[Closed] Lorry redesign to prevent cycling deaths?

Come on now, sensible, plausable solutions only please.

Well, when I mentioned this first....miles up there ^... I said

and accept the compromises it will inevitably bring to other forms of transport

For me part of the solution would be to make a load more city roads one way only for motorised transport. Yes, I acknowledge that this would make cities slower to navigate through by car/lorry but it would be part of a structure to make cycling so good that it would be the preferred choice of transport for the majority of people and motorised transport something that became more necessity driven rather than preference.

On the flip side once there was a great cycling infrastructure in place I'd be inclined to make far more roads motorised vehicle only to give them the best shot of moving efficiently.

Not really the point I know but the redesign of lorries is to do with the number of accidents. Based on fatalities
Hgvs in London account for 20 of fatalities, given the article mentions "particularly in London" I'm going to assume it's a lower or broadly similar percentage elsewhere - possibly a foolish thing to do.

16% of fatalities involve no vehicle but are a result of losing control of the Bike so for every 5 people killed by a lorry 4 died because they lost control be it a poorly maintained bike or what ever. Don't get me wrong but pinning all this blame on lorries and fixing them seems to rather distract from the fact that riding your bike is dangerous.

80% of fatalities have nothing to do with hgvs yet we're not legislating all the other stuff.

It's all about appearances.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

But do you honestly think, given the nature of the deaths in crowded city streets, that these represent a significant percentage of fatalities?

Significant in the statistical sense?

I don't know, I don't have the data to hand (nor do I think it exists) correlating fatalities to going up the inside of vehicles.
I believe that data exists correlating fatalities with left turning vehicles, but not the circumstances that lead up to the cyclist being there.

Significant in the dictionary sense of sufficiently important to be worthy of attention?

Yes, 100%, I honestly believe it happens enough to be worthy of attention, and re-evaluating changes that can be made to the environment (infrastructure, segregation, truck design, exclusions etc) to see if improvements can be made is a worthwhile thing to do. Making trucks safer is a good thing, in the same way that educating cyclists to the dangers is a good thing, and improving infrastructure is a good thing.

pinning all this blame on lorries

Nobody is doing that, this is [b]one aspect[/b] that is being looked into, it is not to the exclusion of other things and is not expected to be a magic bullet. And since when has "but other things are worse!" been a sensible argument for not doing something?

By that logic we should never have bothered with seatbelts or airbags or ABS or any of that nonsense, until we had fixed the fundamental problem of cars colliding with things, otherwise what's the point?

Incremental improvements to a complex problem, there is no magic fix.

I don't think a redesign of trucks will fix ALL the problems, nor do I think it will be cheap, easy, or happen overnight, nor do I think that better and safer behaviour of cyclists, drivers and pedestrians doesn't need attention, but I do think that its a step in the right direction that could save lives, and in conjunction with other things could lead to significant (in both senses ;-)) improvements to the safety of our roads.

It took years for changes in car design to incorporate new safety ideas, side impact bars, ABS, traction control, crumple zones, first for the occupants and then later pedestrian safety measures, it's pretty much dictated the shape of most modern cars these days, but the changes came and have been worthwhile, going for a safer design surely has to be a good idea in the long run?

As far as being in a safe place and then giving traffic has since made your stationary (or otherwise) position unsafe do you honestly think that has anything to do with the visibility of those drivers or is almost completely a result of them not giving a damn?

Having had that done to me on multiple occasions and mostly by cars where the only thing restricting their view is the drivers unwillingness to look, I'd day I'm fairly confident in thinking it's nothing to do with visibility and entirely to do with a complete disregard for other road users

Hgvs in London account for 20 of fatalities

I thought the figure was closer to 40% of cyclist fatalities in London involved an HGV, but with HGV's accounting for only 5% of trips in london.

[url= http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-699.pdf ]Link to study[/url]

Those stats say a lot, admittedly those stats were base don a trend over 15 years up to 2006, where as the ROSPA stats appear to be a snapshot from a single year?

As far as being in a safe place and then giving traffic has since made your stationary (or otherwise) position unsafe do you honestly think that has anything to do with the visibility of those drivers or is almost completely a result of them not giving a damn?

Depends, getting into that situation can often be the result of a fairly passive act on the part of the driver as the move along in the same direction in normal traffic flows, the collisions and accidents occur when they then make a manoeuvre/turn, and at that point visibility could/should play more of a part.

entirely to do with a complete disregard for [s]other road users[/s] cyclists

FTFY, they'd look and pay attention if it was another car or something that could damage them, but its because you're a cyclist that they think they have priority, but that leads on to a whole other argument about attitudes on the road and 2nd class citizens, someone mentioned there being a pecking order on the roads earlier, they're right there is, but there shouldn't be, all road users should be equal as we all have the same rights to be there.

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.

Changing trucks strikes me as an awful lot easier than ridding the world of idiots. The fact is that current truck design is the result of current regulations, which drive designers to maximum load capacity within a given length of vehicle, resulting in the standard arrangement of putting the driver above the engine which has the knock on effect of the driving not being able to see bikes and pedestrians that are directly in front of the truck or directly alongside the cab without the use of mirrors or other aids.

Changing those regulations to require lower cabs, prioritising safety over load capacity seems like a no brainer to me. It's not a complete solution, nor will it solve the problem overnight, but I can't see why you wouldn't do it.

I just can't see this saving a single life.

Really? You really believe that making it easier for drivers to see cyclists who would otherwise be in a blind spot won't avoid accidents?

You can argue about who was at fault in any given incident, but that's not the same thing as figuring out how to avoid accidents in the future. People are fallible, so we need to figure out how to reduce the chance of them making fatal mistakes.

Abs etc were actually shown to work before they became required by law though (excuse my ignorance but are any of those measures other than seatbelts mandated), this may work it may not. My personal opinion from my experience of riding on the road is it won't.

Out of interest if they did legislate to require you "mot" your bike, insure it and undergo mandatory training before being allowed to ride it would you be for our against? Mandatory helmets given they may work to save lives in a small number of collisions/falls?

Watch the cycling lobby backlash on those...

Out of interest if they did legislate to require you "mot" your bike, insure it and undergo mandatory training before being allowed to ride it would you be for our against?

MOT - Absofrickinglutely I would be for this in principle. Nobody should be riding a bike that is a danger to themselves or others, but then rarely do bikes endanger others, and if they do then you would still fall foul of the law if the accident was a result of your negligence in not maintaining you bike to pass proper standards (which are laughable in reality). How you would administer such a scheme is beyond me!

Insurance is a tricky one, because you wouldn't insure a bike, you'd be insuring the person, and a lot of people do already have cover through dedicated policies or home policies.

Helmets is a trickier one, as we all know there's a whole heap more to it than you mentioned, (before you even mention that helmets wouldn't be so useful if vehicles stopped hitting cyclists!) so please lets not turn this into a helmet debate!

Lets look at this based this on evidence though, we have evidence that trucks are involved in a large proportion of fatalities.
We have no such evidence that poorly maintained bikes are, and we already have basic design and operation standards for safety for bicycles sold in the UK/EU, could they be improved? probably, but then so could the rules and standards by which we build trucks, and that's what this whole thread is about!

+10 points for neatly diverting the argument, -10 for not providing convincing data. 😉

Changing those regulations to require lower cabs, prioritising safety over load capacity seems like a no brainer to me. It's not a complete solution, nor will it solve the problem overnight, but I can't see why you wouldn't do it.

As the demand for goods doesn't go down then you need to put more vehicles on the road otherwise they need to be longer creating more blind spots creating more potential problems.
Maybe the quickest and cheapest option is to take cycles off the road and onto the pavement as these are normally segregated by kerbs anyway. Then start the process of widening paths to segregate cyclists from pedestrians. Many narrower roads could be linked together to get from one side of a town to the other quickly and designated as cycle lanes to act as the motorways for cyclists.

You can argue about who was at fault in any given incident, but that's not the same thing as figuring out how to avoid accidents in the future. People are fallible, so we need to figure out how to reduce the chance of them making fatal mistakes.

Should we be doing though? Surely you can only do so much. Its at what point do you stop. The argument put further up that pedestrians get run over by trucks so truck design should be changed, to increase the drivers visibility, is patently ridiculous. If you're really bovinely stupid enough to step out into the path of a truck, then the gene pool really is better off for your absence. I wouldn't rate riding up the inside of trucks much higher up the evolutionary scale either. How far do you go to save idiots from themselves? I know their general buffoonery adds greatly to the gaiety of the nation, and gives us all something to point at and laugh, but where's the cut of point?

As the demand for goods doesn't go down then you need to put more vehicles on the road otherwise they need to be longer

If your move the cab down and forwards, can the trailer not then extend over the cab to recover some/all of the lost capacity? Or is there something fundamental I'm missing there?

*genuine question BTW

Binners, humans didn't evolve in an environment that included several tonnes of fast moving deadly metal, nor are we particularly well equipped to pilot such things in a busy environment!

The entire concept of letting traffic move freely through our living space is frankly bizarre if you view it outside of the current context where it has crept in over a few generations.

Go find a tribe living in a non-urban area somewhere and ask them what they would think about letting streams metal boxes travel at 30+ mph through their village, and that it's their job to stay out of the way or be killed.

I think in many hundreds of years people are going to look back on this and their minds will boggle that we chose/allowed such madness.

If your move the cab down and forwards, can the trailer not then extend over the cab to recover some/all of the lost capacity? Or is there something fundamental I'm missing there?

Most goods are moved in cages/pallets that are rolled onto the load bed based on the drivers delivery route and unloaded at each drop in reverse order to that they were loaded i.e. last on first off.
Loads above the cab are very rare due to the weight over the front and it would mainly be one drop runs such as removal companies which a very small percentage of vehicles delivering goods on a daily basis.

Sorry for lack of data, I feel in a lot of cases that the for lobby tend to be for things which don't directly effect them and the anti lobby trends to be effected by them -motorists for helmets, cyclists (largely) against is the best parallel I could think of.

On a vaguely related note, I just went out in the work vehicle and whilst reversing (compete with beep and spoken warning) a pedestrian ran behind me, genius. Absolute genius.

In context I'm using the mirrors all the time whist reversing so saw her, but, had they stepped behind the vehicle and promptly stood there waiting for a gap in traffic they'd probably have been crow food, Cab design or no as I can't see though sheet metal.

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....

Come on now, sensible, plausable solutions only please.

80% of fatalities have nothing to do with hgvs yet we're not legislating all the other stuff.

thanks for the info craigxxl, that does make sense.

D0nk you're likely right it's down to numbers but my inner cynic can't help thinking it's more because there would be uproar if it were cars.

On a vaguely related note, I just went out in the work vehicle and whilst reversing (compete with beep and spoken warning) a pedestrian ran behind me, genius. Absolute genius.

Maybe people who can't hear should be locked up at home?

The hearing bit, maybe, possibly, I was actually moving at the time too, though not I should add for long after she stepped behind me.

Fortunately no harm done so I can just find it flabbergastingly stupid, rather than being mortified.

< edit> Any how no-one suggested locking people away, quote the opposite. My personal take is just people largely need to be more careful, the OP (when deliberately skewed) suggests people should encourage stupid people to get put and do stupid things in order to better out breeding stock and the other side of the argument when viewed through squint eyes says those same people should be hugged and befriended and told its ok to be stupid because we'll make the world safe 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.

It's already been done - Volvo introduced their BLIS (Blindspot Information System) as an option on their cars several years ago. Basically, there's a small camera mounted in the car's mirror housings facing the rear of the car, looking at the blind spot. If there's an object in the blind spot area and the driver tries to pull into the space, the car gives an audible and visual warning. Not fool proof but it's a start.

Wouldn't it be better to admit that bicycle advance stop line entry design is all wrong and puts cyclists up the inside of lorries?

>>First thing you do is remove on street parking.
Come on now, sensible, plausable solutions only please.

That's what they did in Amsterdam and they're still doing it - taking out roads and replacing them with cycle facilities (I think in one case . In Singapore (and I think Tokyo) you're not allowed to buy a car unless you can evidence that you've got off street parking for it.

Take the true, free market, Tory way with the parking - aim to reduce by, say, 50% over 5 years. Auction off the remaining spaces so they reach their market value - income would be significantly above current levels so better local services/lower taxes. Take out the parking and you increase the road capacity of the city at a stroke without spending any money.

I was riding through Dulwich today. Pretty much all the houses had off street parking yet the street was still full of parked cars on both sides. What are those cars for? They're obviously not being used to go to work or they wouldn't be there on a weekday afternoon. There are a stack of local schools, all within an easy walk or cycle distance so there would be no need for a school run if there were safe facilities.

Wouldn't it be better to admit that bicycle advance stop line entry design is all wrong and puts cyclists up the inside of lorries?

on continental europe, often the lights for cyclist will go green several seconds before those for motorised vehicles.

on continental europe, certainly pretty much most places I've lived/driven/ridden, you almost never have a right to turn right (left in UK) without giving way to bikes or pedestrians. in UK you essentially have full right of way to complete a junction or roundabout once you've committed to entering it. On mainland EU you have to give way to exit a junction/roundabout. Turn right at traffic lights... you will be crossing a pedestrian crossing at green, and possibly a bike crossing too.

570 to 88 from Euro MEPs for Safer Urban Lorries
Apparently, all UKIP MEPs voted against

What are your politics Binners?

What on earth has politics got to do with it? I presume the implication is that if I think this is a stupid idea, then I must be some swivel-eyed faragist loon? Don't UKIP just vote against everything in Europe?

I suspect most MEP's voted for it as part of a well thought through cycle-friendly transport policy they tend to have anyway, and used in conjunction with other measures like the ones described above in Amsterdam

In isolation it's just daft, and it won't make the remotest difference.

Good job it's not being done in isolation then 🙂

If you're really bovinely stupid enough to step out into the path of a truck, then the gene pool really is better off for your absence. I wouldn't rate riding up the inside of trucks much higher up the evolutionary scale either. How far do you go to save idiots from themselves? I know their general buffoonery adds greatly to the gaiety of the nation, and gives us all something to point at and laugh, but where's the cut of point?

Firstly, you're implying that in these incidents, it's always the vulnerable road user that puts themselves into harms way. This certainly isn't always the case, and where it's the HGV driver that has created the hazard, they almost certainly don't intend to kill anyone, so surely making it easier for them to recover from their mistake without killing anyone is a good thing?

Secondly, I don't think the size and location of all of an HGV's blind spots is obvious. Many people might reasonably assume that the visibility in such vehicles is much better than it is. Many people also might not think too hard about what path the rear wheels of a long vehicle will take at a corner - particularly if they were under the assumption that it was going straight ahead. At least one of the fatalities in London involved a cyclist directly in front of an HGV. I think that even people quite high up the evolutionary scale would be quite surprised that there's a blind spot big enough to hide a bike in there. It'd be great if all road users had a chance to experience the road from the perspective of other vehicles, but I can't see it happening.

Are you confident that amongst your friends and family there is nobody who doesn't understand the hazards of the blind spots around lorries? Or would you be comfortable writing it off as Darwinism in action if they got killed in such an incident?