, they would be dead by the end of the week.

Edited by creampuff on Thursday 3rd September 16:38

[walm]

creampuff said:

The only way to put it is that a small but significant proportion of cyclists are just fking stupid and put themselves in a position where if any mistake at all is made by anybody, they are going to end up dead. All I can say is they are fking lucky the standard of HGV drivers is as high as it usually is, because if HGV drivers drove half as bad as these idiots cycle, they would be dead by the end of the week.

Normally I disagree with you creampuff but I have to say that this comment definitely ties with my experience too.

It's just a shame that people see this minority and generalise that cyclists are ALWAYS to blame.

[RYH64E]

walm said:

creampuff said:

The only way to put it is that a small but significant proportion of cyclists are just fking stupid and put themselves in a position where if any mistake at all is made by anybody, they are going to end up dead. All I can say is they are fking lucky the standard of HGV drivers is as high as it usually is, because if HGV drivers drove half as bad as these idiots cycle, they would be dead by the end of the week.

Normally I disagree with you creampuff but I have to say that this comment definitely ties with my experience too.

It's just a shame that people see this minority and generalise that cyclists are ALWAYS to blame.

Without overly labouring the point, a small but significant percentage of cyclists maybe know no better. There's no mandatory training for cyclists, they don't need to pass a test, there's no cycling licence, there's no minimum age requirement, and many won't even have experience of driving a car. Knowledge of HGV blindspots isn't instinctive, if they see a cycle lane, painted blue with a big picture of a bike on it many will assume that that's their space.

[frisbee]

RYH64E said:

Without overly labouring the point, a small but significant percentage of cyclists maybe know no better. There's no mandatory training for cyclists, they don't need to pass a test, there's no cycling licence, there's no minimum age requirement, and many won't even have experience of driving a car. Knowledge of HGV blindspots isn't instinctive, if they see a cycle lane, painted blue with a big picture of a bike on it many will assume that that's their space.

So what's the excuse that small but significant percentage of motorists that have had training and have passed a test?

The ones that make no effort to leave space when they pass? The ones that cause cars coming the other way to take avoiding action when they overtake? The ones that stop at advance cyclist stop lines at lights? The ones that overtake on blind crests?

And that's just what I saw on the ride home tonight!

But the exercise and fresh air is a great why of unwinding from work, so I couldn't give a st.

[creampuff]

frisbee said:

So what's the excuse that small but significant percentage of motorists that have had training and have passed a test?

The ones that make no effort to leave space when they pass? The ones that cause cars coming the other way to take avoiding action when they overtake? The ones that stop at advance cyclist stop lines at lights? The ones that overtake on blind crests?

And that's just what I saw on the ride home tonight!

But the exercise and fresh air is a great why of unwinding from work, so I couldn't give a st.

Well in practice, exceptionally poor motor vehicle drivers get banned from driving either due to an accumulation of points or doing something exceptionally stupid and being banned in court for careless or dangerous driving, or by continually crashing into things so that they become uninsurable and therefore unable to drive for that reason.

Cyclists being prosecuted for bad cycling almost never happens, you really have to do something outlandishly bad and even then, you don't get banned from cycling you just end up with a fine or community service, which you could ride your bike to if you want. So there is nothing to remove incompetent cyclists from the road, except self-removal which is usually with the assistance of a passing HGV.

[Dr Murdoch]

iambeowulf said:

They do exist but not to the extent that that picture shows.

Sitting in a truck and going "beep beep" isn't driving. Stick to your desk job.

Mandatory cameras, I ask again?

[Wills2]

PorscheGT4 said:

"don't cycle up the inside of vehicles that are clearly indicating left "


er, DON'T cycle up the inside of any vehicle !!!

Exactly.

[Finlandia]

Dr Murdoch said:

iambeowulf said:

They do exist but not to the extent that that picture shows.

Sitting in a truck and going "beep beep" isn't driving. Stick to your desk job.

Mandatory cameras, I ask again?

There are no mandatory reversing or other cameras, but many if not most HGVs have reversing cameras, these are of course only in use when reversing, not when turning left at a set of lights.

[L1OFF]

Since moving ofices a few weeks ago I've been catching a bus from Waterloo to Victoria, I'm amazed there are not more cyclists \ motorcyclist \ moped etc deathes.

[RYH64E]

Finlandia said:

Dr Murdoch said:

iambeowulf said:

They do exist but not to the extent that that picture shows.

Sitting in a truck and going "beep beep" isn't driving. Stick to your desk job.

Mandatory cameras, I ask again?

There are no mandatory reversing or other cameras, but many if not most HGVs have reversing cameras, these are of course only in use when reversing, not when turning left at a set of lights.

How hard would it be to add a camera that looked back along the side of an HGV? Maybe mounted on a bracket by the front bumper. These cameras aren't very big and wouldn't be obtrusive.

[Finlandia]

RYH64E said:

Finlandia said:

Dr Murdoch said:

iambeowulf said:

They do exist but not to the extent that that picture shows.

Sitting in a truck and going "beep beep" isn't driving. Stick to your desk job.

Mandatory cameras, I ask again?

There are no mandatory reversing or other cameras, but many if not most HGVs have reversing cameras, these are of course only in use when reversing, not when turning left at a set of lights.

How hard would it be to add a camera that looked back along the side of an HGV? Maybe mounted on a bracket by the front bumper. These cameras aren't very big and wouldn't be obtrusive.

It would be very easy, but you only have two eyes and it only takes a split second for the traffic situation to change significantly, you cannot factor in for every eventuality.

All road use, and everyday life relies on people taking responsibility of their own wellbeing.

[SpeckledJim]

RYH64E said:

How hard would it be to add a camera that looked back along the side of an HGV? Maybe mounted on a bracket by the front bumper. These cameras aren't very big and wouldn't be obtrusive.

It would be very easy, and in some cases, I'm sure very useful.

However, it would also increase cyclists' perception that they are safe being down the side "because he can see me with his camera". The last thing cyclists need is more confidence.

[colonel c]

otolith said:

colonel c said:

otolith said:

- I guess he would rather be doing a steady 20mph on the road, where he is entitled to be, than coming to a halt on the pavement in order to give way at the pedestrian crossing.

Therein lies the problem with many of today's 'lycra warrior' type of cyclist. As vehicular drivers we have to accept that progress is often hindered by traffic dysentery road conditions etc. All too often in cycling threads I read that some cyclists don't like using cycle lanes because of the poor surface, pedestrians, other cyclists etc 'hold them up'. It like they expect to have God given right not to have to acquiesce to any thing or person that gets in their way.

No, no, they are just choosing to use the more appropriate of the two facilities offered to them. Same way that one might choose a motorway route or a B-road route in the car depending whether out for a leisurely potter or trying to get from A to B efficiently.

I think you are probably labouring under the misapprehension that cycle facilities are there to get bikes out of your way. They aren't.

The guy in the video could have choose a safe cycle route that may have inconvenienced him somewhat but was non the less considerably safer than using the road. In exercising his right to use the road he was also inconveniencing many other road users who had to find safe opportunities to go round him. Just so he could have a faster ride. As I said this selfish attitude tends to be associated with a particular class of cyclist.
Like many others on the tread I also cycle for pleasure. Living out in the sticks my routes are along narrow country roads. Slowing or stopping to let vehicles pass safely is to me at least second nature. In his position I would not have put myself in unnecessary danger or indeed wished to impede others.

[walm]

colonel c said:

In exercising his right to use the road he was also inconveniencing many other road users who had to find safe opportunities to go round him. Just so he could have a faster ride. As I said this selfish attitude tends to be associated with a particular class of cyclist.

Not really.
Only very very slow cyclists or those accompanying kids use those types of cycle path.

The argument that he is "inconveniencing" "many" other road users is utter tripe as shown in the video since he catches up with them all the time, as is obvious to anyone cycling through a city.

If a cyclist is truly "inconveniencing" you for any meaningful period of time then you really can't drive.

[colonel c]

walm said:

colonel c said:

In exercising his right to use the road he was also inconveniencing many other road users who had to find safe opportunities to go round him. Just so he could have a faster ride. As I said this selfish attitude tends to be associated with a particular class of cyclist.

Not really.
Only very very slow cyclists or those accompanying kids use those types of cycle path.

The argument that he is "inconveniencing" "many" other road users is utter tripe as shown in the video since he catches up with them all the time, as is obvious to anyone cycling through a city.

If a cyclist is truly "inconveniencing" you for any meaningful period of time then you really can't drive.

Well it's inconclusive if the truck driver came too close deliberately or not. Had the guy been crushed under the trailer wheels, at least he would have died with his cycling dignity in tact by not being on the slow cyclists path.

[IroningMan]

colonel c said:

walm said:

colonel c said:

In exercising his right to use the road he was also inconveniencing many other road users who had to find safe opportunities to go round him. Just so he could have a faster ride. As I said this selfish attitude tends to be associated with a particular class of cyclist.

Not really.
Only very very slow cyclists or those accompanying kids use those types of cycle path.

The argument that he is "inconveniencing" "many" other road users is utter tripe as shown in the video since he catches up with them all the time, as is obvious to anyone cycling through a city.

If a cyclist is truly "inconveniencing" you for any meaningful period of time then you really can't drive.

Well it's inconclusive if the truck driver came too close deliberately or not. Had the guy been crushed under the trailer wheels, at least he would have died with his cycling dignity in tact by not being on the slow cyclists path.

And where there is no cycle path - should cyclists not venture onto such roads at all?

[colonel c]

IroningMan said:

And where there is no cycle path - should cyclists not venture onto such roads at all?

I never said that. Indeed where I cycle there are no cycle paths at all and very few pavements either.

[walm]

colonel c said:

I never said that. Indeed where I cycle there are no cycle paths at all and very few pavements either.

Sounds pretty selfish of you to use the roads then.