Fresh calls for HGV safety measures as cyclist death toll rises - but are stickers and lenses enough?

A V Lowe wrote:

Absolutely none of this does what is a blindingly obvious way of stopping any 2 road users form banging into each other - eye contact.

When trucks in towns were less that 10T GVW and the railway distributed the trunk freight using Scammell Scarabs and 1 axle semi trailers, we had drivers sat at eye level with pedestrians and cyclists alongside and in front, and trucks that could turn in the length of the trailer - watch Robin Webb's memorial video to his daughter - killed by a truck in London.

Mirrors and CCTV are no proper substitute for direct vision. I call on Neil753 and hexhome to get inside and outside a Dennis Elite 2 or a Mercedes Econic. The former are increasingly being specified for dustcarts for their walk-in cab design* - not (surprisingly) because they give a superb view out from the driving position, and an amazing view in - you can clock the driver from head to hips from outside. A properly designed truck does not need a mass of mirrors to see what is directly outside.

*Walk in cabs are being specified on safety grounds - but not cyclist safety. Its the safety of staff climbing in & out of the truck and slipping on the steps up tor the macho "King of the road" throne position in the cab.

Trailers are designed to carry a shipping container of a standard size, loading bays are built to offload from a standard trailer height, and economies of scale mean that bigger trucks mean lower operating costs. My sympathies but this is the reality globally.

On a personal note, sitting higher up gives me better visibility on the open road, means my windows and mirrors stay cleaner, means I have slightly less polution entering my lungs, helps protect me from hijack, and reduces my chances of injury when hit by a car. I agree that high cabs can cause issues at ASLs, so I'm very careful to check before I move off, but overall I think the higher cab position is bettter for safety.

hampstead_bandit wrote:

Until we get physically segregated roads we need to keep vulnerable road users away from heavy vehicles and the only people who can do this are the cyclists themselves. Every day riding in London I see cyclists squeezing up inside of HGV and bus

Sometimes the problem IS segregation: using an on-kerb cycle track allows a lorry to come up alongside cyclists at a junction rather than remaining behind cyclists who have arrived at the junction first. Putting sticks on lorries telling cyclists not to go where the cycle infrastructure puts them is contradictory, at best - murderous at worst.

But in general:

If I've got a HGV in front of me, that's generally where I'll leave it. I'll only overtake (not on the inside) if I'm absolutely sure it is stuck fast in stationary traffic and still will be once I'm past it. Your logic applies, my instinct for self-preservation kicks in.

BUT, if I've got a HGV behind me, my instinct for self-preservation is useless. I can do (almost) NOTHING to stop him rear-ending me or overtaking me inappropriately or even starting to overtake me and then running out of road and staying in a dangerous position alongside me. If the cyclist is in front because he got to the lights first or was already progressing along a road when the HGV joined it, then there is nothing the cyclist can do about the presence of the HGV. If a HGV tailgates a cyclist, the cyclist may disappear from view, but will still be there. So the HGV has to stay well behind.

A relative of mine lives in a village which has one very long and narrow main street which winds along the flat floor of a steep valley. The street is busy - the village would long have been bypassed if it wasn't completely impracticable because of the topography. Parallel streets can only be reached by means of steep climbs, and none of them is really continuous. As well as the usual busy main road traffic, there is a quarry nearby. So if I cycle along that street with a child on the back of my bike, it's highly likely that I'll have a quarry lorry or some other lorry behind me. There is only road that the lorries and I can both use, and there is nowhere where cycle infrastructure could be added to this narrow road with its narrow footpaths. There are cycle routes signposted that go up and down the local hills, but they aren't really practicable for taking a child to nursery school in the morning. Segregation isn't a possible future reality, let alone a current one. But I feel safe on that road, even when riding a heavy bike and a child passenger. The lorry drivers stay well back unless a genuinely safe opportunity to overtake on a straight stretch of road presents itself, a gap in oncoming traffic large enough for them to complete the overtake successfully with ample clearance without going much faster than the cyclist being overtaken. They drive smoothly (no intimidating engine revving) and they don't tailgate. If you came to this village with your "cyclists beware of lorries" proposals, I don't know if the local cyclists would be especially impressed - what keeps them safe is not their own awareness of danger, but the lorry drivers' prioritization of safety.

hexhome wrote:

The sad fact is that there are no blind spots on modern HGVs.

If you do hold an LGV licence, I'm assuming that it's only a "C", rather than a "C+E". Once the unit of an artic starts turning, there is a massive blind spot on both sides of the trailer. you will also no doubt agree that a driver can't be looking at every mirror simultaneously. And of course, if you drive for a living, you will be aware that not every driver, coming towards the end of a 15 hour shift after as little as a 9 hour reduced rest period betweeen shifts (shocking when you think about it), will be as alert as they could be. You will also be aware that, at night, non road specific cycle lights (and HID lights on cars) can turn every mirror into a blind spot, particularly in the rain. And, finally, you will know, rightly or wrongly, that many trucks will have dirty, defective, or missing mirrors.

As a fellow HGV driver, I'm sure you will agree that the safest place for cyclists to be is behind a truck, not along side it or in front of it.

Neil753 wrote:

And, finally, you will know, rightly or wrongly, that many trucks will have dirty, defective, or missing mirrors.

If that safety equipment is dirty, defective, or missing, is the vehicle still road worthy?

If it remains road legal, there's a massive legal problem. Would need fixing.

And if the equipment is allowed to be used in that condition, there should be strict liability for the haulage company AND whichever company contracted it.

jacknorell wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

And, finally, you will know, rightly or wrongly, that many trucks will have dirty, defective, or missing mirrors.

If that safety equipment is dirty, defective, or missing, is the vehicle still road worthy?

If it remains road legal, there's a massive legal problem. Would need fixing.

And if the equipment is allowed to be used in that condition, there should be strict liability for the haulage company AND whichever company contracted it.

Trucks are clean and serviceable when they leave the depot, and we do what we can, but the vortex of air flowing around a mirror makes that mirror dirty within minutes on wet days. And, for example, if the heating element stops working on a mirror, it's unlikely you'll have a job for long if you keep stopping to seek roadside assistance. In any case, the requirement to stop must be balanced against the risk of another vehicle hitting the stationary one. It's a similar situation if a mirror gets cracked, sometimes it's safer to keep going.

We're talking about reality here, and making it clear that there are so many variables when it comes to drivers and their vehicles, and that mixing it with trucks is pretty dumb. Knowing what I do, I wouldn't go anywhere near a truck when I'm out on my bike, if I can possibly avoid it.

And yet you see a lot of cyclists using the fastest, most direct route, many of them doggedly determined to exercise their "rights" (as they are indeed entitled to do), and yet if they only allowed a few extra minutes for their journey then a whole new vista of safer, perhaps more enjoyable, cycling experiences might suddenly become available.

I stay behind cyclists, in the last few hundred yards as I come up to a junction, and I expect cyclists coming up behind me to stay behind me in return. Perhaps that's a little euphemistic, given the almost pathalogical desire to "get in front of that truck" demonstrated by many riders, but that's the kind of ettiquette that saves lives.

Neil753 wrote:

I stay behind cyclists, in the last few hundred yards as I come up to a junction, and I expect cyclists coming up behind me to stay behind me in return. Perhaps that's a little euphemistic, given the almost pathalogical desire to "get in front of that truck" demonstrated by many riders, but that's the kind of ettiquette that saves lives.

Problem is that we are often guided up the inside by cycle markings leading to the ASL. I don't believe that it's a 'pathological' desire, just poor design.

So you are justifying killing a person because a driver is tired, inattentive or not as alert as they should be. All those things are very much in the hands of the driver not the cyclist. Shame on you.

Paul, no, we are talking about the real world and how to improve it rather than postulating!

paulrbarnard wrote:

So you are justifying killing a person because a driver is tired, inattentive or not as alert as they should be. All those things are very much in the hands of the driver not the cyclist. Shame on you.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely pointing out some of the realities of life that, as a cyclist, lead me to stay well clear of trucks.

Neil, C + E with 25+ years experience of most types. Ex BRS assessor and TM.

You make excellent points which are of course valid and my aim in making my comments was not in any way meant to excuse cyclists from our own responsibility to stay safe. But (sorry);
assuming RHD, the blind spot to the off side during a left turn is now in a 'safe' area as far as cyclists are concerned. There is a danger from tail swing which will now be unseen but again is minimal as far as cycling interactions are concerned.
Yes the nearside mirror does reduce in field of vision during the maneuver however, full mirror checks should be made before commencing the turn. In all but the tightest turns, the class iv mirror should cover the area more than adequately, it covers 15 metres out whilst travelling ahead and this reduces to 7 metres at 45 degrees beyond which point the driver can simply look through the nearside window! I agree that it is impossible to watch all mirrors all the time, but our training and experience teaches us where the danger area will be.

Any driver continuing a journey with missing, broken or dirty mirrors is leaving themselves open to many problems in a VOSA pull. Takes less than a couple of minutes to clean them and in my experience there are plenty of opportunities.

Recent collisions appear to be a failure to check the area to the front before moving off. No disadvantage to articulated vehicles there!

It's not easy, but my point was that complete segregation will never happen, one hope of improving the situation short term is to include a cycle awareness module into the DCPC. As a cyclist, I am certain that I am safer around cyclists. If all vocational drivers undertook such training I believe that they also would be safer with cyclists.

hexhome wrote:

But (sorry);
assuming RHD, the blind spot to the off side during a left turn is now in a 'safe' area as far as cyclists are concerned. There is a danger from tail swing which will now be unseen but again is minimal as far as cycling interactions are concerned.

Thanks for your input, which is appreciated, but I'm not so sure. You can easily find a cyclist doing a wide sweeping offside overtake, completely hidden in the "safe" blindspot, only to become visible momentarily as they shoot past the leading offside edge of the trailer.

hexhome wrote:

Yes the nearside mirror does reduce in field of vision during the maneuver however, full mirror checks should be made before commencing the turn. In all but the tightest turns, the class iv mirror should cover the area more than adequately, it covers 15 metres out whilst travelling ahead and this reduces to 7 metres at 45 degrees beyond which point the driver can simply look through the nearside window! I agree that it is impossible to watch all mirrors all the time, but our training and experience teaches us where the danger area will be.

You may be right, but how easy is it for a cyclist to determine that the mirror is of the correct type, isn't misted up or broken, and the driver just happens to be looking at that particular mirror, at that split second, as they zoom up the inside?

hexhome wrote:

Any driver continuing a journey with missing, broken or dirty mirrors is leaving themselves open to many problems in a VOSA pull. Takes less than a couple of minutes to clean them and in my experience there are plenty of opportunities.

That's the official answer, and I agree with you there, but I can say that I've never been supplied with spare lenses in twenty years of driving, much less the tools to replace them, and you must know as well as I do that there is a general mallaise amongst many firms when it comes to things like the prompt repair of mirror heater elements. And how many lorries do you see coming off the M25 and actually parking up to clean their mirrors before heading into London? Having spotless optics means constant cleaning, and it just isn't feasible to stop every few hundred yards. We've got to get the message across that mirrors aren't the key to cycling nirvana. And VOSA, frankly, are thin on the ground. In fact, I've only ever been stopped for a random check once in my career. The fact that there are so many defective lorries discovered suggests that the deterent effect is minimal.

hexhome wrote:

It's not easy, but my point was that complete segregation will never happen, one hope of improving the situation short term is to include a cycle awareness module into the DCPC. As a cyclist, I am certain that I am safer around cyclists. If all vocational drivers undertook such training I believe that they also would be safer with cyclists.

I totally agree, but there's always room for improvement in our industry.

It's really important not to give cyclists a false sense of security here. The only message HGV drivers should be spreading is the one that errs on the side of caution, not reassurance. There's been far too much talk about perfect mirrors on perfect trucks, driven by perfect drivers, employed by perfect organisations all chomping at the bit to promote "cycling awareness"; but the reality is very different, with many tired or inexperienced drivers driving trucks that are far from perfect, with employers just paying lip service to safety, on streets that are filling up with more and more cyclists. As HGV drivers, we have a duty to say it how it actually is, not how it ought to be.

Neil753 wrote:

It's really important not to give cyclists a false sense of security here. The only message HGV drivers should be spreading is the one that errs on the side of caution, not reassurance. There's been far too much talk about perfect mirrors on perfect trucks, driven by perfect drivers, employed by perfect organisations all chomping at the bit to promote "cycling awareness"; but the reality is very different, with many tired or inexperienced drivers driving trucks that are far from perfect, with employers just paying lip service to safety, on streets that are filling up with more and more cyclists. As HGV drivers, we have a duty to say it how it actually is, not how it ought to be.

It is probable that we are heading for the same destination from differing directions. I certainly was not intending to give false security to cyclists. You are correct, the only safe thing for a cyclist to do is to keep totally clear of an HGV.

However, this is easier said than done. Bicycles travel far faster than HGVs in city centres and cycle lanes encourage bicycles to pass on the inside and to stop at junctions ahead of HGVs. This is contrary to the opinions of some experts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPkbNFt5NuY This would certainly solve the left turn issue.

All of the points you raised are true, we don't live in a perfect world and it I doubt that it will ever be possible to reduce fatalities to zero. My point is that cycle awareness training as a module in the DCPC, which most of us as vocational drivers must take, would reduce the number of collisions, simply because the collisions occur because the driver was not aware of the cyclist!

Edited to add this gem of a video http://youtu.be/Tb_KNxGI2T4?t=10m

Duplicate post removed

Neil753 wrote:

As a fellow HGV driver, I'm sure you will agree that the safest place for cyclists to be is behind a truck, not along side it or in front of it.

Neil753, you do come across as an intelligent person until lines such as the above are trotted out.

So what you are saying is that we cyclist are now supposed to keep looking behind incase a big vehicle is heading towards us. At which point stop, stand to one side and maybe doft helmets to the "king of the road." REALLY!

As one with so much driving experince you will know that it is your responsibilty to drive your vehicle in accordance with the conditions and with due care and attention. It's not the cyclist's responsibility to make you life/job easier via day-glo, hi-vis or by getting out of the way. Yes ok cyclists can help by not wearing ninja suits and have no lights when it dark only to leap out in front of unsuspecting traffic to achieve what?

Go on mate, you know you want to say it, "cyclist are nothing more than lycra covered lemmings looking for a vehicle to mash themselves on!"

________________________
On the other hand, whilst death and injury are not very nice to say the least, why is this world so intent of everything being safe. Considering the millions of miles that are cycled every year or the tens of thousands of cyclist surely a few deaths are expected? I'm sure not many of the drivers involved wake up and think "I'm going to run me a cyclist over today!"

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

It's not the cyclist's responsibility to make you life/job easier via day-glo, hi-vis or by getting out of the way. Yes ok cyclists can help by not wearing ninja suits and have no lights when it dark only to leap out in front of unsuspecting traffic to achieve what?

I can't speak for Neil but that is certainly not the point being made here. For the foreseeable future bicycles and HGVs are going to have to live together. Yes a driver should see you wherever you are and whatever you are wearing. Neil pointed out that in poor visibility and rain it is easy to miss something in the mirror. He is damned right! So no, it is not the cyclists responsibility to wear Hi Viz or avoid the danger areas but it WILL help an HGV driver see you in a mirror. Mirrors absorb some of the light they reflect, glass is never 100% clear. What seems a bit murky to the eyeball can be dark in a mirror.

This is not victim blaming, just my opinion as an HGV driver and cyclist.

hexhome wrote:

The driver in the cab is the only person who can prevent these events, start there!

Sounds like a very good idea.