Sister of Queen's physician killed while cycling calls for safer streets for cyclists

Tommytrucker wrote:

I do get confused about these blind spots, I've driven hgvs for 10 years and never had a problem seeing all the way down the side of my trailer. I have 3 mirrors on my nearside, two on my offside, and one for the front of the truck and have never missed anything or anybody. When turning left, the majority of the manoeuvre I spend checking my nearside mirrors in case anybody / anything tries to come down the nearside as I turn. I'd go so far as saying the blindspots are in the drivers' brains, I've noticed a lot of car drivers near me never use their ns mirrors, even when there is a whole other lane to their left, only through sheer luck do they aboida crash. The amount of cars i see with the ns mirror folded in is quite scary too.

Thank you, I have been saying this for years. When I see arctics reversing, it becomes clear how much the driver can or can't see along the sides. Again when filtering up the inside, I get to maintain eye contact for a significant amount of time. Equally up front, the driver can see  objects that are quite close too, they wouldn't be able to tailgate so safely otherwise.

Tommytrucker wrote:

I do get confused about these blind spots, I've driven hgvs for 10 years and never had a problem seeing all the way down the side of my trailer. I have 3 mirrors on my nearside, two on my offside, and one for the front of the truck and have never missed anything or anybody. When turning left, the majority of the manoeuvre I spend checking my nearside mirrors in case anybody / anything tries to come down the nearside as I turn. I'd go so far as saying the blindspots are in the drivers' brains

I suppose it's because in a court of law the phrase "I didn't see them as I couldn't be arsed to look" may result in a £500 fine; "they must have been in a blind spot" and you're sent away with a pat on the back...

alansmurphy wrote:

Tommytrucker wrote:

I do get confused about these blind spots, I've driven hgvs for 10 years and never had a problem seeing all the way down the side of my trailer. I have 3 mirrors on my nearside, two on my offside, and one for the front of the truck and have never missed anything or anybody. When turning left, the majority of the manoeuvre I spend checking my nearside mirrors in case anybody / anything tries to come down the nearside as I turn. I'd go so far as saying the blindspots are in the drivers' brains

 

I suppose it's because in a court of law the phrase "I didn't see them as I couldn't be arsed to look" may result in a £500 fine; "they must have been in a blind spot" and you're sent away with a pat on the back...

Self fulfilling prophecy isn't it? If someone keeps telling you there is a blind spot, eventually you're going to stop looking. 

Like the A pillar in a car, to look around this takes a tiny effort, but this is seen as too much of an effort by too many. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Tommytrucker wrote:

I do get confused about these blind spots, I've driven hgvs for 10 years and never had a problem seeing all the way down the side of my trailer. I have 3 mirrors on my nearside, two on my offside, and one for the front of the truck and have never missed anything or anybody. When turning left, the majority of the manoeuvre I spend checking my nearside mirrors in case anybody / anything tries to come down the nearside as I turn. I'd go so far as saying the blindspots are in the drivers' brains

I suppose it's because in a court of law the phrase "I didn't see them as I couldn't be arsed to look" may result in a £500 fine; "they must have been in a blind spot" and you're sent away with a pat on the back...

Self fulfilling prophecy isn't it? If someone keeps telling you there is a blind spot, eventually you're going to stop looking. 

Like the A pillar in a car, to look around this takes a tiny effort, but this is seen as too much of an effort by too many. 

A few years ago we had to borrow my mother-in-law's Fiat Punto.  My wife was driving.  She was horrified that you literally couldn't see the front of the car from the driver's seat (due to the angle of the bonnet), or see out of the back window (enough to make any difference), and the pillars all seemed so wide/thick that visibility was truly appalling.  The back window and the rear side windows were so small, and so inset into the bodywork, that they might as well not have been there.  Probably tremendously safe for the car occupants, but my wife refused to drive it again.

Luca Patrono wrote:

Get real. HGVs are dangerous and if you're undertaking one and get crushed for your pains, I certainly won't be shedding any tears for you.

There is a line to be drawn between idealism and pragmatism. No amount of complaining about HGVs is going to change a damn thing, and you know it. The design is here to stay, it has blind spots, and it's up to us to deal with that fact by treating them as the deadly force that they are.

You'll be able to point in the article to where it says "undertaking".

Other that that your first paragraph is disgusting.

Luca Patrono wrote:

Get real. HGVs are dangerous and if you're undertaking one and get crushed for your pains, I certainly won't be shedding any tears for you. There is a line to be drawn between idealism and pragmatism. No amount of complaining about HGVs is going to change a damn thing, and you know it. The design is here to stay, it has blind spots, and it's up to us to deal with that fact by treating them as the deadly force that they are.

I like imaginative trolls, a bit, but this is so basic, with no nuance, finesse or skill, I can't even be bothered to reply.

Luca Patrono wrote:

Get real. HGVs are dangerous and if you're undertaking one and get crushed for your pains, I certainly won't be shedding any tears for you. There is a line to be drawn between idealism and pragmatism. No amount of complaining about HGVs is going to change a damn thing, and you know it. The design is here to stay, it has blind spots, and it's up to us to deal with that fact by treating them as the deadly force that they are.

That seems a strange way of dealing with problems - pretend that nothing can be done and then blame the victims of the poor designs. I'm sure that there have been changes in road laws since the 1930s, so I wonder why you think that HGVs are somehow immune from what society requires?

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Luca Patrono wrote:

Get real. HGVs are dangerous and if you're undertaking one and get crushed for your pains, I certainly won't be shedding any tears for you. There is a line to be drawn between idealism and pragmatism. No amount of complaining about HGVs is going to change a damn thing, and you know it. The design is here to stay, it has blind spots, and it's up to us to deal with that fact by treating them as the deadly force that they are.

That seems a strange way of dealing with problems - pretend that nothing can be done and then blame the victims of the poor designs. I'm sure that there have been changes in road laws since the 1930s, so I wonder why you think that HGVs are somehow immune from what society requires?

They have a valid point though, when I first started driving the cars did not come with a passenger side wing mirror and cars are exactly the same today because no-one listens to safety concerns and adresses them.

Oh hang on, wait a minute......

Luca Patrono wrote:

Get real. HGVs are dangerous and if you're undertaking one and get crushed for your pains, I certainly won't be shedding any tears for you. There is a line to be drawn between idealism and pragmatism. No amount of complaining about HGVs is going to change a damn thing, and you know it. The design is here to stay, it has blind spots, and it's up to us to deal with that fact by treating them as the deadly force that they are.

Or...the assertion that they do have blindspots is, in fact, bollocks?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/01/09/trucks-do-not-have-c...

Either way...jog on you troll.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

It's the same level of excuse that says cyclists should never be on the inside of a truck because they have such huge blindspots. 

If trucks have blindspots big enough to impact the safety of other road users by rendering them invisible to drivers, those vehicles have no place on the road and should be outlawed. 

I which case, you'd better be prepared to starve and live a very bleak life.  Trucks deliver many of the goods (and services) that we take for granted in our modern lives. Trucks are large, they do have blindspots, they are very heavy and in an impact between a truck and a cyclist (or pedestrian), the soft human is going to come off worst.

Technology has improved the visibility afforded by mirrors and cameras on vehicles, there's sensors now that set alarms off in the cab if someone is inside a blidspot area. However, these are new technologies and are not retrofitted to older vehicles, nor even required on new Type Approved vehicles.

Responsibility for safety is shared amongst all road users, not just the drivers of motorised vehicles. How many cyclists and drivers don't heed the Highway Code?

Rule 72

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Rule 73

Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.

Rule 68

You MUST NOT

• carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
• hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
• ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
• ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.

Rule 144

You MUST NOT

drive dangerously
drive without due care and attention
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Rule 147

Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).

Why do (a minority) of cyclists presist in putting themselves in dangerous positions such as on the inside (left) of large vehicles? Why do they attempt to cycle through narrow gaps in queuing traffic which might move off, narrowing that gap a and leaving them with no escape? Why do they pass slow moving vehicles on the left? Why do they ride in dangerous manners which might put them into positions where they are more likely to get injured? Do they not consider themselves as vulerable? Do they honestly think "It'll never happen to me"?

Before anyone accuses me of being an anti-cycling driver, let me sate that I'm a regular recreational cyclist, I have held my C+E license for over 30 years, drove through Europe and UK, and used to work in driver training, I'm now working in Health & Safety. I take responsibility for my safety, and consider others round about me.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Why do (a minority) of cyclists presist in putting themselves in dangerous positions such as on the inside (left) of large vehicles? Why do they attempt to cycle through narrow gaps in queuing traffic which might move off, narrowing that gap a and leaving them with no escape? Why do they pass slow moving vehicles on the left? Why do they ride in dangerous manners which might put them into positions where they are more likely to get injured? Do they not consider themselves as vulerable? Do they honestly think "It'll never happen to me"?

Why do councils put painted cycle lanes up the inside of motor traffic, even on the approach to traffic lights, encouraging people (and giving a seal of approval to less-experienced) to go up the inside of traffic to get to an ASL?

Why do HGVs (which apparently have such inside blind spots) insist on overtaking so close as to *put* anything at all in said blind spot?

TBH I agree with the poster upthread - if HGV blind spots are as bad as the industry (and the defence, usually) would have us believe, then they should be nowhere near pedestrians and cyclists, and its possible they shouldn't be anywhere near any vehicle smaller than them.  If their blind spots are really  as bad as that, how can they *possibly* be safe to drive in an urban environment.

Anyway, as regards the actual story, I read it that he went in front of the truck, not up its inside.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Responsibility for safety is shared amongst all road users

Yes, we're trying to get truck drivers to take their share of responsibility. They clearly aren't if you look at the statistics.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Why do (a minority) of cyclists presist in putting themselves in dangerous positions such as on the inside (left) of large vehicles?

*Citation required. You're going to need to back-up large sweeping statements like that, if you could kindly name these persistent, small number of cyclists then we can simply educate them and solve the problem
Is it somehow safe on the right but not the left?
It's not a dangerous position to be in unless the driver suddenly makes a turn without having properly checked it's OK to do so. I presume you've driven a car alongside a truck and didn't consider it to be dangerous.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Why do they attempt to cycle (filter) through narrow gaps in stationery queuing motor-traffic which might move off, narrowing that gap a and leaving them with no escape?

It's the responsibility of the licenced operator of the dangerous machinery that needs to ensure it is safe for them to move off before they do so. It is not the cyclist's responsibility to control the vehicle they are not operating.

Why exactly shouldn't cyclists do what they are allowed to?

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Before anyone accuses me of being an anti-cycling driver, let me sate that I'm a regular recreational cyclist, I have held my C+E license for over 30 years, drove through Europe and UK, and used to work in driver training, I'm now working in Health & Safety. I take responsibility for my safety, and consider others round about me.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

I which case, you'd better be prepared to starve and live a very bleak life.  Trucks deliver many of the goods (and services) that we take for granted in our modern lives. Trucks are large, they do have blindspots, they are very heavy and in an impact between a truck and a cyclist (or pedestrian), the soft human is going to come off worst.

You seem to be missing the point, which is that these vehicles are dangerous, and we want them made safe.   It is not necessary to starve or lead a bleak life, only to make something stop killing people so that they can deliver things in a safe manner. 

I don't know how much retrofitting trucks to make them safe would cost, but it's going to be cheaper than carrying on killing people, whatever metric you use.

Why do (a minority) of cyclists presist in putting themselves in dangerous positions such as on the inside (left) of large vehicles?

I'd argue that a percentage of that minority are put in that position not through choice but circumstance, another percentage because road infrastructure encourages them to do so, and others simply don't see the danger.

Why do they attempt to cycle through narrow gaps in queuing traffic which might move off, narrowing that gap and leaving them with no escape?

Sometimes because they can see what is happening around them better than a motorist and know that they can do so safely, however sometimes again, they can't see the danger.

Why do they pass slow moving vehicles on the left? 

Why not if it's safe to do so? 

Why do they ride in dangerous manners which might put them into positions where they are more likely to get injured?

Probably for the same reason that motorcyclists, car, van, lorry drivers do this every day in control of their vehicles. Because as you say, they honestly think it'll never happen to them.

What I would argue in cyclists favour however, is that unlike motorcyclists, car, van or lorry drivers, cyclist won't have had to complete mandatory training and assessment that will (hopefully) make them aware of the highlighted dangers out there, prior to being allowed on our roads. 

In summary however, people make poor choices... when those poor choices are costing lives action needs to be taken to address that poor decision making. Whilst I appreciate cyclist education has the potential to solve this,  how is that education realistically going to be delivered? The only real way is through mandatory training (licensing), which is simply not a viable option.

So if you can't realistically educate and change behaviour, you need to mitigate against that behaviour (this approach dictates most road infrastructure so is hardly a new concept). For me the obvious way to do this is, with technology, to remove the blind spots from the vehicles taking these lives. 

This is inconvenient to the motor lobby and those managing lorry fleets, and so far avoiding that incovenience is seen as more important than avoiding unneccessary death on our roads.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Why do (a minority) of cyclists presist in putting themselves in dangerous positions such as on the inside (left) of large vehicles? Why do they attempt to cycle through narrow gaps in queuing traffic which might move off, narrowing that gap a and leaving them with no escape? Why do they pass slow moving vehicles on the left? Why do they ride in dangerous manners which might put them into positions where they are more likely to get injured? Do they not consider themselves as vulerable? Do they honestly think "It'll never happen to me"?

I'm not going to reply to your whole screed, as others have already said what I would have (and you certainly didn't need to start quoting the highway code at me). 

I was not advocating banning trucks, simply asserting, as others have, that if their blind spots are as bad as claimed they should be replaced by designs that have fewer, smaller blind spots (or ideally none, which modern radar and imaging technology would easily make possible).

In response to this particular paragraph, all I can say is that cyclists are always going to move up the inside of slow moving traffic, especially if that is where the authorities insist on putting cycle lanes, as it is clearly safer than going on the outside where they are exposed to oncoming traffic. 

Not to mention the number of times cyclists find themselves in a vulnerable position on the inside of a turning truck that has just overtaken them ... that has happened to me twice in the past month.