Yet another Cyclist killed when will it stop!

Boomerang Dave:

MisterStrood:

Boomerang Dave:
The obvious answer is… when the UK authorities start to care as much as their Dutch counterparts and separate cyclists into cycle lanes.

Plenty of them not used by cyclist around The UK. My favorite sight is cyclist holding up miles of traffic whilst parallel to him on path there is an empty cycle lane. Compulsory sign means nothing for them.

This was raised earlier… I don’t have time today to search back through what I said in response. But basically - the so called cycle lanes here in the UK are often more dangerous than staying on the road… getting in and out of them is worse that just riding alongside the motorised traffic. The Dutch system is nothing at all like the so called cycle lanes we have here. I’m not calling for more bad cycle lanes - the Dutch system is much better.

Carryfast: FYI. I have already blocked your posts… you write nothing worth reading - if you are aiming comments at me, save yourself the energy… perhaps attend an anger management course; All I can see of the dross you scribble now is this:

This post was made by Carryfast who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

It makes much more sense!

Is this the ‘grown up’ equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming when you’re being told something you don’t like/agree with?? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Is this the ‘grown up’ equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming when you’re being told something you don’t like/agree with?? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

No truckulent I think it more to do with someone who does not have the capability to discuss a topic coherently.
Just my opinion of course but from what I can gather others tend to agree.

albion1971:
Is this the ‘grown up’ equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming when you’re being told something you don’t like/agree with?? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

No truckulent I think it more to do with someone who does not have the capability to discuss a topic coherently.
Just my opinion of course but from what I can gather others tend to agree.

But as we’ve seen no driver with any sense would want you representing them if/when the zb hit the fan in the case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and ending up with a cyclist under the wheels or any other type of accident for that matter.If they agreed with your point of view concerning this issue it would be the equivalent of turkeys voting for christmas. :unamused:

While if you were as unbiased and bright as you’d like to think you are you’d have agreed that the idiot who made that video,concerning cycleways,was actually complaining about a cycleway which one day just might save a life in the case of the typical truck left turn on a cyclist type accident at the road junction in question.However the idiot seems to be more interested in the delay and inconvenience to his journey having taken offence at the council’s liberty in diverting him from the road and therefore harms way where he’d obviously have preferred to be.Whereas anyone with any sense would actually be complaining about the fact that the council see any need for cyclists to use the road at all throughout that video. :unamused:

Lorn trakta:
I can’t help but wonder what would be the authorities reaction if some techno-freak invented electric roller skates capable of sustaining 20 mph, with purchasers using them on the roads amidst the ‘heavies’, and the rest of the assorted road users like pedal cyclists do, how would the authorities base any argument against them?, they would have the exact same road presence as their mobile pedalling ‘pedestrian’ bretheren, yet I predict there would be outright condemnation of any thought allowing these mobile ‘pedestrians’ zooming around on their electric wheels yet strangely no condemnation for the equally idiotic concept of mobile ‘pedestrians’ that pedal their wheels, I’m a cyclist myself but without the infrastructure to get to work without ‘mixing it’ with the powered traffic I would walk to work, its called self preservation and it comes toll free.

I would love to see the entire motorway network opened up to cyclists, perhaps then the authorities would have to admit to the true scale of the ‘pedal-estrian’ communities inherrent crassness, I’d predict not one would decline the oppurtunity to use them, any more than they would decline the oppurtunity to ride mountain bikes along the ECML if that was made legal, tens, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of motorised vehicles are brought to a crawl daily to accomadate these ‘out of gauge out of step’ road users, bringing with it the inherrent danger to the ‘pedal-estrian’ and the accumaltive danger to the occupants of the motorised traffic as its flow of vehicles ‘concertinas’ and bunches up braking to avoid the vehicles in front coming to near standstills, bringing all vehicles out of their optimum fuel efficient speed range, in the case of freight vehicles reducing them from a possible 10 mpg right down to 2/3 mpg whilst negotiating the presence of the enviromental ‘hero’.

