Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

reohn2
Posts: 33074
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby reohn2 » 13 Jan 2019, 10:43pm

Sorry,totally missed this post :?
rfryer wrote:I don't understand your point. If the booking system discounted time slots when someone nearby was already getting a delivery, then users that were flexible about timing would be able make helpful choices, saving them money and benefiting the environment. There's no need for neighbors to be coordinating themselves, all it needs is a responsive booking system.

Yeah,I don't have problem with coordinating deliveries,it's just that,that coordination isn't always easy due to people's busy lives,though where it's possible then why not :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1989
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby The utility cyclist » 14 Jan 2019, 12:41pm

MikeF wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
MikeF wrote: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.


Don't agree, I'm comfortable with HGVs for the most part, I have far fewer issues than with cars/vans, massively so, even taking into account overall their % of vehicles on the road.
I first started commuting in 1987 as a teen, 5 miles into the city centre and passing straight down the middle of a major industrial area on an arterial route. Train people well enough, have people continually thinking and assessing and their 'mistakes' are very infrequent, they should also be at a level that because of the care and attention and leeway they've given that it won't physically harm someone even if the other (vulnerable) person does make an error in judgement. Pretty much what the bike riding HGV driver does.

The sick thing about most HGV incidents with people on bikes, in fact a significant proportion of all KSIs, is that police are bias, discriminatory and unable or unwilling to apply the law and the rules that they apply elsewhere. Put themselves in that same situation and the attitude would be totally the opposite. Frankly these people are no longer fit for purpose in assessing RTCs, not when they display such poor judgement and understanding.
This dereliction of duty quite literally punishes all people riding bikes, indeed pedestrians too.
Legislation will not stop people making mistakes however well they are trained. People (drivers) will look and not see at times - it's a failing we can all have.

Most people will not cycle because danger of motor vehicles is their biggest concern. Until this changes and people feel safe cycling not many will do so.

Obviously fear is a major that is preventing significant portions of people from cycling, however a lot of that is perceived not real, there are many other factors that we can change to redress that and much stems from when people are kids.

Changing the thinking through better training and legislation will absolutely reduce people from making mistakes and thinking more about their driving particularly around vulnerable road users, unless you're waiting for segregated lanes for all major routes across the country, which even NL and DK don't have??
Let's face it, even Sir Boardman has had to compromise on what he's having in Manchester and it's a 10 year plan at best, that's ONE city, London so far is a complete mish mash of mostly garbage infra, the cycle superhighway is anything but 'super'. Cycling is increasing in London despite little or poor infra and people do put up with having to cycle on the same road as HGVs.

But in the meantime whilst waiting for sections of roads to be taken back completely (my preferred option) or segregation, improving the standard of driving is the main tool to make roads and thus cycling safer. How long do you think it will take to have segregated routes like NL, 20,30, 40, 50 years?? For most of the UK segregated infra is not going to happen in any meaningful way whatsoever, not well enough or far reaching enough to get people out of cars and onto bikes in a big enough shift to even reach 5% modal share IMHO. That would currently be a 250% increase in cycling, do you think that's a feasible target, if so how long to reach that whilst we're waiting for hotch potch non joined up not built for mass cycling segregated lanes to be built??

Sorry but waiting for segregated lanes is dreamland pie in the sky thinking for the vast majority of the UK, IMHO 'we' are too late to change things in any significant way, 30-40 years too late. At least legislation in the form of speed regulation for motors by installing devices that force motorists to adhere to limits, AI devices, better training, changing traffic light phases, changing things like parking/driving around schools and providing more cycle parking facilities in towns, cities, work places and retail parks can have an influence whilst we're waiting.

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 775
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Phil Fouracre » 14 Jan 2019, 3:36pm

Yup! That just about sums up the current situation :-(
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12123
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby mjr » 14 Jan 2019, 5:05pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Sorry but waiting for segregated lanes is dreamland pie in the sky thinking for the vast majority of the UK, IMHO 'we' are too late to change things in any significant way, 30-40 years too late. At least legislation in the form of speed regulation for motors by installing devices that force motorists to adhere to limits, AI devices, better training, changing traffic light phases, changing things like parking/driving around schools and providing more cycle parking facilities in towns, cities, work places and retail parks can have an influence whilst we're waiting.

