Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

[Wanlock Dod]

Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots, Shows Truck Driver Who Cycles

Be safe, be seen kids

[mjr]

Be safe be seen is BS. Until someone develops a remote control for the eyes of other road users, you can't do it. There's a range of things which come under this heading and should be challenged as victim- blaming whenever you see it. If only the same resources were put into a "just [FFE] look properly" campaign for motorists, it might do some good.

[pwa]

Be safe be seen is BS. Until someone develops a remote control for the eyes of other road users, you can't do it. There's a range of things which come under this heading and should be challenged as victim- blaming whenever you see it. If only the same resources were put into a "just [FFE] look properly" campaign for motorists, it might do some good.

The "[FFE] look properly" is right, but if you are on the other side of the equation, doing what you can to avoid being overlooked seems like a good bit of self defence, unless of course you think you really can rely on everyone else [FFE] looking properly. What other people should do is not something I personally would choose to rely on.

[MikeF]

The real issue is that cyclists and lorries (motor vehicles) should not be using or trying to use the same piece of road (highway) space. People will make mistakes, but these mistakes should not lead to injury.

[pwa]

The real issue is that cyclists and lorries (motor vehicles) should not be using or trying to use the same piece of road (highway) space. People will make mistakes, but these mistakes should not lead to injury.

It's largely a legacy of our history that we share the same space. Unless we rip up our built environment and start from scratch we are going to be sharing space with motor vehicles. In my nearest town all the streets I regularly cycle on are required for vehicular use, and I want to use them too. There is insufficient room for another vehicular corridor. Not ideal, but that's how it is.

[pjclinch]

Be safe be seen is BS. Until someone develops a remote control for the eyes of other road users, you can't do it. There's a range of things which come under this heading and should be challenged as victim- blaming whenever you see it. If only the same resources were put into a "just effing look properly" campaign for motorists, it might do some good.

The "effing look properly" is right, but if you are on the other side of the equation, doing what you can to avoid being overlooked seems like a good bit of self defence, unless of course you think you really can rely on everyone else effing looking properly. What other people should do is not something I personally would choose to rely on.

Though the fact of the matter is that we have to rely on it.

At a cycle training course I was on the participants were chatting about SMIDSYs and one chap said he'd been rear-ended at a roundabout. We all asked had he been okay? And he said he was fine, as he was driving a fire engine at the time. That's those big things with the very conspicuous hi-viz stripes all over the back... People can only see stuff if they're looking, and if they're not (e.g., they're looking round the roundabout and assumed the fire engine in front had already moved off without actually checking) then it doesn't matter what you're wearing/driving/riding or how it's lit up.

Doing what you can to avoid being overlooked is primarily a matter of positioning. If you are where you would be expected to be as another vehicle odds are you'll be seen, and if someone's looking then being there is really all you need unless you're truly adept at camouflage. Every time I've been hit or had a near miss there has been very strong evidence that the driver concerned didn't look properly. I have nearly had accidents (on bike and in car) when I haven't looked properly, and had the other party been a mobile Christmas tree channelling its inner Blackpool it wouldn't have mattered.

Pete.

[MikeF]

The real issue is that cyclists and lorries (motor vehicles) should not be using or trying to use the same piece of road (highway) space. People will make mistakes, but these mistakes should not lead to injury.

It's largely a legacy of our history that we share the same space. Unless we rip up our built environment and start from scratch we are going to be sharing space with motor vehicles. In my nearest town all the streets I regularly cycle on are required for vehicular use, and I want to use them too. There is insufficient room for another vehicular corridor. Not ideal, but that's how it is.

I don't know your local town, but in my nearest town and neighbouring ones there are roads that might be said to be "required for vehicle use", and that may be true in some cases, but many probably are not, and even if they are motor vehicles could be "accommodated". People will always find a reason why they have to drive, but in many cases this is not actually the case.
There are "pedestrianised" streets in some towns eg centre of Tunbridge Wells that isn't that far from me. The "required for vehicle" use has been forgone.
It's not necessary to rip everything up, but there needs to be change otherwise just focussing on blame will not change anything.

[reohn2]

<SNIP>

<SNIP>

Though the fact of the matter is that we have to rely on it.

At a cycle training course I was on the participants were chatting about SMIDSYs and one chap said he'd been rear-ended at a roundabout. We all asked had he been okay? And he said he was fine, as he was driving a fire engine at the time. That's those big things with the very conspicuous hi-viz stripes all over the back... People can only see stuff if they're looking, and if they're not (e.g., they're looking round the roundabout and assumed the fire engine in front had already moved off without actually checking) then it doesn't matter what you're wearing/driving/riding or how it's lit up.

Doing what you can to avoid being overlooked is primarily a matter of positioning. If you are where you would be expected to be as another vehicle odds are you'll be seen, and if someone's looking then being there is really all you need unless you're truly adept at camouflage. Every time I've been hit or had a near miss there has been very strong evidence that the driver concerned didn't look properly. I have nearly had accidents (on bike and in car) when I haven't looked properly, and had the other party been a mobile Christmas tree channelling its inner Blackpool it wouldn't have mattered.

Pete.

That sums up the problem in a nutshell.No looky,no seey.

[pwa]

The real issue is that cyclists and lorries (motor vehicles) should not be using or trying to use the same piece of road (highway) space. People will make mistakes, but these mistakes should not lead to injury.

It's largely a legacy of our history that we share the same space. Unless we rip up our built environment and start from scratch we are going to be sharing space with motor vehicles. In my nearest town all the streets I regularly cycle on are required for vehicular use, and I want to use them too. There is insufficient room for another vehicular corridor. Not ideal, but that's how it is.