Examined analytically cyclists are lethally dangerous not only to themselves but to multitudes of other road users, who have actually paid great sums to be on the road and are not deserving the reduction in their safety to accomadate those wilfully playing russian roulette with theirs, all free of charge, and are also an enviromental disaster into the bargain, as I said before on the previous thread relating to the two dead cyclists in cornwall, cycles and heavies are no more compatible for safe use on the same strip of tarmac as powered hang gliders and jumbo jets simultaneously using the same runway, its so ‘in your face’ idiotic in concept the deaths of all in these circumstances rests at the feet of those ‘mad dogs’ in parliament and their rabid crusades, considering the legislative demands made of vehicle manufacturers to make travel safer for vehicle occupants, having to be protected by anti-crush steel ‘safety cages’, with ‘soft’ interiors, occupants having to be ‘belted in’, the stark contrast between those burdens and the ‘free for all’ zero safety concept of totally unprotected ‘pedal-estrians’ travelling on cycles untrained, untested, unlicenced, uninsured, unregistered amidst heavy traffic leaves me doubtless that the legislators are certifiable.

If the government were, through a referendum, to grant all citizens the right to ‘bear arms’, as in America, the sale of guns would outstrip supply as people exercise their ‘rights’, the incidents of firearm use would multiply expotentially as citizens exercise their ‘rights’, ‘‘the greatest case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter’’, said Winston Churchill, sometimes having ‘rights’ doesn’t serve the voters or democracy, with ‘rights’ comes responsibility, cyclists want their ‘rights’ without the slightest trace of responsibility, whilst every other road users ‘rights’ to use the roads is sanctioned against a background of having to satisfy the responsibility thresholds in training, testing, licensing, taxation, insurances, and being able to be identified at all times, the cycling fraternity want their ‘outside of the law’ status quo ‘rights’ enshrined in perpetuity, ask yourself this, what percentage of lgv drivers have yet to ride a bycycle on the public highway?, and what percentage of pedal cyclists have yet to drive an lgv on the public highway?, which group is actually in need of education here?, I’m sick of ‘outlaws’ preaching about their ‘rights’ to the law abiding.

^ This.

With the exception that US gun laws are based on the ( correct ) assumption that the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a bigger gun and the only people who’ll not be carrying guns if they outlaw guns will be those good guys because a criminal isn’t going to care if it’s illegal to carry a gun or not. :bulb:

Carryfast:

Boomerang Dave:

chester:
Here we have Chris Boardman explaining why some cycle paths are not suitable…

The video pretty much demonstrates what I have been saying, the existing cycle lanes in the UK are bloody dangerous.

The video also asks the question - who are the cycle lanes for?

I haven’t read the article though…

The answer to the question is:
Cycle lanes in the UK are Box Ticking / PR / Funding Grab, aimed at councils being able to get funding, then pat themselves on the back - making claims such as… here in Xtown or Xcity, we’ve created X miles of : Keyword: ‘NEW’ cycle lanes.

It’s costing lives and they don’t care. Simples.

How the zb are cycleways supposedly ‘costing lives’ when the cyclists are moaning about being flattened by trucks on the road. :unamused:

All I saw in the video was a load of total bs moaning about having to leave the road and so called ‘road surface’ ‘differences’ and the issue of having to cycle past a sign and then the final straw he actually had to stop to cross a road. Just like motor vehicles have to do at road junctions although cyclists obviously view having to stop for any reason as a personal insult.When that cycleway should have been the whole length of the available offroad pavement along there anyway with the choice for cyclists of either cycle on it or walk.Why don’t the tossers just be honest about their bs issues which are all about the idea of taking priority for roadspace away from motor traffic and giving it to cyclists instead.

One of the very rare occasions when CF is spot on. :open_mouth:

Lorn trakta,

To address your every analogy - some of which have no relevance nor in-fact any solid base is just too much. But I’ll pick out a couple as examples and then address what I think is your most relevant point.

Your analogy about firearms and motorways are based on no evidence whatsoever and quite frankly are so way off subject they are ridiculous. Provided you are not a convicted criminal or thought to be a danger to others or yourself, you can buy many types of firearms in the UK - from shotguns to high powered rifles. Hand guns were banned following the Dunblane School Massacre - the ban coming into law about 15 years ago. I can say with absolute unequivocal proof that your description of what would occur is just a complete nonsense - made up hysteria… as is the motorway analogy.

On the analogy of hang-gliders and jumbo jets - indeed, you wouldn’t have them sharing the same runways, but they do share the same sky… which actually is and has been my point all the way through this thread, we should not share the roads, separate cycle lanes should be constructed.

