In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in
London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but
this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than
because of greater inherent safety.

The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly designed
that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near vulnerable
road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists). On faster roads
they are often dangerous to cars too. For some reasons cement mixers are
some of the worst, even sporting signs on their rears drawing attention to
the fact that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads.

The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.
Buses are much better in those respects.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Oct 23, 12:40*am, wrote:
Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in
London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but
this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than
because of greater inherent safety.

The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly designed
that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near vulnerable
road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists). On faster roads
they are often dangerous to cars too. For some reasons cement mixers are
some of the worst, even sporting signs on their rears drawing attention to
the fact that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement
lorries are obviously terrifying, driven by people who understand
that, and dealt with by pedestrians, drivers and cyclist who
understand that.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:
The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run
protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed
bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the
ground there would be a high risk of grounding.

B2003

On Oct 23, 1:24 am, John B wrote:
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement

Them and 7.5 tonners who as far as I can see are generally driven by
transit drivers who've been given a promotion for the day.

B2003

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On Oct 23, 12:40*am, wrote:
Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in
London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but
this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than
because of greater inherent safety.

The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly
designed that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near
vulnerable road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists).
On faster roads they are often dangerous to cars too. For some
reasons cement mixers are some of the worst, even sporting signs on
their rears drawing attention to the fact that they are too dangerous
to be allowed on the roads.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV
class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest
killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement
lorries are obviously terrifying, driven by people who understand
that, and dealt with by pedestrians, drivers and cyclist who
understand that.

All the recent reports of cyclists killed by lorries that I have seen have
involved mirrors and lack of under-run protection.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:
The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run
protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed
bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the
ground there would be a high risk of grounding.

Tippers, Skip Lorries and Cement Lorries are not, I believe, required to
have side protection. This is because they frequently work 'off-road'.
With other vehicles the side guards do offer some protection.
In addition the 'exempt' vehicle are often 'owner drivers' on piece
work. The temptation to cut corners is too great for safety. A left
turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed
evidence about whether he was even indicating. A cyclist hit by an
overtaking bus recieved only relatively minor injuries. If it had been a
skip lorry they would have been lucky to survive.
I think ALL HGVs should have a fully functioning 'black box' rather than
just a tacho.

Jim Chisholm

"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a
junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled
up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame.
If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist
is utterly to blame.

On 23 Oct, 10:03, Adrian wrote:
"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a
junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled
up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame.
If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist
is utterly to blame.

The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or
else they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue
moves. Sometimes due to bad luck, the lights change just as you are
trying to get to the front.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating
does make a difference (whether that was the situation in Cambridge I
don't know).

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with
a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon
pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly
to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then
the cyclist is utterly to blame.

The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or else
they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue moves.
Sometimes due to bad luck

Bad luck, my arse. If you've not JUST seen them go red, assume they're
about to go green, and be on the defensive.

Same applies t'other way round - as long as you've not JUST seen 'em go
green, you should assume they're about to go red, and be prepared to stop.

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.

So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation,
but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.

Why the impatience?

So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in
Cambridge I don't know).

What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valour"? "He who
runs away lives to fight another day"?

Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?

On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote:
If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating

Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its
really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the
light changes so what have you gained?

B2003