Truck-bike accidents

Zaph0d

The restricted view in trucks seems to have contributed to some fatalities in Ireland in recent years. Newer buses, like the Aircoach, place the driver in a very low position, where he can get a good view of pedestrians and cyclists.

Is there a technical reason that requires trucks to have high cabins?

Or is it just fashion/tradition/comfort?

Victor

Zaph0d wrote:

Is there a technical reason that requires trucks to have high cabins?

It makes them shorter by having the cab over the engine, hence easier to store / carry on ships etc. It also mean the driver is less likely to dies in an accident.*

* Please note cynicism in this post.

seamus

Zaph0d wrote:

Is there a technical reason that requires trucks to have high cabins?

It also improves their view. When you're driving a vehicle that weighs 20-160 times of the vehicles around you, you want to be able to see what's going on, particularly in terms of giving yourself enough notice of time to brake.

BrianD

It would seem that many of the recent fatalities involving pedestrians/cyclists were incidents with the victim being in very close proximity to the truck itself.

While I have some doubts about the driving abilities of some HGV drivers especially in relation to speeding, it is my view - possibly an unpopular one - that the victims were responsible for their misfortune.

Take O'Connell bridge where at least one incident involved a cyclist being hit by a left turning truck. It is well known that all trucks need to turn wide - so why did a cyclist continue forward (and in the wrong lane). i don't blame the driver nor do I blame the design of the corner at Westmoreland St./Aston Quay. I would ask was it necessary for the HGV to be taking that route through the city centre.

Other incidents have involved pedestrians walking out in front of vehicles that may appear to be stationary in traffic. It's just simply carelessness. I noticed today two women on Nassau St. who stepped off the pavement walked straight out behind a reversing bus. Fortunately, the driver was being directed by another individual who prevented an incident occuring. It was comical watching this happen from the top deck of a 48A.

A listener to Newstalk 106 sent in a very good email on this particular topic and ended it with the following - If all road users acted with more consideration we would have a lot less incidents.

seamus

BrianD wrote:

Take O'Connell bridge where at least one incident involved a cyclist being hit by a left turning truck. It is well known that all trucks need to turn wide - so why did a cyclist continue forward (and in the wrong lane). i don't blame the driver nor do I blame the design of the corner at Westmoreland St./Aston Quay. I would ask was it necessary for the HGV to be taking that route through the city centre.

Indeed. It's rare to see a truck these days without the "Do not pass on inside if..." signs on the back, but it should be common sense anyway. Saw a car completely crushed under a truck trailer on the Nangor road one day for making the same mistake.
The only thing about the incident on O'Connel bridge was - did the cyclist begin the overtake after the truck had moved out to turn left, or was he already on the truck's LHS before he began to turn? Either way, a bit of foresight on the part of both road users could have avoided the accident, regardless of who's to blame.

At least the port tunnel will take the bulk of HGVs off the quays anyway.

BrianD

I assume that the positions of each of the parties to the incident were plotted on a diagram during the inquest etc in relation to the O'Connell bridge accident. My view would be...

I understand that it is legal for a truck to turn from an adjacent lane (in this case the 'straight on' lane to the right og the Left turn only lane onto Aston Quay).

If the cyclist was cycling close to the pavement then they were in the incorrect lane.

If the truck overtook the cyclist and then turned left, the driver would have been aware of the cyclist for some time. He would have been checking his offside mirrors as he turned. There is a point as the truck turns that the cyclist would no longer visible. Although overtaking and then turning is an inconsiderate manoeuver, the cyclist should have been wiser to yield.

If the cyclist was behind the truck as it slowed to make its manoever and the cyclist continued at the same pace then they are in the wrong.

It's unfortunate that we have to surmise what happened in an incident where a young person lost their life. I am assuming that all the lights on the truck were functioning on the day. Many people have criticised the design of this junction but I would be more critical of poor lane and road markings on Westmoreland St. (and elsewhere) for all road users. It is really time that overhead signage became more prevalent in this country. One also has to ask why we see so many HGV's 'wandering' around the city centre for no apparent reason.

Metrobest

BrianD wrote:

If the cyclist was cycling close to the pavement then they were in the incorrect lane. If the cyclist was behind the truck as it slowed to make its manoever and the cyclist continued at the same pace then they are in the wrong.

Gosh.. I think it's stooping to a new low, speculating on the actions of the cyclist who was killed in this case. Let's just assume the truck driver was in the wrong, shall we?

How was the cyclist supposed to know which lane was correct and which was incorrect. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CYCLISTS AT JUNCTIONS. Was the cyclist supposed to have a sixth sense to know that the truck was not going to see him/her?

seamus

Metrobest wrote:

Gosh.. I think it's stooping to a new low, speculating on the actions of the cyclist who was killed in this case. Let's just assume the truck driver was in the wrong, shall we?

Why? Because the cyclist is dead? Doesn't work that way. We are speculating, and when speculating, any and all possibilities are fair game.

How was the cyclist supposed to know which lane was correct and which was incorrect. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CYCLISTS AT JUNCTIONS. Was the cyclist supposed to have a sixth sense to know that the truck was not going to see him/her?

Not a sixth sense, common sense. If said cyclist had taken the time to educate themselves, then maybe they would have be more cautious at the junction. There is plenty of provision for cyclists at junctions. They act just like any other road user.

Even when I'm in the right, I'll always yield to a truck or car who even remotely looks like they may cross my path. Why? Because they're bigger then me. You may not like that, but personally I'd rather be alive than in the right.

There are two issues which precipitate accidents like this - poor education of *all* road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) and poor infrastructure. HGVs should not operate in a busy pedestrian area at all. As I say, with any luck, HGVs in the city centre will be minimal, hopefully even banned, when the Port tunnel is opened.

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

If the cyclist was cycling close to the pavement then they were in the incorrect lane.

Cyclists are required, by law, to cycle 'as close to the left-hand side of the road as possible'.

My experience cycling through the O'Connell bridge junction is that trucks will often overtake & try to force me off the road into the bus-parking & loading bays. I've frequently had to brake and swerve to avoid aggresssive overtaking by truck drivers, who overtake even when they know they'll have to stop before the length of their vehicle has passed me.

After the inquest into the O'Connell Bridge tragedy, the court recommended that a bicycle lane be placed at the junction. The city council placed a lane there which stops short of the most hazardous part of the junction and which is not in compliance with national regulations for the marking and design of cycle lanes.

Another consideration in the inquest was that the drivers view may have been obscured by unnecessary decorations in his cab.

C:\

BrianD

There should be a cycle lane at o connell bridge that "guides" cyclists out into a better road position. They have it at other junctions and there's no reason why there shouldn't be one there.

BrianD

Gosh.. I think it's stooping to a new low, speculating on the actions of the cyclist who was killed in this case. Let's just assume the truck driver was in the wrong, shall we?

I find your remark odd Mr. Metrobest. I am entitled to discuss this incident regardless of the sad loss of life. It's a real issue and is likely to occur again. Perhaps you might like to retract that remark. There have been discussions about numerous other incidents on this board and see now reason why this should be an exception. Any of the Luas crashes could have resulted in loss of life ... do we not discuss them then? There is no reason to assume the truck driver is in the wrong. It is not idle speculation but opinions based on reading the various news reports at the time.

How was the cyclist supposed to know which lane was correct and which was incorrect. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CYCLISTS AT JUNCTIONS.

The big arrows on the road perhaps?? They are a road user after all.

Was the cyclist supposed to have a sixth sense to know that the truck was not going to see him/her?

It is the one question that was not answered about this case. Why did the cyclist continue into the path of a truck turning across her path? I read all the news reports and I was at a loss to understand this.

vector

The trucks we are familiar with in Ireland/UK are of a "cabover" design (to use a US term which salutes the archetypal US fireengine the Ford Cabover)

The engine is under the cab, that is why the driver is so high.

The alternative design, where a truck has a long bonnett like a car is the American style of truck, over there that is the norm. Cabovers are more expensive.

But that american style also has a high cab... so in conclusion I cannot answer your question

Zaph0d

Could the engine be mounted behind the cabin, with the driver at the same level as on a coach?

It also improves their view. When you're driving a vehicle that weighs 20-160 times of the vehicles around you, you want to be able to see what's going on, particularly in terms of giving yourself enough notice of time to brake.

It creates a blackspot region close to the truck, but makes it easier to see in the distance over the next few cars. Does this tradeoff make trucks safer or more dangerous? How does being able to see over short range obstacles make a high cabin safer?

Metrobest

BrianD wrote:

I am entitled to discuss this incident regardless of the sad loss of life. It's a real issue and is likely to occur again..

I agree with you that it's likely to occur again. I'll leave it up to your own conscience whether or not it's right or wrong to say the dead cyclist was in wrong when, as you say yourself, you don't know the facts.

BrianD wrote:

The big arrows on the road perhaps?? They are a road user after all..

Arrows are useless for bikes. They make no sense. If you're approaching a junction you can't see them. A stream of traffic conceals them. You seem to think bikes are like 'mini' cars and that everything that applies to cars should apply to bikes. Understand: there is a fundamental difference between cars and bikes.

Did you know there is a traffic light junction at Bride Street/Bull Alley Street which is defective - and it's going to kill a cyclist if it's not fixed. Ironically, there is a special 'bicycles only' light which shows 'red' when you should be free to go and 'green' when the traffic is ploughing into you. Has anyone else seen this? Go, see it, prepare to be shocked. When such basic things as traffic lights are liable to kill cyclists, how does that auger for the rest of the road infrastructure?

BrianD wrote:

It is the one question that was not answered about this case. Why did the cyclist continue into the path of a truck turning across her path? I read all the news reports and I was at a loss to understand this.

Because SHE DIDN'T KNOW, and how was she to? There are no facilities for cyclists at junctions, and when there are (as in Bull Alley St), they can kill you. The junction at which she died, by the way, is still as dangerous as ever. How many more people have to die before someone wakes up?

BrianD

Placing the engine in front of the driver (US style) or behind the driver (very rare) increases the length of the tractor unit and the overall length of the vehicle. The turning circle of the US style arrangement would exceed EU regulations. There is only one European manufactured tractor unit using the US style arrangement - a Scania unit. These are very unpopular over here beacuse they are best suited for long distance motorway driving and not the type of road system we have here.


Every vehicle will have some type of weakness or black spot. I don;t think the driver height is an issue. I am sure that there as many children injured/killed by drivers of standard cars who were unaware that they were children behind or infront of them.

In the ideal world, all road users need to be considerate or aware of others. This can be achieved by giving a truck a wide berth or even signalling their presence in advance of making a manouver. For example, I would never walk behind a truck with out first attracting the drivers attention.