The main thing you raise though is in your first couple of lines, where you talk about new inventions and roller skates. The fact of the matter is that in this country just about everyone has ridden or does ride a bike, if you look at who is riding a bike you’ll see every type of person along with police officers, paramedics and people involved in logistics, often because it’s the fastest and most economical method of getting around. The ‘pushbike’ unlike your imaginary invention - does exist and it existed before the motorcar and all other forms of motorised transport. So why should that which came first which is safer, cleaner, quieter often more efficient be banned to make way for the rest? That is plainly ridiculous.

What do the anti’s have against the construction of a new and improved - usable bike lane network same as those in Holland that definitely are proven to save lives?

Why does every ■■■■■■■ thread and topic on this site have to be compared to the 1950s ffs? Just get a ■■■■■■■ life and get in the real world.

(Directed @ CF and his equally sad cohorts)

I’ve been following this thread with great interest, and I’m a little surprised at all the blame being thrown in almost every direction. None of it really addresses the question asked in the thread title, but there’s a helluva lot of spleen venting going on.

I’m a driver and have been for more than 30 years. I don’t ride a bike, although I know how to. Yes, cyclists really, really get on my [zb’s]! Many of them seem to have no concept of how dangerous they’re presence, and behaviour on the roads actually is, especially when it’s patently obvious, even to the dumbest [zb] on two wheels, they are always going to get the [zb] end of the stick in an accident with my truck, and more than likely fatally so.

Yes, I’m astounded to read cyclists writing here, “But I have every right to be on the road…” Well yeah, you do, but your rights probably count for nothing when you’re lying on a mortuary slab. Yes you do need to reassess how you use the road!

However as a driver, I’m equally as astounded to read drivers saying that cyclists should be banned from the roads. Or worse. It simply isn’t going to happen. Ever.

Yes, the roads should be better designed. Yes, cyclists should be better trained, better equipped with mandatory hi viz clothing, high intensity lights, even during daylight, legally restrained if necessary, and penalised with draconian fines when necessary, and yes, drivers (both car and truck) need to be better trained, more observant, less impatient and more spatially aware of cyclists (and other road users) as well.

Let’s face it, we (drivers) absolutely have a duty of care to other road users. Cyclists have that same duty of care, and they especially need to be made more aware of their own responsibilities for their own safety. But let’s not forget the local authorities. They too have a duty of care and if a junction is negligently designed, and causes a danger to road users, no matter who they are, then those local authorities should be a guilty of corporate manslaughter, just as a driver might be of causing death by careless driving.

My personal gripe is the virtually automatic arrest of driver on suspicion of the above. The fact is, no matter how vociferously it’s argued by the pedants on here, that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, in many people’s eyes, and especially in the view of the media, it means exactly that! But that’s another subject…

What I find difficult to understand, is the numbers of tippers/mixers in the majority of the accidents in urban accidents involving cyclists. It can’t just be because they are the majority of HGV’s in urban areas.

I drive an artic on a daily basis, admittedly not in central London, (which is not to say I never have driven there) and looking at the aids I have to visibility, I can’t see why a driver can’t SEE, let alone anticipate potential situations where cyclists are in potential danger.

I have six mirrors on my truck, four of them on the nearside of my unit. That’s 60% of my visual aids given over to monitoring the nearside of my truck! There simply is NO blind spot on the left of my vehicle when stopped at the junctions or traffic lights. I can see from the front of my unit, along the side, down to the kerb and several feet to the left, and all along my trailer.

In fact, I took some pictures from my driving position, and you can see for yourselves.

Image 1: Imagine the unit parked at some lights. Trailer is in a straight line. Visibility on the nearside is complete.


Image 2: I’ve made a turn to the left, and even at quite an acute angle, I still have total visibility in three of the four mirrors on my nearside.


Image 3: Because I was certain someone would ask; “But how tight was your turn?” I took this picture from my offside, and you can see from the angle of the front of the trailer, it’s a pretty tight turn.

We can whinge all we like, but at the end of the day, and from my personal point of view, no matter what I think of cyclists, I don’t want to kill one, no matter how much of a [zb] he might be.

Surely, when we know for certain there’s not going to be any change in cyclists behaviour, or swinging new legislation, or a ban on cyclists, or a massive re-engineering of the road system, any time in the foreseeable future, the only way cyclists will stop getting killed is if we, yes, I do mean us truck drivers, drive with more awareness, caution and patience.

As an artic driver, I simply can’t see how the driver of a rigid, with adequately fitted and adjusted mirrors, can ever argue he didn’t “see” the cyclist he crushed on his nearside when turning left.

