Cycling UK Forum

Whilst not cycle specific, this video gives a good impression of potential problems when sharing road space with HGVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... geKuuHiL4#

So why do HGV drivers so often drive so close to the back of cars! Useful but..

Surely HGVs are dangerous by design? The last few seconds of the clip about the tail lift being operated from the cab without an audible warning, by a driver who cannot necessarily see what he is doing. Also the height of the cab is too high for decent visibility surely? Does anyone remember the video of the car being pushed along the motorway sideways?

Claireysmurf wrote:Surely HGVs are dangerous by design?

Of course, because we are all homicidal maniacs who like making life as dangerous as possible, otherwise it gets boring! I would be very happy to see them all banned and enjoy a life of leisure. Trouble is, we'd probably all starve to death.

Tail Lifts can only be operated from the lift itself or the back of the lorry. People walk underneath them, hence the warning.

Cabs are high for several reasons, but it does give a better view in most situations.

Edited to indicate areas of tongue in cheek humour.

hexhome wrote:

Claireysmurf wrote:Surely HGVs are dangerous by design?

Of course, because we are all homicidal maniacs who like making life as dangerous as possible, otherwise it gets boring! I would be very happy to see them all banned and enjoy a life of leisure. Trouble is, we'd probably all starve to death.

Tail Lifts can only be operated from the lift itself or the back of the lorry. People walk underneath them, hence the warning.

Cabs are high for several reasons, but it does give a better view in most situations.

Be fair hexhome, Claireysmurf said by design . All you drivers did not design these lorries.

If HGVs have faults which make them difficult to operate safely it is clearly not the drivers' fault. The remedy is better design. Banning HGVs would be an overeaction (like your reaction).

HGV's are designed to be driven on motorways and major trunk roads, they're not designed to be driven on narrow roads in towns and certainly not to mix with cycles and pedestrians. Some German cities have banned HGV's from town centres. Their goods have to be unloaded into smaller vehicles for delivery into town centres.

HGV's are involved in almost half of cyclists deaths on London's roads - 104 out 242.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

My response was tongue in cheek humour and hopefully informative. Of course HGVs are not badly designed. They are designed to be as safe as possible in a world where all cyclists run red lights and filter up the inside.

Is your sarcasm detector working yet?

Edited to underline areas of sarcasm and highlight areas of humour.

Big T wrote:HGV's are designed to be driven on motorways and major trunk roads, they're not designed to be driven on narrow roads in towns and certainly not to mix with cycles and pedestrians. Some German cities have banned HGV's from town centres. Their goods have to be unloaded into smaller vehicles for delivery into town centres.

HGV's are involved in almost half of cyclists deaths on London's roads - 104 out 242.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

Well if this was possible, it would be fantastic. I fear that it is a little unrealistic at present, though things are developing quickly. If HGVs were banned from a town centre, it would die in days. There would be very little in the shops, the roads would deteriorate, broken down cars would have to be towed away, refuge collections would cease, theatres would close, parcels would stop being delivered, few people could move house (and none would get built). The question is, at what size do you ban HGVs and how many smaller vehicles are you prepared to put up with? How much extra are you willing to pay for this benefit? Like most things, road safety comes at a price I'm afraid.

hexhome wrote:
Is your sarcasm detector working yet?

Perhaps your sarcasm generator is not working very well. May be you need to use the funny little smiley faces?

A good driver should be aware of the likely mistakes of others and make up for them, and a well designed vehicle should allow such a driver to do so. If its not the design which makes lorries so much more lethal for silly cyclists, I guess it much be the driver.

hexhome wrote:My response was tongue in cheek humour

Taken as patronising, sorry

Mike Sales wrote:

hexhome wrote:
Is your sarcasm detector working yet?

Perhaps your sarcasm generator is not working very well. May be you need to use the funny little smiley faces?

A good driver should be aware of the likely mistakes of others and make up for them, and a well designed vehicle should allow such a driver to do so. If its not the design which makes lorries so much more lethal for silly cyclists, I guess it much be the driver.

Or the cyclist, it's just that the lorry is designed to protect the driver more than the cyclist.

The fact is that human error is always a factor. HGV drivers are trained to a very high standard and trucks are designed to allow a high standard of vision around them. I have always said that 'blind spot' is used as an excuse for not looking properly. Drivers are sometimes distracted for both good and bad reasons. Whilst HGVs are still legal on UK roads, tragedies will keep on recurring until we learn to avoid each other. My attitude is that they are here for the foreseeable future so lets improve what we already have rather than hope they will go away.

HGV drivers are responsible for fewer collisions than any other motorised road user, it's just that when they do, there is a much higher chance of injury.

But why aren't there more sensors fitted to a lorry? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 388313.ece

We have grown and grown lorries over the years as we have become ever more avaricious consumers and surely this is to blame for the current design. The cabs are just so high and the vision immediately in front of the cab is so poor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lze88sU9IGg
Even the recent introduction of a mirror over the front is not enough.

The way that cars and lorries have changed over the years isn't helpful to road safety. Visibility from cars has deteriorated hugely in the last 50 years or so. While cars have sensors and ABS and airbags and all manner of nice things to make cars safer, I typically find myself struggling with vision from my modern Skoda (and the VW before that). However, my 47 year old Austin has lovely slim pillars and consequently much better visibility (consider old v new Mini for example).

Claireysmurf wrote:But why aren't there more sensors fitted to a lorry? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 388313.ece

We have grown and grown lorries over the years as we have become ever more avaricious consumers and surely this is to blame for the current design. The cabs are just so high and the vision immediately in front of the cab is so poor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lze88sU9IGg
Even the recent introduction of a mirror over the front is not enough.

The way that cars and lorries have changed over the years isn't helpful to road safety. Visibility from cars has deteriorated hugely in the last 50 years or so. While cars have sensors and ABS and airbags and all manner of nice things to make cars safer, I typically find myself struggling with vision from my modern Skoda (and the VW before that). However, my 47 year old Austin has lovely slim pillars and consequently much better visibility (consider old v new Mini for example).

'The Times calls for' is journalism. Well intended probably, but there may be other factors involved such as the construction and use regs ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986 ... tents/made). If I have any more mirrors fitted, I won't be able to see out of the windows, they have created another 'blind spot'! Any more buzzers, bleepers and flashing lights will further draw my attention. I'm not saying that these things aren't a useful aid, but there is more to consider than 'The Times Calls For'.

It is perfectly possible to see anything in front of the cab, you just look down! I have had the same thing happen to me as happened in that video and believe me, it is difficult to see how anyone would not be aware when it happened. Whatever device you put in a lorry you are left with a human being at the controls. If a driver fails to see anyone or anything, they have failed to look properly. Anyone who knows anything about road safety will know that 'failed to look' is the most common cause of collisions (over 40% and rising).

I don't believe that we will get anywhere blaming any particular group of road user. It is a fact that often when HGVs collide with cycles, the cyclist dies. I drive an multi axle HGV nearly everyday and each time I do, I usually have to take action to avoid a cyclist. If I am waiting at lights, at the right hand side of the road with my left turn signal showing, all of you who cycle in cities know exactly what happens. If an HGV then turns across the path of a cyclist, it is the drivers fault for failing to look. His life will suffer, but he will not have to live with the physical consequences.

I am massively pro cycling. I commute by cycle to my HGV, my Brompton lives in the cab with me when I'm tramping. I have a road bike and MTB for my days off and I have children that cycle on the road. I won't allow a 'Ban HGVs' or 'The Times Calls For' avoid the real hard issue that cycles and HGV's will be sharing the roads for the conceivable future and both groups need to accept each other limitations.

hexhome wrote: ... HGVs are responsible for very few collisions, ...

I'd be happy to say they are never responsible, but yes, I do know the reference was to HGV drivers

(I'll be back later when I've stabled the hobby horse.)

thirdcrank wrote:

hexhome wrote: ... HGVs are responsible for very few collisions, ...

I'd be happy to say they are never responsible, but yes, I do know the reference was to HGV drivers

(I'll be back later when I've stabled the hobby horse.)

Now that you've pointed that out, I am less than happy with my wording. How about, HGV drivers are responsible for fewer collisions than any other motorised road user? I think I'm safe with that.

Claireysmurf wrote:........... Does anyone remember the video of the car being pushed along the motorway sideways?

It was a spoof.