Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

[thirdcrank]

I've no idea whether the operator of the vehicle had customers or not: there was nothing else displayed. I'm trying to make the point that somebody had gone to the trouble to source a large NO CYCLING sticker and then mount it on the back of a van. That doesn't suggest to me somebody trying to promote road safety.

[mjr]

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.

Many of the minor streets in most towns could be restricted to access-only, changed to one-way and in some cases (where there's turning space) dead-ended for motorists. Yet this is rare in the UK and local government often insists on allowing 30mph two-way rat-run traffic even on streets where it's physically impossible unless one motorist drives along the footway!

I can encourage lorries all I like and it's basically noise. I don't pass long vehicles in-lane on the left, but I have many times had long vehicles pull up on my right or too close behind me when stopped at junctions. If they squashed me and I don't have a rear-facing camera running, I'm sure there would be plenty of people, including many other cyclists, incorrectly blaming me for having creeped up their left side. Isn't it time to discourage the killers instead?

[pjclinch]

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.

Point of order,AIUI hi-viz is conspicuous rather than perspicuous. Perspicuity is proactive action to be seen (i.e., riding in Primary). But that bit of semantics aside, everything else is right on the mark.

Pete.

[Richard Fairhurst]

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.

I don't doubt you, but in our small town, the supermarket delivery drivers are the ones who regularly drive right at the speed limit along roads which evidently aren't suitable for it. (Couriers, meanwhile, are fine and drive responsibly to the conditions.) It's one of the reasons we're pushing for a 20mph limit.

[thirdcrank]

IMO it's pure humbug for employers to preach safety to their drivers and then to expect them to meet tight schedules on busy roads. Then, putting signs on vehicles warning other road users to do this or that has the effect - intentional or otherwise - of being seen by some of the drivers of those vehicles as transferring their duty of care elsewhere. If there was a truck with a sign CYCLISTS DO NOT APPROACH WITHIN 100 YARDS OF THIS VEHICLE there would be drivers quick to shout "Can't you read?"

[pjclinch]

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.

This fails to draw a distinction between "drivers" in small numbers at low speeds and "drivers" in large numbers and/or at high speeds.

Dutch planning does draw that distinction, so here is the typical no-room-for-cycle-paths Dutch urban street my brother-in-law lives on, and as you can see from the parked cars it isn't traffic free. But what with the one-way only for cars but all-ways for bikes signs, and the whole neighbourhood set up so that the only reason to drive is to get to or from home, the amount of traffic is typically quite a bit lower than the equivalent UK inner city street, so your number of interactions with drivers is considerably reduced.

It does remain the case that you will still have interactions and what you're doing will influence on how that goes. But, as has been pointed out, it's not entirely clear what actions you should be taking aside from broadly sticking to the law and not riding where you'll be prone to hooks.

Pete.

[pwa]

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.

Many of the minor streets in most towns could be restricted to access-only, changed to one-way and in some cases (where there's turning space) dead-ended for motorists. Yet this is rare in the UK and local government often insists on allowing 30mph two-way rat-run traffic even on streets where it's physically impossible unless one motorist drives along the footway!

I can encourage lorries all I like and it's basically noise. I don't pass long vehicles in-lane on the left, but I have many times had long vehicles pull up on my right or too close behind me when stopped at junctions. If they squashed me and I don't have a rear-facing camera running, I'm sure there would be plenty of people, including many other cyclists, incorrectly blaming me for having creeped up their left side. Isn't it time to discourage the killers instead?

I can't find fault with any of that, though I know a lot of streets in my area that have been closed off at one end to stop through traffic in the way you suggest. You need to make sure large vehicles like bin lorries can manage when you do that though.

[Vorpal]

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.

Point of order,AIUI hi-viz is conspicuous rather than perspicuous. Perspicuity is proactive action to be seen (i.e., riding in Primary). But that bit of semantics aside, everything else is right on the mark.

Pete.

Yes, that's how John Franklin uses it. They are used a little differently in human factors engineering. I will change it for consistency.

[Vorpal]

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.

This fails to draw a distinction between "drivers" in small numbers at low speeds and "drivers" in large numbers and/or at high speeds.

Dutch planning does draw that distinction, so here is the typical no-room-for-cycle-paths Dutch urban street my brother-in-law lives on, and as you can see from the parked cars it isn't traffic free. But what with the one-way only for cars but all-ways for bikes signs, and the whole neighbourhood set up so that the only reason to drive is to get to or from home, the amount of traffic is typically quite a bit lower than the equivalent UK inner city street, so your number of interactions with drivers is considerably reduced.

Many new housing estates in the Netherlands are car free, with only remote parking for residents. They still have streets, and exceptions are made for deliveries of large items, invalid carriages, and special permits. A friend who lives in one of these has a folding bike that he uses to go to and from his car, when he uses it, because his parking space is almost a kilometer from his house

The city of Oslo is on its way to being car free in the centre. They began by replacing street parking with cycle lanes on most streets, and converting some off-road parking to residential parking. They have trialled 'microterminals' where delivery goods and packages are brought to several points in the city, and taken from there to their final destination by electric cargo bike. The supermarkets that deliver are using cargo bikes, the government have provided funding for families to purchase electric cargo bikes, and companies like foodora are thriving.

I don't see why 90% of deliveries can't be made that way, and exceptions made only for items that are too large for cargo bikes.

[Barks]

Back to the original OP - now we finally have a clear exposure of the fallacy that HGVs have significant blindspots then surely every case where HGV drivers and Police used this to support an ‘accidental’ death verdict need to be re-examined and assessed independently?

[drossall]

...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 think these signs came originally from a joint campaign between cycling organisations (CTC?) and road hauliers. There was concern about accidents between articulated lorries (or large buses) and cyclists. There was general agreement that it's a bad idea for cyclists to go up the left side of a left-turning vehicle, especially if that's one of the larger vehicles mentioned (and obviously that's true). Part of the campaign was stickers on the back of those vehicles.

There seem to have been several unfortunate aspects/side-effects in practice to what should have been a very useful campaign:

• A general assumption that every left hook results from cyclists going up the side of vehicles, when statistics, the ability of motor vehicles to go faster than bikes, and every other piece of evidence available says that it's often a vehicle overtaking a bike and swinging left
• An inability to understand the difference between filtering in stationary traffic (which is allowed, and pretty-much unavoidable in cities; it can even be a good idea if you don't want to be squashed by the queue when traffic starts to move again), and undertaking, which isn't
• Other drivers appear to have seen the stickers, and had the incorrect belief that filtering is not allowed reinforced
• The spreading of stickers designed for large, articulated vehicles, to small vans and Minis, where they make little sense
• There are even variants produced by people with no grasp of traffic signs at all, that have the bike crossed out, meaning, "No no cycling", presumably

[Vorpal]

I think these signs came originally from a joint campaign between cycling organisations (CTC?) and road hauliers.

TC was not talking about one of those 'Cyclists stay back' signs, which are bad enough, but this one:

p.s. Cycling organisations had nothing to do with the 'cyclists keep back', and as far as I know universally condemned it https://road.cc/content/news/111430-cyc ... 9-stickers

[thirdcrank]

Yes. Sorry. Once upon a time I'd have included an image of the sign with TSRGD diagram number, but nowadays I can't even remember if I've got those initials in the right order.

[pwa]

I don't see why 90% of deliveries can't be made that way, and exceptions made only for items that are too large for cargo bikes.

Our nearest Tesco, where their delivery vehicles come from, is about four miles and a couple of hills away, and vans coming from there deliver to Bridgend and the neighbouring towns of Porthcawl, Pencoed and Maesteg. One of our neighbours has Tesco deliveries and at a guess he has about ten trays delivered. A cargo bike is not going to replace that service.

[drossall]

TC was not talking about one of those 'Cyclists stay back' signs, which are bad enough, but this one:

You're right, but it all developed in the same way, as I see it. The signs gradually morphed from "Stay back" on large vehicles to "Stay back" on things the size of a scooter, and then they became progressively more aggressive in inventing non-existent rules of the road, the result being, in part, mis-use of the No Cycling sign