Researchers pinpoint the HGV type most likely to kill you

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

I already know what type of LGV (that's the official term these days) is most likely to kill me - a tipper truck.  Almost every articulated vehicle is driven by a professional, but tipper trucks?  Wankers, all of them.

Ah, but are they *professional* wankers??

burtthebike wrote:

Excellent piece of research, but it raises the question of how these vehicles were approved for use on our roads when they clearly aren't safe?  Will the government be taking immediate action to ban these dangerous vehicles from our streets?  Will they be ensuring that they are modified to make them safe?  Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's only cyclists, so none of those will happen.

As I've said before, but in connection with safety audits, road safety is a joke for vulnerable road users in this country.

Nothing like a huge and completley misdirected leap of logic to start a Sunday.

Nevermind the starting point of the whole model where the first mirror that they map is adjustable and yet they only demonstrate it in a single, incorrectly adjusted, position with a single height of driver, who doesn't move his head at all. And then ignore the last set of mapped sightlines where parts of the cyclist and bike can actually be seen in two of them (at 1:06 purple and brown).

Or how about the alternate interpretation of the results that you shouldn't undertake lorries, because that is illegal? If he came from behind you then he had a good view of you (green). The only way for you to get into his 'not actually a blindspot' unseen is to ride up the inside when he is not looking in his mirror.  

kevinmorice wrote:

 If he came from behind you then he had a good view of you (green). The only way for you to get into his blindpot unseen is to ride up the inside when he is not looking in his mirror.  

Such as for example following the marked cycle lane, which by being a seperate lane is perfectly acceptable to pass stopped traffic on the left, only for the driver to turn on a left indicator as the traffic lights change, and run over a cyclist who IS ahead of him and kill them. Purely a hypothetical scenario, and not one currently having an appeal to get the CPS to push for a presecution of the driver who failed to signal or look to see the cyclist who was clearly visible.
 

Clearly cycling alongside the left of a moving truck is not smart, when approaching a junction where it may turn without signalling, HGV drivers not being subjected to a higher degree of training and testing that car drivers . .  oh wait, scrub that,   

Several haulage and construction firms are already rolling out and testing low-cab variants of trucks, and equipment to reduce risks to vulnerable road users. meanwhile some people on the web insist on "victim blaming"

Nothing like a huge and completley misdirected leap of logic to start a Sunday.

Pretty much sums up you comment pal.

kevinmorice wrote:

Or how about the alternate interpretation of the results that you shouldn't undertake lorries, because that is illegal? If he came from behind you then he had a good view of you (green). The only way for you to get into his 'not actually a blindspot' unseen is to ride up the inside when he is not looking in his mirror.  

undertakings is passing another vehicle on the inside when it is travelling with a clear road ahead.

I don't see any cyclists doing this.

being in a different lane(such as a cyle lane) when the lorry is impeded by slow moving or stationary traffic is not undertaking.

If passing stationary vehicles oin the left were illegal undertaking, then every single junction with a right filter light that turns to green after the straight on green light would be pointless, because of course the right turn lane would be stuck behind a red light, and all the other lanes would not legally be allowed to 'undertake them'

not to mention the highway code which explicity states that cylists may filter on the left or the right, so beware of them in slow moving or stationary traffic.

Of course it would be foolish to pass a vehicle indicarting left on the left, but far to often we see drivers hit the indicartor as they turn the wheel, or sometimes not at all.

and of course it is never the case that a cylist is put into a HGV blind spot by an incomplete overtake, i.e. when they commit to pass even though they do not have sufficient road to completely pass the cyclist before being stopped in the traffic queue or at the red light. In my experience the majority of drivers do not plan ahead, they see a cyclist and must get in front, without looking to see if it gets them anywhere.

kevinmorice wrote:

Or how about the alternate interpretation of the results that you shouldn't undertake lorries, because that is illegal?

That interpretation is somewhat undermined by the fact that it's not illegal.

kevinmorice wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Excellent piece of research, but it raises the question of how these vehicles were approved for use on our roads when they clearly aren't safe?  Will the government be taking immediate action to ban these dangerous vehicles from our streets?  Will they be ensuring that they are modified to make them safe?  Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's only cyclists, so none of those will happen.

As I've said before, but in connection with safety audits, road safety is a joke for vulnerable road users in this country.

 

Nothing like a huge and completley misdirected leap of logic to start a Sunday.

 

Nevermind the starting point of the whole model where the first mirror that they map is adjustable and yet they only demonstrate it in a single, incorrectly adjusted, position with a single height of driver, who doesn't move his head at all. And then ignore the last set of mapped sightlines where parts of the cyclist and bike can actually be seen in two of them (at 1:06 purple and brown).

 

Or how about the alternate interpretation of the results that you shouldn't undertake lorries, because that is illegal? If he came from behind you then he had a good view of you (green). The only way for you to get into his 'not actually a blindspot' unseen is to ride up the inside when he is not looking in his mirror.  

Not going to question most of what you state, but when on a bike it is not illegal to undertake a very slow moving or stationary vehicle (lorry, bus or car), it's called filtering, and is also allowed on motorcycles (interestingly, there is I believe going to be a change in the law regarding filtering and the speed at which it is allowed).

Whether it is sensible to undertake a lorry or bus is surely the point you were trying to make. To which I say, it depends. If the lorry isn't going to be able to move any time soon, and you can get past and ahead to a point the driver can definately see you in front, then no problem. If however you are going to have to stop alongside, just don't do it!

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

joules1975 wrote:

…when on a bike it is not illegal to undertake a very slow moving or stationary vehicle (lorry, bus or car), it's called filtering, and is also allowed on motorcycles

It's not illegal in any vehicle. It's just that cars don't fit through as many gaps.

burtthebike wrote:

Excellent piece of research, but it raises the question of how these vehicles were approved for use on our roads when they clearly aren't safe?  Will the government be taking immediate action to ban these dangerous vehicles from our streets?  Will they be ensuring that they are modified to make them safe?  Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's only cyclists, so none of those will happen.

As I've said before, but in connection with safety audits, road safety is a joke for vulnerable road users in this country.

This research as was reported at a seminar as part of the Edinburgh Festival of Cycling in June this year. The most dangerous high cabbed vehicles are designed for off road use, but like most 4X4 cars they are rarely if ever used off road, which does beg the question why they are allowed in built up areas in the first place.