Sorry but thinking that any government in the forseeable is going to clamp down on lawbreaking motorists in any significant way is the real "dreamland pie in the sky thinking" - I reckon there's more chance we get another Eric Pickles who encourages cars to be dumped irresponsibly with no real risk of a parking ticket because he bans enforcement with even 1990s tech like mobile CCTV.

It's not too late, though - we can build more cycleways so that cyclists don't have to share at motorists at the troublespots, unless they're masochists who enjoy that sort of thing.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12123
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby mjr » 14 Jan 2019, 5:33pm

pwa wrote:
mjr wrote:
pwa wrote:To what extent does it matter if there are a lot of nervous people out there who feel too scared to cycle? There were lots of cyclists out on the roads around here today, more than there would have been twenty years ago. Why do we need to worry about those who don't join us? Does it matter?

It matters and we need to worry because too much motoring is killing our compatriots in multiple horrible ways and costing us all money in healthcare. Yes, I think this matters.

You are right, I suppose, though I don't focus on that so much because it will never figure large in my own locality. TBH I think you could take every HGV off the road and those who feel too nervous to cycle now would still be too nervous. It's people like that who need cycle tracks.

What is this place of superhumans immune to inactivity and obesity? ;-)

I don't think it's binary, either. I probably wouldn't cycle as much as I do if I had to ride along the A10 with HGVs like I used to, instead of having a kerbed cycleway instead. Better infrastructure means more riding.

Going back a page:
pwa wrote:All this talk about keeping HGVs and cyclists apart is only relevant in big towns and cities and on major arterial roads. It isn't relevant to me in my village or in the small towns nearby. The cycle network and the network for HGVs is and will remain the same, except for a few urban roads that have been made into cul-de-sacs for motor traffic.

That's blinkered IMO. Surely it's possible in all except the smallest towns and villages to encourage HGVs onto one set of roads and humans onto another? Why can other countries do this planned "unravelling of networks" and not us? Do you think Brits are somehow stupider? It won't be 100%, but we could minimise the interactions.

pwa wrote:My worry is that unsuitable narrow footways alongside roads will have the cycle symbol painted on them, putting pressure on me to abandon the fast road descents I have used for decades and slow down to share a totally unsuitable footpath with pedestrians, giving way at every side road. Few local roads have space at the side for a real new cycle way, so a stupid paint effort is the only thing that could be done. I'd stop using the bike in protest.

Yeah, I don't think anyone wants any of that. We've just about overcome the "giving way at every side road" stupidity and around here, there's few roads which don't have space, whether that's at the current side or within the carriageway boundary - the current stupidity is that highways departments would rather use space for useless hatching along the centre and edges of roads than reallocate it to cycleways.

pwa wrote:I know you can ignore unsuitable facilities, but that is what we will be given here if there is a concerted effort for traffic free routes where there is a shortage of money. And the existence of rubbish facilities does embolden a minority of anti-bike motorists.

Firstly, surely no-one wants "traffic free routes" - cycles are traffic too! Secondly, I've been abused more than most and I still say there seems no correlation between abuse and presence of cycling infrastructure, whether good, rubbish or non-existent - dick drivers will be dicks anyway, right up until the point they are caught and disqualified... and that's why we need more Operation Close Pass and video camera evidence.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16312
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Vorpal » 14 Jan 2019, 6:12pm

pwa wrote:To what extent does it matter if there are a lot of nervous people out there who feel too scared to cycle? There were lots of cyclists out on the roads around here today, more than there would have been twenty years ago. Why do we need to worry about those who don't join us? Does it matter?
It matters because children who are taken to school by car because their parents don't feel it is safe to walk or cycle are being inculcated into a car-centric culture every day. It matters because 4 out 5 primary school children do not get the recommended amount of exercise each day. It matters because British children are among the world's least active.

Among the recommendations from the European Transport Safety Council for reducing child deaths in road traffic are the following

-Design road environments in ways that recognise children’s capabilities and limitations. This will also benefit other road users.
-Implement 30 km/h (20 mph) zones together with traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds in residential areas, on the way to schools and around bus stops.
-Develop safe routes to schools.
-Implement safe bicycle infrastructure separated from motorised traffic to make cycling to school safer.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3422
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pjclinch » 14 Jan 2019, 7:28pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Obviously fear is a major that is preventing significant portions of people from cycling, however a lot of that is perceived not real, there are many other factors that we can change to redress that and much stems from when people are kids.


