ROSPA video - left turning lorries

[661-Pete-oldversion]

Has anyone seen or posted a link to this?
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/resourc ... cling.html

Bearing in mind that it places the onus on cyclists (it refers to an earlier video aimed at drivers but I haven't seen that one), I think it's reasonably fair and balanced. The fact that Cemex (whose lorries alas! have been involved in several fatalities in recent years) have got involved in this, does them credit.

[EdinburghFixed]

I think it's good. It's very practical in the sense that they don't dwell on the rights and wrongs - only the point they're trying to make, which is don't put yourself at risk (especially when it's so easy to overtake HGVs on the right hand side!)

They do say, ride well clear of the kerb to make yourself seen - so no gutter crawling, which has got to be a common way to go unnoticed -> get crushed, and they don't bother to insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that a helmet will make any difference if you get run over by a 44t truck. They also point out that drivers just don't signal sometimes, and fail to drive appropriately around cyclists not through malice, but through misunderstanding/stupidity.

The only way I think it falls over is that the role models they chose looked a bit terrified and had the classic armour and high-viz look. I suppose you could argue that they are trying to make an association between fear of the roads / safety gear and skillful riding, but I think it works the opposite way, and your average rider who doesn't aspire to the "Health and Safety Britain" look, may consider that this is a lesson primarily relevant to those so fearful that they need these aids to survive on quiet roads.

(I don't think I articulated that last bit very well - hopefully the point isn't too hard to follow? If they had used a 'normal' looking teenager having fun on their rusty Halfords MTB, it might be taken more on board. Although then I guess you could argue that the street-sweeper style of cyclist would then think it didn't apply to them! It might also have had a promotional effect on riding if the people in it had looked like they weren't being forced at gunpoint!)

[Swizz69]

Should the bend be sharp enough or the driver unsure, a HGV might well end up a full lanes width over to the right before turning left. Its not only cyclists that cut in up the inside.

HGV instructors have you moving over to the right 'before' indicating left so as not to give the impression of leaving the indicator on by mistake (and thus not intending to turn left). Sounds obvious really, but if you are in a rush whilst riding (or driving) behind and have no knowledge of what the driver is doing - as obvious as it may seem when pointed out on video, is this not another example of how some basic knowledge of other vehicles is useful to all users of the road???

I guess in many ways its a fine line to tread between placing a big responsibility on those in charge of motor vehicles of varying size, and on encouraging cyclists (and to a certain degree motorcyclists) to have a healthy fear of the worse case scenario, without submitting to being bullied by someone with a god-complex behind the wheel of whatever they are driving.

[meic]

The reason why Cemex is taking part is because the mother of one of the victims of their driving went and took over the company!!
Now they have a master (mistress really) with a very real concern about this issue.

I reported a Cemex lorry for harrassment to the Police because he was repeatedly shaving me off, to an unusually fine degree. He instantly accepted a caution*, I think because he was scared he would lose his franchise if the company found out.

* I was mistaken here it was just a warning about his driving manner.

[byegad]

From a straight forward 'Is it a good video showing how to stay safe.' question. Then it's brilliant. Another amazingly good thing is that not all of the cycliss were wearing helmets. A refreshing change in this nannying age. 10/10 from me.

[meic]

As a follow on from my post above.

The driver accepted a warning almost exactly two years ago.
Today, the same driver had another go at seeing how close he could get without touching. So I phoned the Police. I thought a phonecall from them might remind him and buy me another 2 years of peace.
However now it is Dyfed-Powys Police policy to take NO ACTION at all in cases where it is one word against another. Although they are of course assuming it is one word against another as they dont even contact the other party to ask.
We are used to that but the only reason I pursue this case is because it is one particular driver acting repeatedly in a more extreme way than almost all other drivers. So I refused to let the Policeman take it as a road offence and insist it is taken as harrassment.
However the two years of good behaviour has wiped the slate clean and I will have to start from scratch again.
If it turns out that today was a "one off" rather than a return to hostilities then I shall be happier. If it isnt he can just keep this up forever really.
As he did it today and got no response I can guess that he will do it again next time he passes me.
Sometimes I do feel like quitting cycling and just taking the car to avoid all the hassle.

[Swizz69]

If this gets to be a problem again & you keep making them aware, could you not make a complaint against the Police

[Phil_Lee]

You'll probably get better luck complaining to Cemex than to the police, particularly if you give details of the previous.
The big worry is him getting a job with another company and bearing a grudge.