Personally, at a potentially lethal junction where experience tells me, I “might” have a cyclist on my nearside, I will undertake my left turn with extreme caution and be prepared to make an emergency stop at any time. If I see a fast moving cyclist on my nearside, I WILL stop. If he then hits me, my tachgraph will prove I was not moving at the time. And how could that RTC possibly be my fault?

I know it’s frustrating trying to overtake that idiot cyclist with no lights, no high viz clothing, weaving about and ignoring the purpose made cycle track immediately to his left. It really, really boils my pith when I meet them as well, but no matter how angry I get, the guy doesn’t deserve to die.

Great Post and a great example of what we can see out the mirrors. In my experience (albeit a bit old) the kerbside mirror was great as it angles to see your front wheel as well when bounced off the bottom mirror.

Sure all tippers have this kerbside mirror or should have and with a correct mirror set up like this you don’t even need to look at them that hard as your peripheral vision will pick up any objects moving even when your looking straight ahead.

It might be a different story when its peeing it down but still any large movement will still grab your attention.

EastAnglianTrucker,

You’ve obviously gone to a great deal of effort to make your points, some I agree with, some I don’t. How is your vision down the length of your trailer in fog or that other rare occurrence ■■■■■■■ down with rain?

You did make some very good points though - circumstances are not always perfect.

Dipper_Dave:
It might be a different story when its peeing it down…

You pipped me! :smiley:

Boomerang Dave:
Lorn trakta,

To address your every analogy - some of which have no relevance nor in-fact any solid base is just too much. But I’ll pick out a couple as examples and then address what I think is your most relevant point.

Your analogy about firearms and motorways are based on no evidence whatsoever and quite frankly are so way off subject they are ridiculous. Provided you are not a convicted criminal or thought to be a danger to others or yourself, you can buy many types of firearms in the UK - from shotguns to high powered rifles. Hand guns were banned following the Dunblane School Massacre - the ban coming into law about 15 years ago. I can say with absolute unequivocal proof that your description of what would occur is just a complete nonsense - made up hysteria… as is the motorway analogy.

On the analogy of hang-gliders and jumbo jets - indeed, you wouldn’t have them sharing the same runways, but they do share the same sky… which actually is and has been my point all the way through this thread, we should not share the roads, separate cycle lanes should be constructed.

The main thing you raise though is in your first couple of lines, where you talk about new inventions and roller skates. The fact of the matter is that in this country just about everyone has ridden or does ride a bike, if you look at who is riding a bike you’ll see every type of person along with police officers, paramedics and people involved in logistics, often because it’s the fastest and most economical method of getting around. The ‘pushbike’ unlike your imaginary invention - does exist and it existed before the motorcar and all other forms of motorised transport. So why should that which came first which is safer, cleaner, quieter often more efficient be banned to make way for the rest? That is plainly ridiculous.

What do the anti’s have against the construction of a new and improved - usable bike lane network same as those in Holland that definitely are proven to save lives?

So you really think that they allow hang gliders or helicopters to be flown on the flight path into and out of Heathrow. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp: :laughing:

As for the construction of so called ‘improved’ cycleways why bother when it’s obvious that the cyclists issues are actually all about their ‘freedom’ to use the roads rather than the perfectly usable alternatives in most cases that we’ve already got.Yet another example here of the raving cyclist agenda in action.Yes many people ride or have ridden a cycle at some time including me.It’s just that some people have far better hazard perception,awareness,and the ability to asses risks than others and riding a cycle on the roads,as opposed to the pavement,let alone many of the purpose built cycleways provided by councils,is an unnacceptable risk.If the majority of cyclists want to ignore that fact on the bs basis that they’re the most economical and fastest method of transport and that ‘they were here first’ then that’s their problem.Which just leaves the issue of them forcing every cyclist who doesn’t believe all that bs into using the road to cycle on instead of the pavement wherever possible such as in this case. :unamused:

maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.4 … 57,0,0.25

EastAnglianTrucker:
I’ve been following this thread with great interest, and I’m a little surprised at all the blame being thrown in almost every direction. None of it really addresses the question asked in the thread title, but there’s a helluva lot of spleen venting going on.

I’m a driver and have been for more than 30 years. I don’t ride a bike, although I know how to. Yes, cyclists really, really get on my [zb’s]! Many of them seem to have no concept of how dangerous they’re presence, and behaviour on the roads actually is, especially when it’s patently obvious, even to the dumbest [zb] on two wheels, they are always going to get the [zb] end of the stick in an accident with my truck, and more than likely fatally so.

Yes, I’m astounded to read cyclists writing here, “But I have every right to be on the road…” Well yeah, you do, but your rights probably count for nothing when you’re lying on a mortuary slab. Yes you do need to reassess how you use the road!

However as a driver, I’m equally as astounded to read drivers saying that cyclists should be banned from the roads. Or worse. It simply isn’t going to happen. Ever.

Yes, the roads should be better designed. Yes, cyclists should be better trained, better equipped with mandatory hi viz clothing, high intensity lights, even during daylight, legally restrained if necessary, and penalised with draconian fines when necessary, and yes, drivers (both car and truck) need to be better trained, more observant, less impatient and more spatially aware of cyclists (and other road users) as well.

Let’s face it, we (drivers) absolutely have a duty of care to other road users. Cyclists have that same duty of care, and they especially need to be made more aware of their own responsibilities for their own safety. But let’s not forget the local authorities. They too have a duty of care and if a junction is negligently designed, and causes a danger to road users, no matter who they are, then those local authorities should be a guilty of corporate manslaughter, just as a driver might be of causing death by careless driving.

My personal gripe is the virtually automatic arrest of driver on suspicion of the above. The fact is, no matter how vociferously it’s argued by the pedants on here, that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, in many people’s eyes, and especially in the view of the media, it means exactly that! But that’s another subject…

What I find difficult to understand, is the numbers of tippers/mixers in the majority of the accidents in urban accidents involving cyclists. It can’t just be because they are the majority of HGV’s in urban areas.

I drive an artic on a daily basis, admittedly not in central London, (which is not to say I never have driven there) and looking at the aids I have to visibility, I can’t see why a driver can’t SEE, let alone anticipate potential situations where cyclists are in potential danger.

I have six mirrors on my truck, four of them on the nearside of my unit. That’s 60% of my visual aids given over to monitoring the nearside of my truck! There simply is NO blind spot on the left of my vehicle when stopped at the junctions or traffic lights. I can see from the front of my unit, along the side, down to the kerb and several feet to the left, and all along my trailer.

In fact, I took some pictures from my driving position, and you can see for yourselves.

Image 1: Imagine the unit parked at some lights. Trailer is in a straight line. Visibility on the nearside is complete.


Image 2: I’ve made a turn to the left, and even at quite an acute angle, I still have total visibility in three of the four mirrors on my nearside.


Image 3: Because I was certain someone would ask; “But how tight was your turn?” I took this picture from my offside, and you can see from the angle of the front of the trailer, it’s a pretty tight turn.

We can whinge all we like, but at the end of the day, and from my personal point of view, no matter what I think of cyclists, I don’t want to kill one, no matter how much of a [zb] he might be.

Surely, when we know for certain there’s not going to be any change in cyclists behaviour, or swinging new legislation, or a ban on cyclists, or a massive re-engineering of the road system, any time in the foreseeable future, the only way cyclists will stop getting killed is if we, yes, I do mean us truck drivers, drive with more awareness, caution and patience.

As an artic driver, I simply can’t see how the driver of a rigid, with adequately fitted and adjusted mirrors, can ever argue he didn’t “see” the cyclist he crushed on his nearside when turning left.

Personally, at a potentially lethal junction where experience tells me, I “might” have a cyclist on my nearside, I will undertake my left turn with extreme caution and be prepared to make an emergency stop at any time. If I see a fast moving cyclist on my nearside, I WILL stop. If he then hits me, my tachgraph will prove I was not moving at the time. And how could that RTC possibly be my fault?

I know it’s frustrating trying to overtake that idiot cyclist with no lights, no high viz clothing, weaving about and ignoring the purpose made cycle track immediately to his left. It really, really boils my pith when I meet them as well, but no matter how angry I get, the guy doesn’t deserve to die.

Going by that side of the argument the issue could only be either that some drivers aren’t being trained properly including being washed out from day 1 in the case of not driving a truck with sufficient use of the mirrors.

Or that there is a specific issue in the case of cyclists managing to get into dangerous positions while the driver is checking the offside mirrors or concentrating on looking ahead for other hazards etc.As I’ve said if it’s a case of the former issue then it wouldn’t just be a truck v cyclist issue it would include all types of traffic including cars and pedestrians and street furniture.

Having said that it’s obvious that even in the pics which you’ve provided,as in my experience,in the case of some vehicles,usually non full width cabs,the mirrors don’t actually sit far enough out from the side so you can’t see close down the sides.As in the example which you’ve posted in which all you can actually see is the front corner of the trailer.IE you can’t actually see what’s going on close to/at the trailer’s wheels or the rear corner of the trailer when the unit and trailer aren’t at an angle.The same can apply with rigid vehicles in the case of them having a narrow cab relative to the body.

Therefore as for your idea that you’ll always see the idiot cyclist and that cyclists shouldn’t be removed from the roads wherever possible be careful what you wish for and accidents are often the result of complacency and can happen especially in the case of thinking that it can never happen to you and no that unit and trailer aren’t sitting at the type of 90 degree angle of the type involved in a tight turn in an urban area although it’s obvious that rigid vehicles,just like buses,are being involved in many cases anyway.

Which seems to suggest that the cause is that one of cyclists managing to get into dangerous positions while the driver’s attention is focused away from the nearside mirrors.

Which then leaves that issue of ‘some’ drivers deciding and managing to take a vehicle completely through a left hand turn without removing their attention from the nearside mirrors at all.In which case you’ll need to be sure that there’s no one ahead likely to get in the way before making the turn and be able to position a truck through the turn just on what you’re seeing in the mirrors not ahead through the windscreen. :bulb: :wink:

Dipper_Dave:
It might be a different story when its peeing it down but still any large movement will still grab your attention.

Boomerang Dave:
How is your vision down the length of your trailer in fog or that other rare occurrence ■■■■■■■ down with rain?

Yes, I take your point, but in adverse weather conditions, we all take even more care when turning don’t we? If you can’t see what’s beside your vehicle, because of a misted up window, or rain obscuring your sight lines, you are effectively taking a chance that you might kill someone. That simply isn’t justifiable under any circumstances, no matter how stupid the person who has put themselves at risk has been.

With reduced visibility you travel at an even more reduced speed to execute your turn, or you stop and clean your mirrors/windows - and personally, I wouldn’t hesitate to stop in London traffic to do either.

It comes back to how much are you prepared to risk having someone’s death on your conscience? And in a purely selfish way, how much you are prepared to be convicted of causing someone’s death, because you couldn’t see what was beside you. I’d love to hear the opinions of the judge when you argue that one!

In my own personal case, like most drivers, I take risks every day, but when it comes to people’s lives, (not least my own) and when they are so extremely vulnerable and in such close proximity to my vehicle, I’m pathologically risk averse.

When they stop getting in the way, they all think their gods gift.

I totally agree (EAT), in circumstances of reduced visability its imperitive to take more care even if that means stopping the vehicle completely and leaning over to the passenger side to check.

What seems apparent is that at least 50% of accidents when truning left are caused by cyclists or tipper drivers combining a lack of skills with a lazy attitude to road safety that puts the cyclist in danger.

I don’t want this to come across to much anti tipper driver but I have met some thant aren’t worth a ■■■■ in my 12 years on constructions sites.

Articulated vehicles will inevitably take more care when turning left than most 8 wheel tippers and are more likely to over exagerate the turn than cut it too fine.

That said a lot of 8 wheel tippers are very nimble and the drivers may undertestimate how fast they are taking cyclists (especially novice ones ) by surprise.

If I had the choice I would much rather drive a low loader through our capital than a tipper.

As admittedly I have been out the game for a while I’m taking it as read that all rigids have kerb mirrors.

EastAnglianTrucker,

Sound driver ethics without doubt. I would say I can only speak for myself on extra care - but to answer that question from me - then yes. Unfortunately, I know from experience not everyone does and not everyone cleans their mirrors. I’ve seen some scary incidents caused by HGV drivers - because they couldn’t be arsed cleaning their mirrors.

They are never happy, a friend of mine ran over and killed a dog this morning, now he wants to sue the owner for damage to the cycle and himself. Meanwhile the dog owner has to grieve about the loss of his pet.

EastAnglianTrucker:
I’ve been following this thread with great interest, and I’m a little surprised at all the blame being thrown in almost every direction. None of it really addresses the question asked in the thread title, but there’s a helluva lot of spleen venting going on.

I’m a driver and have been for more than 30 years. I don’t ride a bike, although I know how to. Yes, cyclists really, really get on my [zb’s]! Many of them seem to have no concept of how dangerous they’re presence, and behaviour on the roads actually is, especially when it’s patently obvious, even to the dumbest [zb] on two wheels, they are always going to get the [zb] end of the stick in an accident with my truck, and more than likely fatally so.

Yes, I’m astounded to read cyclists writing here, “But I have every right to be on the road…” Well yeah, you do, but your rights probably count for nothing when you’re lying on a mortuary slab. Yes you do need to reassess how you use the road!

However as a driver, I’m equally as astounded to read drivers saying that cyclists should be banned from the roads. Or worse. It simply isn’t going to happen. Ever.

Yes, the roads should be better designed. Yes, cyclists should be better trained, better equipped with mandatory hi viz clothing, high intensity lights, even during daylight, legally restrained if necessary, and penalised with draconian fines when necessary, and yes, drivers (both car and truck) need to be better trained, more observant, less impatient and more spatially aware of cyclists (and other road users) as well.

Let’s face it, we (drivers) absolutely have a duty of care to other road users. Cyclists have that same duty of care, and they especially need to be made more aware of their own responsibilities for their own safety. But let’s not forget the local authorities. They too have a duty of care and if a junction is negligently designed, and causes a danger to road users, no matter who they are, then those local authorities should be a guilty of corporate manslaughter, just as a driver might be of causing death by careless driving.

My personal gripe is the virtually automatic arrest of driver on suspicion of the above. The fact is, no matter how vociferously it’s argued by the pedants on here, that an arrest is not the same as a conviction, in many people’s eyes, and especially in the view of the media, it means exactly that! But that’s another subject…

What I find difficult to understand, is the numbers of tippers/mixers in the majority of the accidents in urban accidents involving cyclists. It can’t just be because they are the majority of HGV’s in urban areas.

I drive an artic on a daily basis, admittedly not in central London, (which is not to say I never have driven there) and looking at the aids I have to visibility, I can’t see why a driver can’t SEE, let alone anticipate potential situations where cyclists are in potential danger.

I have six mirrors on my truck, four of them on the nearside of my unit. That’s 60% of my visual aids given over to monitoring the nearside of my truck! There simply is NO blind spot on the left of my vehicle when stopped at the junctions or traffic lights. I can see from the front of my unit, along the side, down to the kerb and several feet to the left, and all along my trailer.

In fact, I took some pictures from my driving position, and you can see for yourselves.

Image 1: Imagine the unit parked at some lights. Trailer is in a straight line. Visibility on the nearside is complete.


Image 2: I’ve made a turn to the left, and even at quite an acute angle, I still have total visibility in three of the four mirrors on my nearside.


Image 3: Because I was certain someone would ask; “But how tight was your turn?” I took this picture from my offside, and you can see from the angle of the front of the trailer, it’s a pretty tight turn.

We can whinge all we like, but at the end of the day, and from my personal point of view, no matter what I think of cyclists, I don’t want to kill one, no matter how much of a [zb] he might be.

Surely, when we know for certain there’s not going to be any change in cyclists behaviour, or swinging new legislation, or a ban on cyclists, or a massive re-engineering of the road system, any time in the foreseeable future, the only way cyclists will stop getting killed is if we, yes, I do mean us truck drivers, drive with more awareness, caution and patience.

As an artic driver, I simply can’t see how the driver of a rigid, with adequately fitted and adjusted mirrors, can ever argue he didn’t “see” the cyclist he crushed on his nearside when turning left.

Personally, at a potentially lethal junction where experience tells me, I “might” have a cyclist on my nearside, I will undertake my left turn with extreme caution and be prepared to make an emergency stop at any time. If I see a fast moving cyclist on my nearside, I WILL stop. If he then hits me, my tachgraph will prove I was not moving at the time. And how could that RTC possibly be my fault?

I know it’s frustrating trying to overtake that idiot cyclist with no lights, no high viz clothing, weaving about and ignoring the purpose made cycle track immediately to his left. It really, really boils my pith when I meet them as well, but no matter how angry I get, the guy doesn’t deserve to die.

Any chance you could do that again but in the pitch dark, ■■■■■■■ down with rain and with a cyclist tearing up your inside without lights or with poor lights? At that point your mirrors are likely to be ■■■■■■■ useless to you…

I’ll bet you a fiver even if you’re looking in the mirrors you don’t see the bike…

Now who is responsible for that accident, should it occur? (and I bet is has and will again) :stuck_out_tongue: