View from the cab: Lorry firm boss tells of effect of cyclist's death on the driver and the company (+ video)

“I can’t believe the risks cyclists take."

Did I imagine it, or is the manager of a fleet of lorries and drivers using a video of a lorry driver behaving near-homicidally as an opportunity to berate cyclists for their own deaths? In the wake of one of his lorry drivers having killed a cyclist?

The sheer brass neck of this man appears at first glance to by of almost psychotic-violence standards.

Not a single hint of "OMG I can't believe my drivers are still behaving this badly", but instead "I once saw a stupid cyclist endangering himself".

And he adds "Eason promised Ellie’s father he would do all he could to improve the safety of his lorries when it came to cyclists."

This incident determines that this statement was at worst a lie, and at best mere PR lip service. The safety of the lorries is not dependent on stickers, but on drivers.

“the media was relentless. [...] These reports were totally misleading.”

No, it appears that these reports summed up the risk that his drivers were putting other road users at, and did so with eerie predictive accuracy.

“I’m not against cyclists [...] However, training would be top of my list for cyclists.”

Strange, that. Getting drivers not to undertake other vehicles in bus lanes occupied by vulnerable road users would be top of mine. Not sure how training for cyclists would prevent this?

I haven't spoken to this man and therefore cannot be certain of his honesty, but I find his crocodile tears most unconvincing.

Looking at the apologist comments above, no wonder no "progress" has been made.

Two very sad stories of loss wrapped up here - belated condolences to the families and friends of both the student and the driver.

Looking at the treatment of this story in the haulage magazine, I'm actually very pleased to see the range of measures they've asked readers to comment on - in particular, the physical segregation of cyclists from more dangerous vehicles. This is what happened in the Netherlands and is viewed from here as a upotian solution. If it's just cyclists calling for it, it's never going to happen here. But if important sectors of industry begin telling the government this is what they want, there's a chance they'll be heard. I'd be curious to know how strong support is for that option in the haulage industry. Being very optimistic, I can see an opportunity for starting to build a cyclist/non-cyclist consensus in support of Dutch-style infrastructure.

A young girl was brutally killed by a HGV. The aftermath of the accident appears to have been, possibly, a contributory factor in the death of the driver. But the real person we should feel sorry for is Peter Eason?

@ A V Lowe - lower cabs may be fine on refuse vehicles but, as an artic driver, the higher the cab the better, as far as I'm concerned.

If I can see over the tops of cars that swerve into my braking zone, I have more chance of stopping.
If some chav in a Corsa overcooks it and slams into my cab, I get to stay alive.
With COPD affecting many lorry drivers, and rapidly becoming the third biggest killer in the UK, I don't want a face full of diesel particulates thank you very much.
With hijacking and robberies from truckers becoming ever more common, the extra height gives me the edge over an assailant.
And finally, and cyclists should hear what I'm saying, the higher the cab the less mirror dazzle I get from roadies using "off road" lights with circular beam patterns.

But apart from anything, being high up means that I can not only see the first cyclist squeezing up the inside, but all the others doing it too, so I have a much clearer situational awareness of all, sometimes numerous people around my lorry, and my view extends (crucially) to the back wheels of my trailer.

Artics are driven by Class E - a tougher regime than Class C and with retail/logistics work doing regular hours, clean conditions, good rates. That leaves a hierarchy and a pool of drivers for agency/spot work and in any pool there is a range of quality. There are also good regular jobs for Class C so the sporadic work, typical for construction projects, potentially draws on what is left over. Perhaps it isn't so surprising that the worst driving is reported as coming from construction industry vehicles.

There is also interesting feedback from the people who should be listened to - the drivers - about the solutions being 'invented' for them. It can take 5 seconds to do a scan of every mirror currently specified for an HGV, time in which a person can 'disappear' after passing through the viewed areas. Drivers are also beginning to voice concern at the extent of distraction created by having so many demands for attention other than driving the truck forwards.

You might notice that refuse trucks have low driving positions - you can look in the window and actually see the driver - full torso, and they can look back at you - no mirrors , just a full view direct vision. So why (for most councils - but not Glasgow my local one) do they pay 15-20% more for the truck with the special low cab? Not for cyclist safety, but to avoid the injury claims from the crews who slip and fall climbing up the steps into a high cab.

Now when asked about their experience of driver injury on tipper trucks, the indication comes back that drivers, slip & fall climbing up into the high cabs, as one of the maion caused of driver injury. So it would seem that delivery of an employer's duty of care both to employees, and to the public (Section 3 offences), could be achieved through spending a bit more on the truck to have a low position cab. So what is stopping this move? (aside from most of the main truck suppliers not at present building vehicles like this - and making the excuse that there is not the demand for them)

Quote:

“I had 70 mortgages to pay and a responsibility to my staff – 70 mortgages to look after.”

Rubbish he's only responsible to the shareholders, anything else is his choice

Quote:

“I’m not against cyclists, I am a cyclist myself.....

This just sounds like "I'm not a racist but...." prior to an individual stating a racist position.

Rigid lorries one worse than artic's but I've had some close ones with Polish artic's these guy should not be on UK roads.

Delivery vans are on occasion a nightmare due to agressive overtaking and tailgating

But to be fair it's a minority who cause the problems the vast majority are no problem at all. I've seen some truly mental cyclists who really are "asking for it" so you cannot just blame the drivers everytime. Because we, the cyclists are most at risk, we must look after ourselves by riding defensively and sensibly . . . its not always a race!

If the MD's of these haulage companies are held personally responsible and face jail time for the crashes and deaths caused by their drivers, the drivers will see time restraints and pressures to deliver more and faster change for the better. Knowing big business owners, they value their life and their freedom more than they value the rest of the population.
In the end it's always down to money, how much is a life worth and is one life worth more than another.

This is terrible. We should all send a collective guilt bouquet of flowers to the poor lorry drivers and their manager. They sound lovely.

I would very much agree with Neil on this one. I have found that artics in both rural and urban scenarios to be pretty much courteous towards cyclists. They make use of lane two and will make full use of the oncoming lane on single carriageways when passing. On the other hand I feel more uncomfortable with the drivers of rigid vehicles. I find that these are the ones who pass uncomfortably close and will roll right up to my wheel when I'm waiting at lights placing me in their blind spot. My brother who does logistics is more prone to checking his drivers tachos when they roll into the yard early as he knows the region like the back of his hand and every possible shortcut.

The comments in that article are shocking from the MD.

Are the drivers paid incentives or (more dangerously) managed against targets that would encourage risk taking?

The driver of the lorry in the video should simply not be on our roads.

All economic arguments against measures are void if you hear the story of the grieve stricken driver who accidentally killed a cyclist. (Of which we can't know if it was by careless driving by either of the two) These story's are avoidable with proper camera's and mirror's.

That said last holiday in italy we had 2 similar (but far more dangerous) cases as the show video. the argument that cyclists take risks is void: it happens (a lot and that's wrong too) but it's the lorry's and hgv's that are the potential murder weapons and as such they carry a the bigger responsibility of driving safely and predictable because if they drive unpredictable there's nowhere to go as a cyclist then in the gutter or under the vehicle.