HGV Versus Cyclist Road Rage

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

i keep reading this thread title as 'HGV Versus Cyclist Road Race'.
that would be an interesting undertaking.

Pun intended

GreeBo

CramCycle wrote: »

Either they were there before he arrived or they moved into the position while he waited. I understand he may have forgotten the number or just missed them because he wasn't staying alert while stopped. The guy with the camera is still in his rear view mirror. The road pinches just there (presumably the need for the lane merge). The driver was not at fault, I was simply outlining a reasonable and acceptable way to handle the situation.

Hang on a second, thats a nonsense argument!

So you expect him to sit at the lights and count the number of cyclists on his inside and somehow decide how many of them are going to actually turn left in the left only lane and how many are going to continue straight on?

Does he lash the artic onto auto pilot while he subtracts invisible cyclists from his running total?

How do you know its an equal/zip merge?

You can clearly see the female cyclist in white realises she is likely to die and so lets the truck complete his right of way, at least any cars behind him can see her merging (albeit ilegally)

gctest50

beauf wrote: »

They've done stats on it.

Of the deaths at traffic lights, 62 per cent involved lorries turning left or moving off, with the cyclist being struck by the front or near-side of the vehicle.

..........

It needs a law like this

When a truck is at a standstill at traffic lights cyclists must not pass its second axle

From a red light start, cyclists must not under/overtake a truck until it has cleared a junction

tomasrojo

The HGV driver could have kept a metre and a half out from the side of the road, given that he knew there were had been cyclists there and might be more.

Again, placing yourself beside a HGV at a junction is a terrible idea, so not saying it's the HGV driver's fault. But he really gets close to the footpath, which is part of why he strikes the cyclist. (Who also should have had some notion of how close the HGV was getting.)

Roadhawk

GreeBo wrote: »

So you expect him to sit at the lights and count the number of cyclists on his inside and somehow decide how many of them are going to actually turn left in the left only lane and how many are going to continue straight on?

all HGV drivers should be rain man!

tomasrojo

That "second axle" thing above: it's much simpler to tell people not to pass a HGV on the inside at a junction, and I'm not sure placing yourself in that position is very safe either.

tomasrojo

I'd still return to the point that HGVs just shouldn't be in urban centres at peak times.

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

The HGV driver could have kept a metre and a half out from the side of the road, given that he knew there were had been cyclists there and might be more.

Not when the cyclists are in a different lane that turns left. that would be daft.

They should patiently wait behind until its safe to pass.

tomasrojo

Yes, keeping a small distance out from the kerb is daft. Much better to kill someone.

EDIT: sorry, just to be clear: cyclists kept emerging into his field of view from the left after he'd pulled off, so at the very least it would have been prudent not to get within half a metre of the kerb, which is what he did. Fault still lies with the cyclists for doing such something unexpected and very risky. As everyone else has said, hanging back was the easiest and safest thing to do.

beauf

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately the easiest way to determine who is legally in the right here is to remove the ambiguity....

Is there anyone in this thread who thinks there is any ambiguity about the cyclists? I don't think so.

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'd still return to the point that HGVs just shouldn't be in urban centres at peak times.

Thats like saying tractors shouldnt be allowed on the roads during working hours. You cant just Ban a mode of transport. (well you can in London, but not till 2020)

beauf

gctest50 wrote: »

It needs a law like this

Why. There is a law don't go straight in a left turning lane.

tomasrojo

beauf wrote: »

Is there anyone in this thread who thinks there is any ambiguity about the cyclists? I don't think so.

The cyclists proceeded from the wrong lane. That's perfectly clear.

Given that a court case into the death of a cyclist who was waiting in an ASL resulted in acquittal of the HGV driver, anyone injured in this scenario at the start of this thread would have no chance of winning in court.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Thats like saying tractors shouldnt be allowed on the roads during working hours. You cant just Ban a mode of transport. (well you can in London, but not till 2020)

It's perfectly standard in European cities to bar HGVs from the city centre at peak hours.

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's perfectly standard in European cities to bar HGVs from the city centre at peak hours.

Really? i though it was the same ban we currently have here in Dublin as in if you need to bring a 5x axles vehicle into the City you just apply for a pass online and pay a fee?

Bushmanpm

tomasrojo wrote:

I'd still return to the point that HGVs just shouldn't be in urban centres at peak times.

Good luck delivering all the goods London needs to keep going on the back of your Rayleigh Burner!
That road looks like the north embankment of the Thames approaching Westminster from the west, no way that LGV would be driving there if he didn't need to be, the whole of Central, West End and City of London are all congestion nightmares to be avoided at all costs unless you have to be there.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Really? i though it was the same ban we currently have here in Dublin as in if you need to bring a 5x axles vehicle into the City you just apply for a pass online and pay a fee?

I think implementations vary.

For example:

Morgan believes banning trucks that weigh more than 3.5 tonnes from cities and building a network of distribution centres on the edge of towns, where goods can be decanted into smaller vehicles, would save lives. The practice is widespread in Germany, he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/18/hgv-city-ban-to-protect-cyclists

London has no restrictions at the moment, I think? Could be wrong.

tomasrojo

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Good luck delivering all the goods London needs to keep going on the back of your Rayleigh Burner!