I don't know your local town, but in my nearest town and neighbouring ones there are roads that might be said to be "required for vehicle use", and that may be true in some cases, but many probably are not, and even if they are motor vehicles could be "accommodated". People will always find a reason why they have to drive, but in many cases this is not actually the case.
There are "pedestrianised" streets in some towns eg centre of Tunbridge Wells that isn't that far from me. The "required for vehicle" use has been forgone.
It's not necessary to rip everything up, but there needs to be change otherwise just focussing on blame will not change anything.

If you can find a street where there are no homes with cars, and where there is nobody requiring deliveries of groceries, amazon goods, furniture, no taxis or anything like that, then yes, those streets could be traffic free. I can't think of any that fit into that category, other than the already pedestrianised town centre. That's just not going to happen in any place near to me. My safety can only be managed by drivers doing what they are meant to and me doing anything extra that I think may encourage them to do that.

[Vorpal]

Be safe be seen is BS. Until someone develops a remote control for the eyes of other road users, you can't do it. There's a range of things which come under this heading and should be challenged as victim- blaming whenever you see it. If only the same resources were put into a "just [FFE] look properly" campaign for motorists, it might do some good.

The "[FFE] look properly" is right, but if you are on the other side of the equation, doing what you can to avoid being overlooked seems like a good bit of self defence, unless of course you think you really can rely on everyone else [FFE] looking properly. What other people should do is not something I personally would choose to rely on.

Except that we don't know, in many cases what helps 'avoid being overlooked'. Primary position seems to help, though no one seems to have actually gathered any evidence to support that. People have attempted to gather evidence that conspicuity (i.e. 'hi-viz') garments make a difference. While there is some evidence that wearers can be seen from a greater distance, there is no evidence that they are safer, and some evidence to the contrary. Several studies have found that cyclists who wear such garments have slightly increased crash rates, although the difference is statistically significant in only about half of those.

Secondly, part of the problem is that the shoulding is frequently on cyclists to wear helmet & hi-viz, rather than on drivers to look properly. I don't object to what you say; do as you like. But I do object to campaigns that tell me what to do, when the few campaigns targetted at drivers use methods known to be ineffective, and carefully avoid anything resembling blame.

Where are the public service announcements showing drivers how to use their mirros to check for cyclists before turning left? The ones about not cycling up the inside of a lorry are easy to find.

[pwa]

Except that we don't know, in many cases what helps 'avoid being overlooked'. Primary position seems to help, though no one seems to have actually gathered any evidence to support that. People have attempted to gather evidence that perspicuity (i.e. 'hi-viz') garments make a difference. While there is some evidence that wearers can be seen from a greater distance, there is no evidence that they are safer, and some evidence to the contrary. Several studies have found that cyclists who wear such garments have slightly increased crash rates, although the difference is statistically significant in only about half of those.

Secondly, part of the problem is that the shoulding is frequently on cyclists to wear helmet & hi-viz, rather than on drivers to look properly. I don't object to what you say; do as you like. But I do object to campaigns that tell me what to do, when the few campaigns targetted at drivers use methods known to be ineffective, and carefully avoid anything resembling blame.

Where are the public service announcements showing drivers how to use their mirros to check for cyclists before turning left? The ones about not cycling up the inside of a lorry are easy to find.

Delivery drivers working for major companies (Argos, Tesco, etc) regularly do tests where they sit in front of a screen and react to scenarios simulating road conditions / incidents / hazards. So they certainly are made aware of road safety considerations, again and again. It is a condition of their continued employment that they do these tests.

[thirdcrank]

A propos of nothing, a large white van has just driven up my street and back down. On the offside back door there was a prominently displayed sticker showing the NO CYCLING road sign - black bike within a red circle. That's the attitude we are discussing.

[pwa]

A propos of nothing, a large white van has just driven up my street and back down. On the offside back door there was a prominently displayed sticker showing the NO CYCLING road sign - black bike within a red circle. That's the attitude we are discussing.

Two scenarios. Firstly, if the van is stopped and there is a cycle lane to its left, the sticker means nowt. Secondly, if the van is stopped and there is no cycle lane to its left, just a gutter, you do not pass to the left. The driver is still responsible for doing the checks but you are also responsible for not going there. Two folks to get it right. I don't care if anyone calls that victim blaming, its just the way it is.

[thirdcrank]

...Two scenarios. Firstly, if the van is stopped and there is a cycle lane to its left, the sticker means nowt. Secondly, if the van is stopped and there is no cycle lane to its left, just a gutter, you do not pass to the left. The driver is still responsible for doing the checks but you are also responsible for not going there. Two folks to get it right.

My point is that the sign was on the offside back door. ie the righthand back door when approaching from behind. The scenarios I'm thinking of centre on ignorance and hostility towards cyclists.

[pwa]

...Two scenarios. Firstly, if the van is stopped and there is a cycle lane to its left, the sticker means nowt. Secondly, if the van is stopped and there is no cycle lane to its left, just a gutter, you do not pass to the left. The driver is still responsible for doing the checks but you are also responsible for not going there. Two folks to get it right.

My point is that the sign was on the offside back door. ie the righthand back door when approaching from behind. The scenarios I'm thinking of centre on ignorance and hostility towards cyclists.

I've never seen that particular sticker. You'd think some of their customers would object. I once had a job where I would sometimes hire digger operators and their machines and stopped using one bloke because I saw his driving and thought, I'm not using him again.