Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote:........ If the market is racing to the bottom, isn't it time to tighten the rules?

My SinL(truck driver,artics)has just handed his notice in with a company that expected him to present himself for work at 5am and not leave for home until 7/8/or even 9pm six days a week!
All of that time wasn't spent driving obviously,he would spend time being unloaded and waiting for loads,etc but how anyone can be fit to drive such machinery with those kind hours per day I really don't know.
His new job guarantees he'll only work a 12hour day

So yes I agree it is time to tighten the rules.

Mjr

you make a good point, but we would all have to be willing to pay more for things. The same would be true if we demanded better service from the companies that deliver our parcels. They employ people on very low wages with poor terms and conditions so that we don't have to pay more for our parcels. Competition and all that. Like you say, it's a race to the bottom at the moment. And every time we go out looking for a low cost bargain we encourage it.

danhopgood wrote:

horizon wrote:Any answers?

Was the lorry involved in the accident articulated?

From the accounts I've read it was a non-articulated tipper truck

In the photo on the BBC website it doesn't look articulated (initially I thought it looked as though it was). It's a long lorry though and I presume it "cuts a corner". Am I right?

horizon wrote: It's a long lorry though and I presume it "cuts a corner". Am I right?

With a longer wheelbase rigid vehicles always 'cut' more of a corner(think tandems compared to solos)Articulated vehicles are even worse for this hence the need for them to 'take a swing' at tight corners.

pwa wrote:Mjr

you make a good point, but we would all have to be willing to pay more for things. The same would be true if we demanded better service from the companies that deliver our parcels. They employ people on very low wages with poor terms and conditions so that we don't have to pay more for our parcels. Competition and all that. Like you say, it's a race to the bottom at the moment. And every time we go out looking for a low cost bargain we encourage it.

We are already paying enourmous amounts of money every time there is a fatality.

horizon wrote:

danhopgood wrote:

horizon wrote:Any answers?

Was the lorry involved in the accident articulated?

From the accounts I've read it was a non-articulated tipper truck

In the photo on the BBC website it doesn't look articulated (initially I thought it looked as though it was). It's a long lorry though and I presume it "cuts a corner". Am I right?

It looks to be a non articulated tipper. The first thing I noticed from the pictures on the BBC website is how hemmed in it was on that corner - solid construction fencing on the nearside of the lorry and plastic bollards to the right as it went round the bend. Looks a tight squeeze. I imagine that any lorry using that particular part of the road will be using all the space available.

I've never driven anything that size before but I imagine that the driver would be concentrating on the front right of his vehicle which would mean that his full attention wouldn't be on the blind spot on the left.


I was behind a coach today and that had a sign on the back left - words something like, "Cyclists, beware of blind spots".

I appreciate that more could be done to make HGV's more safe, but as adults, using a road, we still have a responsibility to drive/ride safely.

I agree, it was a fair punishment.

Not fair, but possibly avoidable.

Ellieb wrote:Not fair, but possibly avoidable.

Summed up in one sentence.

And as I posted earlier in the thread,whilst a driver should be checking her/his mirrors s/he can't look everywhere at once.
It's also upto the cyclist not to trust that s/he can or will look after them.

Ellieb wrote:Not fair, but possibly avoidable.

I do agree this time. But although the poor woman could have and should have avoided her fate, it still rests IMV on the lorry to avoid killing people who make fairly common and simple mistakes around them. That shifting of responsibility is IMV a moral question and if we (and others) disagree on it then we will probably have to agree to differ. If, as others have suggested, the avoidance of that responsibility is based on financial rather than moral concerns then we are in very different territory indeed.

Rely on other road users to be perfect or try to anticipate and avoid as many hazards as possible before they become accidents?

Yes, roads and vehicle design can be improved. As can driver training and law enforcement. In the meantime road users need to help themselves as much as they can.

irc wrote:Rely on other road users to be perfect or try to anticipate and avoid as many hazards as possible before they become accidents?

Yes, roads and vehicle design can be improved. As can driver training and law enforcement. In the meantime road users need to help themselves as much as they can.

You are perfectly correct: The operators of large, heavy vehicles on public roads should not be relying on other road users being perfect in order to avoid death.

Alan

that's a bit one-sided isn't it? Don't you think cyclists also have a part to play in keeping themselves safe?

@pwa: By riding perfectly all the time, of course!

Edit to add:
No I don't think it is one sided to expect those who bring most danger to the road to operate in a manner which does not require perfection from all other road users. Many road users are incapable of perfection and their (absolute) right to use the roads is removed by the expectation of these operators and their apologists. Anyone bring such a vehicle into an environment where untrained road users have a right to be (and can therefore be reasonably expected to be) has the responsibility to operate it in such a manner that the safety of those road users is maintained. Banksmen are required and in charge of the driver's movements where there are no untrained road users but nothing is required where untrained road users must be expected: This situation is wrong.