Litotes aside, there are other methods of making deliveries at peak times, and HGVs can be permitted off-peak.

tomasrojo

I think I meant "auxesis". My apologies, rhetoricians.

Weepsie

Roadhawk wrote: »

Thats like saying tractors shouldnt be allowed on the roads during working hours. You cant just Ban a mode of transport. (well you can in London, but not till 2020)

It's not like that in any way at all.

One thing I hear frequently is "but, the roads are not designed for bikes/cyclists...they shouldn't really be on them" which is not particularly true. Particularly in a compact city like Dublin. London is not compact, but it has similar enough street layouts.

Cities are not places for HGVs, they never where, and they never will be. Cities are ideally traversed quickly by lighter travel methods. They would easily cope with a ban on them at Rush hours at the very least.

Bushmanpm

tomasrojo wrote:

Litotes aside, there are other methods of making deliveries at peak times, and HGVs can be permitted off-peak.

LGV's can be permitted off peak? Have you ever driven in London? There is no off peak. And why should they anyway? To accommodate braindead morons who can't/won't obey the traffic laws. And what about their driving hours on their tacho? And what about the extra wages in overtime? Just because of dumb cyclists? How about cyclists just do it as they're supposed to and there wouldn't be any issues?

tomasrojo

We've had arguments about HGV restrictions here a few times before.

Does anyone know of any studies into prices of goods after the five-axle restriction was introduced in Dublin? I'm assuming there is an increase in prices, somewhat at least, but there are plenty of negative externalities (killing pedestrians and cyclists, destroying the road surface in proportion to the fourth power of axle weight, congestion at junctions that were never designed for large vehicles) that I'd be willing to bet at the very least cancel these out in the bigger picture.

gctest50

Weepsie wrote: »

..................

Cities are not places for HGVs, they never where, and they never will be. Cities are ideally traversed quickly by lighter travel methods. They would easily cope with a ban on them at Rush hours at the very least.

Not really places for bicycles either - look how little room the light-rail takes up and how tidy it is instead of needy cyclists all over the place - some endangering themselves :

tomasrojo

Bushmanpm wrote: »

LGV's can be permitted off peak? Have you ever driven in London? There is no off peak.

Yes, traffic is of the same density, day and night. And there are as many pedestrians and cyclists moving around at 9pm as at 9am. Sorry, London is a special case. They have no rush hour.

Bushmanpm wrote: »

And why should they anyway? To accommodate braindead morons who can't/won't obey the traffic laws.

They also kill people who aren't making egregious mistakes.

Bushmanpm wrote: »

And what about their driving hours on their tacho? And what about the extra wages in overtime? Just because of dumb cyclists?

As I said, they also kill entirely blameless people. And the death penalty for being careless or momentarily thoughtless is a bit harsh.

tomasrojo

gctest50 wrote: »

Not really places for bicycles either - look how little room the light-rail takes up and how tidy it is instead of needy cyclists all over the place - some endangering themselves :

The point of that animation isn't that everyone should travel by rail.

Weepsie

gctest50 wrote: »

Not really places for bicycles either - look how little room the light-rail takes up and how tidy it is instead of needy cyclists all over the place - some endangering themselves :

Not a very good attempt at trolling.

Falcon L

Bushmanpm wrote: »

That road looks like the north embankment of the Thames approaching Westminster from the west,

Bang on. It's at the northern end of Battersea bridge.

For anyone who can't get their head around the blind spots of a truck. Try to picture yourself in an ordinary car surrounded by yappy dogs. You have to move, but you can't see all the dogs. You have to assume some intelligence will make them stay clear of the turning wheels. Otherwise you will sit there all day.

The truck driver had a lot of stuff going on at that time. The work of driving the truck, which is harder than you'd think. He was watching the traffic coming up on his right, trying to handle the merge, and dealing with a bullying pack of cyclists on his left. He probably took his eye off the nearside mirror for a second to glance at the offside one making sure he didn't have cyclists flying up into the crush on his offside, as well as making sure he wasn't about to tear the side out of a car.

The bottom line is that if the cyclists weren't acting the dick, there would have been no incident.

tomasrojo

Falcon L wrote: »

He was watching the traffic coming up on his right, trying to handle the merge, and dealing with a bullying pack of cyclists on his left.

Huh?

Falcon L wrote: »

The bottom line is that if the cyclists weren't acting the dick, there would have been no incident.

I think everyone pretty much concedes this.

(If I was driving a car surrounded by yapping dogs, I think I'd drive pretty slowly. Probably a good analogy, in that sense.)

beauf

Falcon L wrote: »

.. Try to picture yourself in an ordinary car surrounded by yappy dogs. You have to move, but you can't see all the dogs. You have to assume some intelligence will make them stay clear of the turning wheels..
..

Dogs get run over a lot.

Falcon L

tomasrojo wrote: »

Huh?

Yes, I would consider their actions as bullying. They were happy to put their squishy bodies on the line thinking that the truck driver would take evasive action and they would have "won" that piece of road.