You'll have to run that by me again... what exactly is the difference between "real fear" and "perceived fear"?

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3422
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pjclinch » 14 Jan 2019, 7:33pm

pwa wrote:To what extent does it matter if there are a lot of nervous people out there who feel too scared to cycle? There were lots of cyclists out on the roads around here today, more than there would have been twenty years ago. Why do we need to worry about those who don't join us? Does it matter?


Compare and contrast what you saw with this...



Do you still feel you saw "lots of cyclists"?
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

pwa
Posts: 9024
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pwa » 14 Jan 2019, 8:31pm

pjclinch wrote:
pwa wrote:To what extent does it matter if there are a lot of nervous people out there who feel too scared to cycle? There were lots of cyclists out on the roads around here today, more than there would have been twenty years ago. Why do we need to worry about those who don't join us? Does it matter?


Compare and contrast what you saw with this...



Do you still feel you saw "lots of cyclists"?

It's relative. I saw lots compared to what I would have seen twenty years ago when I cycled these roads and felt alone doing so.

Compared to urban cycling in the Netherlands, no, of course not. You are right. The nearest town has low rates of cycling compared to that.

Where I live the various councils responsible for our infrastructure are cutting back on everything. The nearby seaside town of Porthcawl looks set to lose its last public convenience. We may lose our sports fields because the council no longer feels able to cut grass. Schools are running a deficit. This is not an environment in which significant remodelling of urban streets can happen. Funding that sort of thing will come somewhere low down on a long list that has schools and health services near the top.

And deep down I wonder whether most people here could be convinced to give cycling a go even if they were given top class facilities. I used to work for a not-for-profit outfit that made shared use tracks on former rail beds and the tracks have proved popular for leisure use. With a wide range of age groups. But few use them to do anything practical. I wonder if outside the big congested cities, where getting about by car is a pain, people will ever turn to utility cycling in large numbers. I think they like being in a warm dry private space when they travel. Even if we remove the fear of being crushed, I suspect the desire to be warm, dry and comfortable is simply too strong for most people.

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4067
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby RickH » 14 Jan 2019, 8:36pm

pjclinch wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Obviously fear is a major that is preventing significant portions of people from cycling, however a lot of that is perceived not real, there are many other factors that we can change to redress that and much stems from when people are kids.


You'll have to run that by me again... what exactly is the difference between "real fear" and "perceived fear"?

Pete.

Maybe it be better described as the difference between fear of real danger & fear of (innacurately) perceived danger. The, sometimes, unpleasantness of cycling in heavy traffic does not equate directly to increased actual danger.

brynpoeth
Posts: 9049
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby brynpoeth » 14 Jan 2019, 8:37pm

I feel safer in a vehicle with windows and doors closed and locked, see my current thread about a PoB offering violence :(
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs!

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16800
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby [XAP]Bob » 14 Jan 2019, 9:23pm

pwa wrote:
pjclinch wrote:
pwa wrote:To what extent does it matter if there are a lot of nervous people out there who feel too scared to cycle? There were lots of cyclists out on the roads around here today, more than there would have been twenty years ago. Why do we need to worry about those who don't join us? Does it matter?


Compare and contrast what you saw with this...



Do you still feel you saw "lots of cyclists"?

It's relative. I saw lots compared to what I would have seen twenty years ago when I cycled these roads and felt alone doing so.

Compared to urban cycling in the Netherlands, no, of course not. You are right. The nearest town has low rates of cycling compared to that.

Where I live the various councils responsible for our infrastructure are cutting back on everything. The nearby seaside town of Porthcawl looks set to lose its last public convenience. We may lose our sports fields because the council no longer feels able to cut grass. Schools are running a deficit. This is not an environment in which significant remodelling of urban streets can happen. Funding that sort of thing will come somewhere low down on a long list that has schools and health services near the top.

And deep down I wonder whether most people here could be convinced to give cycling a go even if they were given top class facilities. I used to work for a not-for-profit outfit that made shared use tracks on former rail beds and the tracks have proved popular for leisure use. With a wide range of age groups. But few use them to do anything practical. I wonder if outside the big congested cities, where getting about by car is a pain, people will ever turn to utility cycling in large numbers. I think they like being in a warm dry private space when they travel. Even if we remove the fear of being crushed, I suspect the desire to be warm, dry and comfortable is simply too strong for most people.


They aren't cutting back on everything - new roads for motorists are still getting built, cheap car parking is still the norm.
Low cost fuel. Extra space and priority to those with cars...

The 'austerity' budget has been seriously damaging in the long term, and I'm fed up with it being used as an excuse for everything.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

pwa
Posts: 9024
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pwa » 15 Jan 2019, 8:37am

Vorpal wrote:
pwa wrote:To what extent does it matter if there are a lot of nervous people out there who feel too scared to cycle? There were lots of cyclists out on the roads around here today, more than there would have been twenty years ago. Why do we need to worry about those who don't join us? Does it matter?
It matters because children who are taken to school by car because their parents don't feel it is safe to walk or cycle are being inculcated into a car-centric culture every day. It matters because 4 out 5 primary school children do not get the recommended amount of exercise each day. It matters because British children are among the world's least active.

Among the recommendations from the European Transport Safety Council for reducing child deaths in road traffic are the following

-Design road environments in ways that recognise children’s capabilities and limitations. This will also benefit other road users.
-Implement 30 km/h (20 mph) zones together with traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds in residential areas, on the way to schools and around bus stops.
-Develop safe routes to schools.
-Implement safe bicycle infrastructure separated from motorised traffic to make cycling to school safer.

It isn't specifically lorries (the theme of this thread) that worries parents. You could take every HGV off the road and still have parents fearing a yob in a hot hatch.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3422
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pjclinch » 15 Jan 2019, 8:43am

pwa wrote:Where I live the various councils responsible for our infrastructure are cutting back on everything. The nearby seaside town of Porthcawl looks set to lose its last public convenience. We may lose our sports fields because the council no longer feels able to cut grass. Schools are running a deficit. This is not an environment in which significant remodelling of urban streets can happen. Funding that sort of thing will come somewhere low down on a long list that has schools and health services near the top.


Schools and health services...

Health services' actions are influenced very heavily by NICE, which has just pointed out that for the good of the nation's health we need to be getting more active travel. See https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l49. 7 paragraphs in that points out schools in particular as a target for this sort of thing. Also the case that there's been plenty of evidence over the years that active-travelling children do better at school.

Especially the case with health, you can't just put it in a self-contained box distinct from e.g. transport, environment etc.

It's further the case that cycling provision is increasingly seen (through evidence) as an investment where you get your public money back (via things like cleaner air and healthier population), rather than motor traffic which simply costs public money (though if you say we're 'avin a larf expecting the current eejits to act on that you'd have a fair point :( )

Pete.
Last edited by pjclinch on 15 Jan 2019, 8:45am, edited 1 time in total.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16312
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Vorpal » 15 Jan 2019, 8:44am

pwa wrote:And deep down I wonder whether most people here could be convinced to give cycling a go even if they were given top class facilities. I used to work for a not-for-profit outfit that made shared use tracks on former rail beds and the tracks have proved popular for leisure use. With a wide range of age groups. But few use them to do anything practical. I wonder if outside the big congested cities, where getting about by car is a pain, people will ever turn to utility cycling in large numbers. I think they like being in a warm dry private space when they travel. Even if we remove the fear of being crushed, I suspect the desire to be warm, dry and comfortable is simply too strong for most people.

You are right. People won't cycle whilst driving is more convenient. The Netherlands and Denmark don't just make cycling easier; they also make driving motor vehicles less convenient.

The reason London has (relatively) lots of cyclists is not that riding a bike is so much easier, but that for many journeys, it is faster than driving, taking the bus, etc.

If driving to work takes 20 minutes and you have pay £300 per month to park it, and still walk 400 metres (5 minutes) to your job when you get there, or you can cycle in 25 minutes, park for free, and get a little exercise while doing it, which do you do? If the parking fee is doubled?ycling take 10 minutes, and driving takes 20?

At some point, the difference is a no brainer for most people.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom