Sensors of Crossrail lorry involved in cyclist's death not working

[[[[[[ Understood!! The post by "Mr Will", that is.
P.R.

SB76 wrote:

I know those signs are designed to remind us but seriously if you're worried about hitting me when you're unsighted, why shouldn't you give a toss when you're fully sighted.

I don't think they are all there there to remind us. I think its a combination of factors. Sometimes it'll be some numpy H&S officer at HQ doing a bit of defensive disclaimering who thinks that if they put a sign up they're off the hook if their driver left hooks a cyclist. On occasions they'll be there as a way to say the driver doesn't like cyclists.

There is a point on some long vehicles and to warn the inexperienced cyclist that may be tempted up the inside of an HGV or a coach. But on vans?

I try not to let it wind me up because it's just as meaningless as those "Baby on Board" stickers. Like as if someone would have rammed your car but then they realised you had a baby on board and decided not to.

chadders wrote:

Doesn't matter how many, what type sensors are fitted or whether working or not, the ultimate responsibility of the vehicles actions lies firmly with the driver. Sensors are an aid and nothing more.

Ever seen a driver parking a car with parking sensors and still hit something? Drivers rely on sensors far too much if they're fitted. The driver was found not to be below the standard of a competent driver, sensors or not.

PhilRuss wrote:

I just assume the following, at all times: "Driver hasn't seen me, doesn't know I'm there, might be texting, (...snipped...) doesn't give a fying fluck about cyclists"....which might all be outrageous prejudice on my part, seeing as 9 out of 10 drivers are good'uns...

The technique which keeps me alive is an assumption (based on fiction, but which works as if it were true) that everyone else on the road is actively trying to kill me, and everyone on the pavement is actively trying to commit suicide using me as the cause. The natural avoiding action that arises from this staged-paranoia-lookalike causes me to anticipate actions that are preposterously unlikely, but when the unlikely happens then bingo! I am ready.

It doesn't work completely because I have been crashed into, but not as often or as lethally as would otherwise have come to pass.

I use the same technique on a motorcycle too. For reasons that I don't fully understand, people on motorcycles are more visible (or more perceivable?) than people on bicycles, but hitting the ground at 40 or 60+mph hurts more than at 10 or 20, so it is still necessary.

severs1966][quote=PhilRuss wrote:

I just assume the following, at all times: "Driver hasn't seen me, doesn't know I'm there, might be texting, (...snipped...) doesn't give a fying fluck about cyclists"....which might all be outrageous prejudice on my part, seeing as 9 out of 10 drivers are good'uns...

Severs1966 wrote:"The technique which keeps me alive is an assumption (based on fiction, but which works as if it were true) that everyone else on the road is actively trying to kill me....I use the same technique on a motorcycle... For reasons I don't fully understand, people on motorcycles are more visible (or more perceptible) than people on bicycles. /quote}

[[[[[[ severs1966---you don't know why people notice approaching motorbikes more than they notice bicycles? Might it have something to do with the raucous cacophony emanating from your engine, audible from 100 metres in every direction, and even round corners? Or am I missing something?
P.R.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

One hopes, at least, that the contractor involved in this tragic death will be refused entry to Crossrail sites, and may also have his/her contract reviewed - possibly even terminated. After all, if Crossrail require contractors to have these devices, then they should be proactive in enforcing that requirement. Otherwise, it's just lip service, isn't it?

I'd like to know more about the accident. For all we know, the young girl who died may have made a mistake that led to her death. But the use of a hands-free phone in such a large vehicle, in a busy and confined area like London, is worrying.

Perhaps hands-free devices should be banned in HGVs?

There's is actually an issue with using tech to enhance safety. On planes etc this stuff uses very expensive protocols for testing DO 178B. That's way too expensive for vehicles to live up to. Ipso facto some tech might not be working. Drivers however may become used to relying on it.

It's good to have but it's not foolproof. No magic bullet.

oozaveared wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

One hopes, at least, that the contractor involved in this tragic death will be refused entry to Crossrail sites, and may also have his/her contract reviewed - possibly even terminated. After all, if Crossrail require contractors to have these devices, then they should be proactive in enforcing that requirement. Otherwise, it's just lip service, isn't it?

I'd like to know more about the accident. For all we know, the young girl who died may have made a mistake that led to her death. But the use of a hands-free phone in such a large vehicle, in a busy and confined area like London, is worrying.

Perhaps hands-free devices should be banned in HGVs?

There's is actually an issue with using tech to enhance safety. On planes etc this stuff uses very expensive protocols for testing DO 178B. That's way too expensive for vehicles to live up to. Ipso facto some tech might not be working. Drivers however may become used to relying on it.

It's good to have but it's not foolproof. No magic bullet.

DO 178B/C is not a testing technique, it's a methodology for developing of the entire system (requirements-design-test & documents ) with traceability. Is it more expensive that cowboy techniques? Yeah but the motor industry has it's own standards that should dictate safety in the same way that safety critical systems utlise SIL.

For new products utilisation of DO178B/C wouldnt prove prohibative cost wise but it that is still no silver bullet.

SB76 wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

One hopes, at least, that the contractor involved in this tragic death will be refused entry to Crossrail sites, and may also have his/her contract reviewed - possibly even terminated. After all, if Crossrail require contractors to have these devices, then they should be proactive in enforcing that requirement. Otherwise, it's just lip service, isn't it?

I'd like to know more about the accident. For all we know, the young girl who died may have made a mistake that led to her death. But the use of a hands-free phone in such a large vehicle, in a busy and confined area like London, is worrying.

Perhaps hands-free devices should be banned in HGVs?

There's is actually an issue with using tech to enhance safety. On planes etc this stuff uses very expensive protocols for testing DO 178B. That's way too expensive for vehicles to live up to. Ipso facto some tech might not be working. Drivers however may become used to relying on it.

It's good to have but it's not foolproof. No magic bullet.

DO 178B/C is not a testing technique, it's a methodology for developing of the entire system (requirements-design-test & documents ) with traceability. Is it more expensive that cowboy techniques? Yeah but the motor industry has it's own standards that should dictate safety in the same way that safety critical systems utlise SIL.

For new products utilisation of DO178B/C wouldnt prove prohibative cost wise but it that is still no silver bullet.

Agreed and the elephant in the room is that we are still generally talking about improving the better lorries generally owned by the bigger companies and driven by the more responsible and qualified driver. Yes occasionally not so well driven. The 20 year old badly maintained skip and tipper lorries owned by small dodgy companies trying to squeeze the last drop of asset value from a truck and driven by pikeys on piecework are the real menace.

Of course there's a point in improving the new vehicles but actually the main effort needs to go into really scrutinising the really dangerous operators.

What annoys me is the cycle aware signs popping up on buses, vans and lorries. Yes, i know it there for our awareness to stop us doing something silly like going into their blindspot but it doesnt stop these drvivers behaving appauling to cyclists on the road.
Exactly a week ago, i was cycling up a majorish 40mph road and i had two of these big lorries go flying past me at over 50 and within a foot of me, seconds later by a van trying to beat me to a pinch point, all with these cyclists aware stickers.
Sensors are fine BUT it's as an aid not as the definitive info.

SB76 wrote:

What annoys me is the cycle aware signs popping up on buses, vans and lorries. Yes, i know it there for our awareness to stop us doing something silly like going into their blindspot but it doesnt stop these drvivers behaving appauling to cyclists on the road.
Exactly a week ago, i was cycling up a majorish 40mph road and i had two of these big lorries go flying past me at over 50 and within a foot of me, seconds later by a van trying to beat me to a pinch point, all with these cyclists aware stickers.
Sensors are fine BUT it's as an aid not as the definitive info.

Last Saturday I was in the car with Mrs Oozeaveared at a red light behind a small (escort sized) van with one on each side of the back of the van instructing cyclist not to overtake. I didn't say anything at all about it because we were chatting about something else. When the lights changed Said van went off like a drag racer.

That's when Mrs Oozaveared piped up. "If he's that worried about cyclist safety you'd think he wouldn't drive like he just stole that van."

SB76 wrote:

What annoys me is the cycle aware signs popping up on buses, vans and lorries. Yes, i know it there for our awareness to stop us doing something silly like going into their blindspot but it doesnt stop these drvivers behaving appauling to cyclists on the road.
Exactly a week ago, i was cycling up a majorish 40mph road and i had two of these big lorries go flying past me at over 50 and within a foot of me, seconds later by a van trying to beat me to a pinch point, all with these cyclists aware stickers.
Sensors are fine BUT it's as an aid not as the definitive info.

Last Saturday I was in the car with Mrs Oozeaveared at a red light behind a small (escort sized) van with one on each side of the back of the van instructing cyclist not to overtake. I didn't say anything at all about it because we were chatting about something else. When the lights changed Said van went off like a drag racer.

That's when Mrs Oozaveared piped up. "If he's that worried about cyclist safety you'd think he wouldn't drive like he just stole that van."

SB76 wrote:

What annoys me is the cycle aware signs popping up on buses, vans and lorries. Yes, i know it there for our awareness to stop us doing something silly like going into their blindspot but it doesnt stop these drvivers behaving appauling to cyclists on the road.
Exactly a week ago, i was cycling up a majorish 40mph road and i had two of these big lorries go flying past me at over 50 and within a foot of me, seconds later by a van trying to beat me to a pinch point, all with these cyclists aware stickers.
Sensors are fine BUT it's as an aid not as the definitive info.

Last Saturday I was in the car with Mrs Oozeaveared at a red light behind a small (escort sized) van with one on each side of the back of the van instructing cyclist not to overtake. I didn't say anything at all about it because we were chatting about something else. When the lights changed Said van went off like a drag racer.

That's when Mrs Oozaveared piped up. "If he's that worried about cyclist safety you'd think he wouldn't drive like he just stole that van."