[Kirst]

HGV instructors have you moving over to the right 'before' indicating left so as not to give the impression of leaving the indicator on by mistake (and thus not intending to turn left). Sounds obvious really, but if you are in a rush whilst riding (or driving) behind and have no knowledge of what the driver is doing - as obvious as it may seem when pointed out on video, is this not another example of how some basic knowledge of other vehicles is useful to all users of the road???

I have always known that HGVs often move right before turning left and that trying to squeeze up the left hand side is a big mistake. The reason I have always known it is because I remember the public safety adverts they used to show on the TV. I the same way I learnt never to chuck a frisbee at a pylon and then climb the pylon to retrieve it, never to fly a kite in a field with pylons, not to go with strangers (and not to let Charlie go either), to learn to swim, to clunk click every trip, to think once, think twice, think bike... There used to be one about a car trying to squeeze past a lorry and then being squished into paté as the lorry turned left. I know people mutter about the nanny state, but those adverts have remained in my memory for nearly 40 years, and I don't just remember the advert, I remember what they were about. Maybe we need some more.

[thirdcrank]

meic

I suppose that without really compelling evidence, it's often going to be difficult to get to the bottom of an individual near miss between a lorry and a cyclist. OTOH, if I understand you correctly, it seems that in the past you have been repeatedly harassed by somebody using a lorry and that you had a couple of years' respite after some sort of police intervention but the unacceptable conduct has now resumed. I don't know on what you base your assertion that the driving is intentional rather than careless, but I'm sure you have plenty of reasons.

There has been a fair bit of new legislation churned out by this govt., which is all after my time in that I have no experience of how it works (or doesn't, as the case may be) or how to get the best out of it. I had hoped that somebody with more recent knowledge than mine might post. They haven't, so here goes.

A recurring theme has been to use a civil standard of evidence to build a case against somebody suspected of "anti-social behaviour" in its various forms. I had always been rather doubtful about police warnings (as opposed to formal cautions) but it seems that such warning are now part of a defined procedure. I suggested a way forward on this thread:-

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27769&p=218832&

However now it is Dyfed-Powys Police policy to take NO ACTION at all in cases where it is one word against another

is the bit that concerns me in your post, especially since even the evidence of a dozen people might be unacceptable if they were not independent. Taken literally, it would mean that many murders would go uninvestigated.

Somewhere along the line, somebody must have misunderstood. I could understand a policy that there would normally be no prosecution on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant - that would merely reflect the CPS evidential threshold. OTOH, the purpose of the police when offences are not prevented is to investigate and detect them. I think the way to get something done might be to write a letter to the Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys (he/ she won't see it, but it will be logged) setting out in plain language what has happened and your concerns about what is likely to happen if this anti-social behaviour goes unchecked. I'd mention that it may be a misunderstanding at local level of the force's policy.

I'm also out-of-date with complaints since the establishment of the IPCC. AFAIK you can't use the complaints procedure - which is intended to deal with misconduct - to challenge policy, but the IPCC has certainly commented when unsatisfactory policy has caused a problem. I could also imagine that in the type of area described in your other posts, you might not gain much in the longer term by alienating anybody.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/

[TheBrick]

The reason why Cemex is taking part is because the mother of one of the victims of their driving went and took over the company!!
Now they have a master (mistress really) with a very real concern about this issue.

Not quite took over, more bought a few shares, giving her the right to turn up to a share holders meeting and raise the issue. A novel aproach and one worth considering with lots of issues.

[TheBrick]

... I know people mutter about the nanny state, but those adverts have remained in my memory for nearly 40 years, and I don't just remember the advert, I remember what they were about. Maybe we need some more.

There is a difference between a nanny state of making everything illegal, and restricting what you can do to informing people of dangers. I would prefer more money to be spent on public information films and less on passing laws.

[TheBrick]

London centric survey but may be worth doing for some of you.

http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~fringsd/cyclestudy.htm

[pete75]

As a follow on from my post above.

However now it is Dyfed-Powys Police policy to take NO ACTION at all in cases where it is one word against another.

I've had the same response from the police here(Lincolnshire). In future if I've seen a crime for which the police are appealing for witnesses, presumably because they have none, I'll keep my mouth shut - after all it'll only be my word against that of whoever did the crime.