[Closed] Lorry redesign to prevent cycling deaths?

binners - Member

The problem here isn't lorry design. The problem is idiots. You see them all the time. Riding up the inside of lorries and buses.

more often than not - where the 'bike lane' is.

The problem here isn't lorry design. The problem is idiots. You see them all the time. Riding up the inside of lorries and buses. Anyone with half a brain should surely know that thats a suicidally stupid thing to do. No amount of vehicle design is going to prevent them still being idiots

It's also cycling infrastructure that suggests (and in some cases forces) the cyclist into a dangerous position, nobody intentionally puts themselves in mortal danger, it's either ignorance of the danger or a set of circumstances that places them in danger through no fault of their own.

Perhaps the millions now having to be ploughed into this might be better spent of educating the terminally thick

Perhaps indeed! I mean, it's common sense to you, as a rider, but is it common sense to Mr/Mrs Joe Average who has hasn't had a near miss yet, or has never had the size of a lorry blind spot demonstrated to them? Did you educate your kids (if you have them?) or did they have this explained to them somewhere? It has to start somewhere, you can't just assume it's obvious or common knowledge, and even when it is common knowledge that it's 'dangerous' very few people actually realise the magnitude of that danger and just how quickly and easily it can become fatal.

The problem is not idiots, its many different modes of transport trying to share an environment that was never designed with safety in mind.

EDIT - ranting aside, I think the lorry news is a good thing, little harm can come of it and plenty of good can, so why the opposition?

If Lorries had always been designed that way and then someone suggested doing it the way they are now, there would be uproar at such a stupid and dangerous idea!

just because there is a bike lanethere doesnt absolve you of responsibility to think about where you are riding your bike.

Most cyclists are killed by tipper lorry drivers on piecework rates, many of them from behind.
There may be some cyclists who put themselves in dangerous spaces on the road, but they're often not the ones being killed.
Anything that reduces possible interaction behind large commercial vehicles and other more vulnerable road users is to be welcomed. Actually IMHO lorries should be banned from many roads in built up areas as they're too big for them.

How about something akin to parking sensors that beep in the cab when an object is in the lorries blindspot or maybe a small camera with a screen in the cab. Or even paint the blind spot on the side of the truck with 'danger' written on it? Doesn't necessarily need to be mirrors.

trail_rat - Member

just because there is a bike lanethere doesnt absolve you of responsibility to think about where you are riding your bike.

i agree, but surely bike lanes shouldn't have fatal consequences designed into them?

How about something akin to parking sensors that beep in the cab when an object is in the lorries blindspot or maybe a small camera with a screen in the cab. Doesn't necessarily need to be mirrors.

That sort of stuff already exists. Look at the side of (most) trucks in That London these days and there's all sorts of aids - Cameras, beepers, mirrors aplenty, those curved lens thingies in the window (name?) etc. Then there are the audible indicators. "This vehicle is turning left" etc.

The trucks have made a great effort, I think. OK, so they were almost certainly forced to, but that's no bad thing - They've made an effort, they've tried to eliminate more and more potential hazards.

And yet, and yet, every single day I see some idiot going up the inside of a left turning truck and I wince in fear at what's going to happen. Sadly, cyclists, or at least many of them, haven't made as much effort to eliminate hazards as the trucks.

The problem here isn't lorry design. The problem is idiots. You see them all the time. Riding up the inside of lorries and buses. Anyone with half a brain should surely know that thats a suicidally stupid thing to do. No amount of vehicle design is going to prevent them still being idiots

A bit harsh, I'd be very supprised if even 10% of the poulation know not to undertake lorries at junctions. Heck, I'd be impressed if 1% knew that.

just because there is a bike lanethere doesnt absolve you of responsibility to think about where you are riding your bike

It's not about absolving people of responsibility, but look at it from a non-regular cyclist point of view.

Your friendly local council have provided a bike lane, and there's always talk in the news about how everyone wants to promote cycling, so surely the nice council poeple would have made sure the bike lanes are in safe places? And since it's a bike lane, then that's where I should be isn't it, I'm riding a bike after all?

It's insidiously ingrained into people when they learn to drive, and learn about roads and driving, that bikes go 'here', cars go 'there', you stay where you're supposed to and follow the rules. There's also the assumption that people have seen you, after all, you're always taught how important observation is when driving so surely those drivers are looking and have seen you?

It's only with experience that you learn the real dangers, where is dangerous, what manoeuvres are most likely to result in problems, and how likely you are to have been seen.

I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying that we've created a situation where we're subconsciously saying to people 'this is a safe area' when in fact the opposite is true.

The environment just isn't suited to mixing large hard objects with small squishy vulnerable ones. Catch 22 though, large vehicles like that are dangerous in urban and metro environments but they are necessary (to a degree), so why not do everything possible to make them safer?

To my understanding commercial vehicle operators have resisted at every step the Mayor of London's increasing requirements for vehicle safety measures, and when I say the MoL I mean both Ken and Bozza.

How about some sort of covering that hides the wheels/gap under the truck so said silly cyclist would hopefully be pushed over rather than go under and get squished. Might be a bit of a problem on the motorway with crosswinds though...

I did ride up the inside of a lorry at a set of lights a couple of weeks back on a marked cycle lane - it is normally (I ride it 2-3 times a week) red and you usually have to wait a long time, however, this time as I was unclipping it turned green and the lorry turned. Proper OS HIT moment. Luckily I was able to stop in time but it shows even experienced riders, who should know better, and can do dumb stuff.

If an industrial machine in a workplace was regularly killing "idiots" it would be taken out of service and the workplace redesigned to prevent "idiots" getting close enough to get killed.

Also the operator would probably be sacked or never allowed to operate that machine again.

Why should lorries and our roads be different?

Most people just don't realise how dangerous lorries are- and tbh assuming that other vehicles on the road are basically safe isn't so unreasonable.

Surely the bottom line here is whether its going to make one scrap of difference? And I really can't see why it would? Or whether its just a case of being seen to be doing something?

If you did this in conjunction with other moves, then I could understand it. But in isolation I can't see how its possibly going to reduce the incidence of idiots being squashed. Surely it'd be better to spend a bit of money to educate [s]idiots[/s] cyclists on the correct way to approach this. i.e.: use the instinct for self-preservation you were apparently born with, and don't ride up the inside of a massive thing that weighs tons, into a position where the driver of it can't possibly see you

This just seems another example of people being exempted from engaging the grey matter, and taking some responsibility for their own actions. Ultimately, if you haven't got the nouse to figure out that this is a risky undertaking, then you're clearly a risk to yourself, and maybe the gene pool would be better off without you

If you provide a "lane" then some users will think they are safe in the "lane".

You cant legislate for stupidity however you try.

To be totally safe you would need to physically seperate the traffic.

So this will make no difference at all.

"i agree, but surely bike lanes shouldn't have fatal consequences designed into them?"

what do you suggest as an alternative then ?

segregation does work - but leads to a them and us attitude....and we will be driven off the roads.

you cannot make the cycle lane go up the middle of the road - thats even more dangerous.

you just need to educate that lorrys need more room to turn.

Ive even seen folk squeeze upthe inside of lorrysin their cars with disasterous consequences.... harbour quay corner in aberdeen ford ka ended up about a foot shorter.

binners - Member

into a position where the driver of it can't possibly see you

But that's just it- people aren't going to come at this from the assumption that trucks are deathtraps.

I think the real solution is to stop squeezing large vehicles onto roads they're not suitable for. If large trucks can't be made safe, use smaller ones. But if that's not acceptable, we should be doing everything possible to reduce the threat, and certainly not blaming it on cyclists.

There's much we can do to make ourselves safe; that doesn't take away culpability from the vehicle that drives over you.

it is often the case that a single intervention such as this will not solve the problem, but it raises awareness (sometimes due to the controversy of it and the discussion/ debate it creates) which in turn highlights to individuals what they could do to help. see the change in law as the catalyst for broader change.
go to any bike show and there is a police unit and a lorry talking about where not to be on a bike.
everything is marketing.

Mercedes brought out a bubble lorry cab many years ago with a circular windscreen and driver in the middle of the cab, a concept lgv, it never took off in production.

Truck magazine did a test drive in it and as far as i remember didnt like it.

The problem here isn't lorry design.

The problem is *partly* lorry design. Current cab design is optimised for driving on motorways and maximising load capacity by making the cab as short (and therefore necessarily high) as possible. Tipper trucks are optimised for rough building sites not for streets.

When tipper trucks are in workplaces (ie onsite) they have a banksman to guide them and make sure they don't run into anyone. Rubbish trucks (where the place of work is the street, and they are around working staff- ie the bin emptiers) have low cabs with lots of glass to maximise visibilty.

LCC mocked up an example -
[img] [/img]

We need to treat the roads like workplaces, and properly investigated incidents and eliminate the risks in the same way (and separate cyclists from interactions with motor vehicles etc etc - different discussion). Even if we have completely separate infra for cyclists current lorries should not be allowed in a city around pedestrians.

Proper, grown up cycle commuting for the masses won't come of age until we invest money (and except the compromises it will inevitably bring to other forms of transport) and go all dutch stylee with huge quantities of separate cycle orientated road structure rather than playing around the edges with lanes painted on as an afterthought. Making sure lorries have the best vision possible is good news but not the answer.

I don't mind admitting that even as an experienced cyclist, with many years of commuting to my name in smaller towns and the countryside, when I go into London the thought of using a bike to get between A and B fills me with dread. I am sure once you know the route intimately and 'get your eye in' it becomes less stressful but for me it's not fit for purpose until pretty much anybody can hop on a bike and travel around 'sight unseen' and feel at ease.

Since being in London I've become a big believer in riding on the pavement.

Basically on the grounds that I'm less likely to get squished.

I ride slowly and with care around pedestrians and have not to date been 'talked to' by any pedestrian or authority figure.

It may be wrong but I am certainly a lot less dead as a result

plum

The driver who collects my freight had stickers on the back of his lorry reading "Right side" and "Sui side" complete with a Bike icon. I rather liked them, he got suspended and made to remove them after a cyclist complained.

Yes cycle lanes are in the wrong place but, as rightly pointed out you don't have to use them, I regularly see idiots followa cycle lane to a three lane junction then turn right from it across three lanes of traffic.

People manage to not ride into cars parked in the cycle lane or down holes from road works etc by using their grey matter, it's no different from exiting the cycle lane to pass a lorry (or hanging back).

Great idea (despite the op's attempt to troll it) also as mentioned incentives for driving fast should be made illegal.

Aren't they sposed to be spending a shed load of millions on making a handful of mini-Hollands somewhere in London?
My questions are...
1. is any Dutchman going any where near the design/consulting phase?
2. are any of the UK council, TFL, or whatever staff/consultants going to spend a couple of hundred quid of those millions on a business trip to Holland to see what Holland has?
3. will the final thing look anything like Holland?

3x "No" ??

Lorry design might save a life. Maybe two. But at the end of the day, are there any statistics recorded for all of those major oh 5h1t moments? So there'd be no way to prove it unless fatalities halved or something.

UK is just too concerned with the "we are the traffic" attitude, and fighting the "road tax" argument. NL doesn't do stripes of Dulux up the inside. It does a totally separated lane up the inside with separate light phase. Or a totally separate parallel road that's not not even a thru route for trucks/cars, but is for bikes.

Vehicle that drives over you... Interesting turn of phrase. If you're in a car and you move from behind a vehicle and get hit in the process that's your fault. It's not about blaming cyclists it's about extending the same responsibility to every one. Reversed over by a truck, his fault, undertake one and get squished, your fault. Plain and simple, it'd be your fault on a motor Bike, in a car, another lorry or what ever, just because cyclists come off worse doesn't make it the other road users' fault.

It's not about blaming the victim it's afoot making oeuvre take responsibility for them selves.

The Netherlands do [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/the-joy-of-cycling-in-the-netherlands/ ]this[/url]

Note that in a lot of places there are no pavements - the small number of pedestrians who walk beside busy roads and in rural areas can safely share bike facilities. We have lots of poorly used pavements in this country that could be upgraded

Ian - Why am I trolling? I'm just expressing an opinion. I think its tokenism, and I can't see how its going to make one scrap of difference. Do you honestly believe that less idiots are going to be squashed as a result of this?

You've said this is a great idea. Would you care to expand on that? And explain how this is going to prevent the flattening of half-wits?

Redesign of trucks may save a life in certain situations and roads but education will save many more. Just reading the above there is still a mindset that we're cyclists so rules don't apply nor can we blamed.

It's not just about cyclists - it's to protect pedestrians as well. Ped's get run over by lorries when crossing the road because visibility is terrible too.

Why are you blaming the victims ("half wits"?). It really does come across like you're blaming the dead for getting run over back by nothing but observation of others.

There are bad drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. They shouldn't be killed when they make a mistake. This reduces the risk.

education will save many more

No, no, no and no again. Infrastructure will save more. Education has been failing to stop people being killed on the roads since the motor car was invented.

trail_rat - Member

what do you suggest as an alternative then ?

an alternative to simply blaming victims of crap junction design?

let's start by acknowledging that the system is crap and dangerous. We need to fix the system, not blame the people using the system.

there are several bike lanes on my commute that put me in the path of fast, left-turning traffic.

someone designed it like this.

undertake one and get squished, your fault.

so stop ****ing putting cycle lanes up the side of them then!

You know it's dangerous, I know it's dangerous, others may not, or may not realise [b]how [/b]dangerous, so putting a nice strip of 'cycle your bike up here it's perfectly normal/ok' paint there just encourages people to do it and think it is a safe place to be.

If you replaced all the blue and green cycle feeders up the inside with big red 'Danger! Death Zone!' sign instead then it might start to slowly sink in, but decent junction design and where appropriate segregated feeders would be a lot better!

Also, it's not jsut about people going up the inside of trucks, it's about people being in a perfectly safe place, only to then find 5 seconds later that a large vehicle has come up along side you and you're now trapped in the danger zone! You never been left-hook overtaken by someone?

And saying this wont work so don't bother is far too defeatist, it may not fix everything overnight, but it's a step in the right direction, [b]the new design may not stop people being in a dangerous place*, but it will increase the chance of them being seen when they are there and hopefully consequently less likely to be squished[/b].

*regardless of how they got there, riding up the inside or being overtaken after the fact, which happens almost as frequently.

No, no, no and no again. Infrastructure will save more. Education has been failing to stop people being killed on the roads since the motor car was invented.

how about both?

They're not mutually exclusive, eduction AND better infrastructure would surely be the way forward?

It's not just about cyclists - it's to protect pedestrians as well. Ped's get run over by lorries when crossing the road because [s]visibility is terrible too[/s] they've just stepped out into the road in front of a ****ing great big truck, probably while babbling into an iPhone, or updating their Facebook status.

FTFY

Again… perhaps we'd be better letting evolutionary theory deal with these matters

A bit harsh, I'd be very supprised if even 10% of the poulation know not to undertake lorries at junctions. Heck, I'd be impressed if 1% knew that.

Lack of knowledge plus cycle infrastructure actively putting you in dangerous positions is a very bad thing.

And of course all those poor sods who get hit from behind, no amount of rider education is going to help them.

<edit> I'm not suggesting don't try to educate people, I'm all for that but the focus should be as much if not more (and yes IMHO it should be more) on the enormous bloody dangerous, potentially lethal piece of equipment that has huge blind spots that are currently allowed to drive up and down busy town/city streets.

If HGV has a massive blind spot, and the driver places that blindspot over a zebra crossing or a cycle box and then kills someone using that bit of infrastructure, how much extra should he get added to his sentence?

I've been left hooked as you put it twice, once by a bmw who successfully hit me and put my bar ends though his passenger window along with a large dent from pinned pedals in his door, I was unscathed from the accident but he got out of the car and made like he'd kill me as I was lying on the floor, very fortunately the car behind was an off duty copper who pointed out it was his fault not mine since he over took me.

The second time was a lorry in a concrete underpass, very luckily I managed to stop. In neither case do I think better visibility would have helped. Both drivers were well aware I was there and had driven around me, they just didn't care as soon as the front of their vehicle was past me.

"if I can no longer see something is it still there" yes, yes it probably is.

In any sort of vehicle with mirrors can I see things behind me at a reasonable distance yes you can. So until it's in then assume it's still beside you.

With regard to where the cycle lanes are, I agree they're in the wrong place but simply being there is no excuse, there is an left hand lane on the motor way and most people know not too use it to undertake (probably about the same percentage as know not too cycle along side left turning traffic)

I think it's crazy to attempt to encourage cycling in cities without providing proper safe infrastructure. I'm pretty sure it's universally acknowledged that painted cycle lanes are pathetic.

BTW those of you taking the "you can't legislate for idiots/their own fault" line.... where do you stand on compulsory seatbelt law? Stupid idea that we should repeal? Shall we let a few of the shallow enders of the gene pool shuffle off this mortal coil?

1. is any Dutchman going any where near the design/consulting phase?

i can believe that

tbf, Germany installs the rejected Dutch stuff too, eg right turn lanes (left in UK) that you have to cross over the straight-on cycle stripe to get to.

BTW those of you taking the "you can't legislate for idiots/their own fault" line.... where do you stand on compulsory seatbelt law?

If you're daft enough to get into a car and head off down a motorway, without putting on the piece of effective safety equipment on your right shoulder, then I'm afraid your trip through the windscreen is also Darwinism.

Binners I wasn't asking whether not using a pretty universally known about piece of safety equipment was stupid, it patently is. I was asking if you thought the seat belt laws were stupid or if it [i]Seems like a lot of effort to go to (or in usual EU fashion; force other people to go to) to achieve very little.[/i]

If there were ruddy great bollards installed at corners on the edge of the cycling lane, the drivers would get sacked for bad driving if they scraped their truck on the bollard.

But if it's a nice soft squishy cyclist, then it's "Poor chap, we share your anguish at squishing that idiot/child/granny/new cyclist/STWer".

A truck with poor visibility to the sides is not fit for purpose and should not be allowed on narrow streets in our towns. A simple bit of legislation would fix that.

As for seatbelts that's making "you" take responsibility for"your own" safety, the redesign is about making "them" safer for "you" it's not the same thing. The closest thing I can immediately think of would be obliging cyclists to wear helmets or high vis etc. There is a whole different can of worms.

Truck redesign. In of its self is fine but it's not fixing the problem which is that some people can't be trusted to walk safely, let alone ride a bike or drive a lorry. The issue is the more we legislate and thinhe like this the more we absolve everyone of responsibility.

Education won't save anyone because once they're done learning out then many people forget it - how many of you drive with 10 to 2 hands?

Short of a radical change in infrastructure and public attitude towards responsibility for their own well being they'll solve nothing.

all this other stuff does little but make it look like dealing with a problem there is no political will to solve. To use another Dutch analogy, it's pretending a small boy with his finger in a dyke will be fine

UK is almost unique in having those bollards and railings on the inside. It's just they have them between bike and pavement, so it's something for the truck/bus/car to squish them against.

No legislation will make all the side invisibility of a truck visible. Legislation can change what can be in that invisible spot.

binners - Member

The problem here isn't lorry design. The problem is idiots.

You may be right but you can't legislate for them!

And if those bollards weren't there when you pulled up but we're when you pulled away would that be your fault our that of who ever put the bollard there with out making it obvious to you?

Binners I wasn't asking whether not using a pretty universally known about piece of safety equipment was stupid, it patently is. I was asking if you thought the seat belt laws were stupid or if it Seems like a lot of effort to go to (or in usual EU fashion; force other people to go to) to achieve very little.

By the time seat belts became law, all vehicles were fitted with them anyway. So I'd stick to my theory that making them compulsory just gets in the way of evolution.

This is a different matter though. Completely re-designing the cab layout of all heavy goods vehicles on the road is a massive undertaking. And ultimately its unlikely to achieve anything. Because the cause of accidents may be a by-product of the design issue, but that isn't the main issue. The main issue is the aforementioned idiots not having the brains to not put themselves in life-threatening situations in the first place.

Education is an issue. But needing to be told not to ride up the inside of a left turning arctic at a red light, is to me, like being told not to put your hand in a blender. You shouldn't need telling. Its common sense

but we do legislate for idiots (seatbelt use) we also legislate or tiredness/clumsiness (guards on machinery etc) might it also be an idea to better legislate for dangerous machinery used in public places which the general public may not know the technical details of?

As someone further up said a truck on site needs a banksman, surely it would be cheaper and easier for foreman to tell construction workers "don't walk infront of trucks you idiots" Fact is if a hauliers truck runs over someone on site there's a bloody furore, site management, haulier's rules and regs, driver training, H&S in the workplace. if it runs over someone on the road it's "bad luck old chap"
Stricter rules on a closed site than on open public roads seems pretty messed up to me.

binners - Member

Completely re-designing the cab layout of all heavy goods vehicles on the road is a massive undertaking

more or less the same scale of undertaking as asking that all cars meet emission standards, or all cars meet crash safety standards, or etc.

this kind of thing happens all the time.

If you're daft enough to get into a car and head off down a motorway, without putting on the piece of effective safety equipment on your right shoulder, then I'm afraid your trip through the windscreen is also Darwinism.

And if you're daft enough to think that most people that get squished did it to themselves then there is no hope!

I *never* go up the inside of large vehicles like that if there is the slightest chance they can turn left on me or drift me into the kerb, but I have, on numerous occasions, being in a perfectly safe spot, only to find a thundering great behemoth rumble up behind me, then slowly overtake, before turning left or drifting sideways, I've even had to bail out to avoid being hit before, I was stationary for the whole thing, there was no way I could have not been in that situation other than not being on the road at that time.

I really hope that never happens to you, if it does I assume we'll be justified in calling you an idiot and rejoicing at the cleaner gene pool we'll all be able to enjoy?

Perhaps, just perhaps, if he'd they'd been able to see me more easily before pulling in/turning then it would have avoided it?

Same goes for Mr New Cyclist, who following the lovely painted cycle lane the nice council man has put down for him, finds himself up the inside of a lorry, he might even have that 'Oh carp!' moment when he realises what a silly thing he's done, but instead of being squished (justifiable in your eyes no?) luckily for him the lorry has one of those new cabs with better visibility, and thank Jeebus! the lorry driver has seen him! hurrah, he can go home to his wife and kids tonight.

The lorry driver may even tut and complain about the silly man putting himself there, but at least he saw him, that's got to be better than the alternative hasn't it?

People don't set out to put themselves in harms way, and drivers don't set out to kill people, small mistakes shouldn't have fatal consequences if it can be avoided.

amedias - Member
...People don't set out to put themselves in harms way, and drivers don't set out to kill people, small mistakes shouldn't have fatal consequences if it can be avoided.

Well said. Much better than what I was about to post.

I'm going to put this out there and say this will take a very, very long time to implement. how many wagons are out there? how are you going to force the wagon companies to scrap perfectly good vehicles for the ones with lovely glass doors? What about tramping drivers who sleep in their cabs, do they have to have large glass, insecure panels? if we lower the driving position to allow better visibility then where will the engines go?

not an easy solution at all.

no one said it would be easy

but being hard isn't an excuse not to.

philfive - Member

I'm going to put this out there and say this will take a very, very long time to implement. how many wagons are out there? how are you going to force the wagon companies to scrap perfectly good vehicles for the ones with lovely glass doors?

amedias - Member

no one said it would be easy

but it's not that hard either.

here you go: EU directive #3,000,005: tipper wagons need to be sold with bigger, lower windows, driver eyeyline no higher than 2m above ground level / introduction date : jan 2019. (5yrs from now)

it would take (at most) 20 years for the old wagons to be replaced 'naturally' - quicker even if the EU decides to do something about the evil of diesel emissions.

5 years to design them and start building, 20 years at most till the old ones are history.

in other words, in 15 years we'll have halved the threat.

No it isn't but the point is that its just all words, it can't be done. what needs to be done is better education and proper separation of cyclists and vehicles. they can also ban HGV from city centers during rush hours, there is no reason why these can't happen.

it can't be done.

yes it can, it's no more complicated than the rules car designers have to stick to.

Ahwiles, you haven't addressed any of my other issues and have only spoke about tippers, is it actually possible to fit the big V8 engines and have a low field of vision?

Said New rider might see more benefit from a big red label on the new bike he bought telling him not to ride up the side of lorries etc.

Having said education won't help a little wouldn't hurt either. In theory at least you can't go buy a car or any other sort of motor vehicle and drive it on a public highway with out some education in its use, yet you can go buy a bike and ride it on a road without the slightest idea what you're doing. A little understanding may well achieve zero but at least people may be aware what they're choosing to do is dumb.

I'd wager most of the people who do cycle up the inside of left turning traffic are habituals and either continue to be blithely ignorant of their own stupidity or firmly believe the responsibility is some one else's. I'd lay the same bet most of those getting squashed are probably in the he wasn't indicating or similar accident bunch rather than the think it's safe group.

We all make mistakes, and fortunately most of us survive them but fixing lorry design when it's simply not to blame in most cases will only succeed in making people blame lorries more.

Truck design isn't the problem, road users of all kinds are the problem, < edit - I never saw a driver's truck squash anyone. Regardless of its design>. You can't (yet) legislate people put off the equation so the only solution is to separate those things which pose a risk to one another, it's the same reason people don't like shared use cycle trails. Some Pedestrians don't know how to behave around cyclists, some cyclists don't know how to behave around them and so on. The successful solution in most places is segregation not making bikes more suitable for not running over people's dogs.

looking at this in a different light

what about "corporate responsibility" from the local authority that has painted the junction road marking with a cycle feeder lane on the inside left leading up to the ASL box

when a cyclist is killed following these road markings, surely this could be considered as corporate manslaughter because the local authority has indicated to that cyclist, where the cyclist is expected to position their bike going into that junction?

If the road marking is promoting these fatal accidents, surely it is not "fit for purpose" and immediate action needs to be taken, as well as a prosecution of the local authority by the H&SE

philfive - Member

Ahwiles, you haven't addressed any of my other issues

i don't have to, i'm not a truck designer / town planner, i'm just pointing out that all these problems are just problems, there are solutions.

is it actually possible to fit the big V8 engines and have a low field of vision?

no, it would break the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

sorry, i'm being flippant. truck cabins are high so that they can keep the vehicle length short (among other reasons) - the cab is over the engine. You could put the cabin in front of the engine and reduce the height - but you'd have to reduce the carrying capacity to keep the same vehicle length. It's just a compromise - but, not unlike the compromises that car designer face.

for example: there are a tonne of rules about the design of car bumpers, bonnets, and windscreens. and those are just the rules concerning pedestrian safety.

The road marking isn't to blame, ignoring the surrounding traffic is to blame, be that the cyclist ignoring the lorry or the driver ignoring his mirrors. With no other traffic both would be fine. With responsible road use by all traffic they'd be fine.

< edit> the markings tell you to be on the left, not to proceed down the left, regardless of the consequences of that action, you don't drive/ride into the vehicle in front of you simply because the lane markings suggest you should be going forward.

no, it would break the 3rd law of thermodynamics

With responsible road use by all traffic they'd be fine.

no, it would break the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

(sorry, i'm being flippant. truck cabins are high so that they can keep the vehicle length short)

Which has to be done by law or you can run shorter trailers and have reduced capacity and increased prices.

If HGV has a massive blind spot, and the driver places that blindspot over a zebra crossing or a cycle box and then kills someone using that bit of infrastructure, how much extra should he get added to his sentence?

Are you serious? I would be asking the dead cyclist why they thought it was appropiate to pull along side the the HGV, regardless of whether the HGV was in the wrong place or not.

As to calls for improving the infrastructure, I really can not see where the UK would have space for miles of segregated cycle roads, we simply do not have the space.

Also from the above you can tell some people really need some very simple education along the lines of take responsibility for your own actions, and just because some infrastructure tells you you are in the right, it doesnt mean you wont get killed.

There is a pecking order on the roads, always has been, always will be. I know that on a push bike I am at the bottom, so never take stupid risks going along side lorries etc.

philfive - Member

increased prices.

so, there's the compromise.

should we sack off the safety regs on building sites? - it would save a few quid...

here's my position:

it's possible to design stuff (trucks, cars, roads, etc.) so that they're safer.

doing so might be a good idea.

just stating that all dead cyclists are idiots is less helpful.

I really can not see where the UK would have space for miles of segregated cycle roads, we simply do not have the space

Yes there is space, it's just used all wrongly most of the time. In a space where UK would try to force 2 lanes traffic both ways, with a feeder bike stripe up each side, and 2 pedestrian pavements... the Dutch would fit 2 pavements, 1 lane traffic each way, a 2way bike path on one side, and possibly even parallel parking with a space between door opening zone and bike path, and even bus stop layby.
edit: oh and possibly even a sizeable central pedestrian refuge at the lights (think Dutch standard is wide enough to fit a bike with kiddie trailer)
And dedicated phase for bikes at the lights.

Without being flippant, to all those saying 'never go up the inside of a vehicle, even if theres a marked cycle lane in place', which is the same line of 'education' as the 'cyclists stay back' sticker on the back of trucks -

= surely the other side of this, if we're being fair about it, is 'never pass a cyclist on the right'. Given that the average speed of a bike > average speed of a motor vehicle in London theres no need for a vehicle to ever overtake me when I'm on a bike. The bike isn't holding you up. Let it stay in front. That would make things a lot safer

I think the argument here is whether the massively increased costs will actually achieve anything. I think the answer is no, as truck design isn't the fundamental problem. The problem is people/idiots. Whether they be on two wheels, in a town planning department or behind the wheel of a truck. I just can't see this saving a single life.

And seeing as the policy has only been announced today, I'd imagine the truck manufacturers, and haulage firms, supermarkets etc will have a thing or two to say about it, that they probably can't see it saving a single life either, but its going to cost an awful lot of money

I really can not see where the UK would have space for miles of segregated cycle roads, we simply do not have the space

First thing you do is remove on street parking. No reason why people should be able to store private property on public land (at, even when there is a charge a vastly subsidised price). Most 'narrow' london streets are at least 4 car widths wide including pavements but two of them are taken up by cars that spend the majority of their time static.

In all of that, this popped up on facebook today, it's from London so I guess a lot have already seen it

The punchline as it could be called is you don't see what you don't look for.

I would be asking the dead cyclist why they thought it was appropiate to pull along side the the HGV

Always with the assumption that the cyclist went up the inside...

This will be the 3rd (possibly 4th time) I've mentioned it in this thread alone, it is perfectly possible to position yourself safely, NOT go up the inside of a truck and still find yourself in that situation due to natural traffic flows.

BTW - If the dead cyclist could answer they would most likely say one of these things:

1> I didn't know it was a blind spot / I thought he could see me
2> I didn't realise it was [b]that [/b]dangerous
3> I didn't, I was here first and he pulled along side me

First thing you do is remove on street parking. No reason why people should be able to store private property on public land (at, even when there is a charge a vastly subsidised price). Most 'narrow' london streets are at least 4 car widths wide including pavements but two of them are taken up by cars that spend the majority of their time static.

Come on now, sensible, plausable solutions only please.

Pratt and Millar have a good system for their racecars, surely a simpler system can be developed to retro-fit onto current vehicles with blind spot issues (and drivers who fail to check their blind spot)?

Do you honestly believe that less idiots are going to be squashed as a result of this?

Have fun trolling.

I think the argument here is whether the massively increased costs will actually achieve [b]anything[/b]. I think the answer is no

I think the question you're actually asking is:

[i]Is it worth the cost for the gain[/i]

Because it will achieve [b]something[/b], but you've already decided that the gains are not worth the cost in your eyes.

I guess it all depends on how you do you cost/beneift analysis...

This will be the 3rd (possibly 4th time) I've mentioned it in this thread alone, it is perfectly possible to position yourself safely, NOT go up the inside of a truck and still find yourself in that situation due to natural traffic flows.

Yes, its possible. But do you honestly think, given the nature of the deaths in crowded city streets, that these represent a significant percentage of fatalities? You stand at any junction in a city and you'll see the 2-wheeled potential statistics, squeezing themselves between a bus, or a tipper truck and the kerb. My point is that changing the design of trucks isn't going to change their behaviour, and their absence of common sense, or any instinct for self-preservation is the root cause of the problem

Do you honestly believe that less idiots are going to be squashed as a result of this?

Have fun trolling.

Thanks for your contribution Ian. Most enlightening. Your natural empathy with the nations idiots is touching