Ok , so this is where the majority of accidents happen , cyclist in blind spot , squeezing by , trucking didn’t see , not enough mirrors etc … whichever way you look at there’s a problem , it doesn’t matter how many mirrors , cameras , bells & whistles are fitted to the truck you can only look at one place at a time & cyclists seem to forget we have to look out for other road users & pedestrians , not just them , an ideal solution would be to separate the two but that’s just not practical…
So here’s my suggestion based on the fact that it is far easier for a cyclist to see a truck than a truck driver to see a cyclist…
At each junction where possible paint a large red checkered area on the ground just bigger than a truck length , then introduce a ruling to cyclists that they do not enter the boxed area whilst a truck iis in it , they stay back & wait for the truck to perform its maneuver , & then when its safe then can move forward to use the junction , fit cameras to cover the junction & if a cyclists enters it whilst a truck or other large vehicle is in it they can be stopped by the bike police who will be informed by the control room & fined .
If there is a situation where the cyclists are in the junction as a truck approaches there can be a safety are similar to what is there n9w & the truck would wait but no more cyclists are then allowed to move past the truck to get to the front , it would need both groups to work together but it could be done …the onus is on the cyclist to play ball as they are most at risk …but helping the truck driver in this way should save lives , just a little patience from each party at junctions…
It wouldn’t work, because people just don’t obey traffic law. Not a pop at anyone individually but at everyone. Cyclist would enter the box just as truck drivers enter and block yellow junctions. I don’t know what the answer is.
I had a very close one with a cyclist yesterday. I was crossing a narrow, 1 lane bridge and traffic had stopped on the opposite side to let me across, the last vehicle being an 18 tonner. As I came off the bridge I saluted the cars, checked my left hand mirror and when I looked up there was a bike in front of me. He had been behind the rigid and I hadn’t seen him.
I had a wall on my left, stopped vehicles on my right and a bike in the middle of my lane and I have to admit, it turned out way to close for comfort.
I’d love to know how he thought what he was doing was a good idea. But if something happened, I’d be the big bad truck driver.
and these would be the same cyclists that already disobey most of the highwaycode at any given opertunity that you expect to line up like good little boys n girls and not go into the blindspot cos you have put some paint on the road ?
I think it’s a good idea. Some cyclists you see hesitate when behind a truck as they’re not sure what to do for the best, sometimes proceeding gingerly and putting themselves in danger when they should have held back. Some guidance of this kind might just make that little bit of difference.
Latique:
and these would be the same cyclists that already disobey most of the highwaycode at any given opertunity that you expect to line up like good little boys n girls and not go into the blindspot cos you have put some paint on the road ?
good luck with that !
If its laid out & made law & they still chose to ride into the danger zone & put themselves at risk of death then they that is up to them & they suffer the consequences, the driver does not get charged with death by dangerous driving or undue care or anything related to it …
It won’t work because cyclists refuse to cooperate with anything that doesn’t fit in with their idea that they should be able to use the roads as they wish regardless.As in this case where,amongst other issues,the cyclist ignored the laid out cycle way and then blamed the truck driver for the results.
To be honest 99% off cyclist i encounter are ok, sure they get in your bloody way but what can you do but i see so many more suicidle motorcyclists than I do any other but there never seems to be to much of a song and dance about them Compared to cyclists. I had one Thursday come screaming up behind me I was approaching a left hand bend and I know the road there’s a long straight after the bend my intention, get past the bend and sit further to the left give him more room to see on the straight let him go and resume my normal position but no this ■■■■ pulls from behind my arse overtakes me and nearly gets wiped out by a car coming around the bend. He pulled back in so violently to miss her that the back end was all over the place an absolute tool off the highest degree. The thing is I see more acts of stupidness from motor bike riders then I see from the Lycra crew.
Carryfast:
It won’t work because cyclists refuse to cooperate with anything that doesn’t fit in with their idea that they should be able to use the roads as they wish regardless.
Do you not learn anything!
Only last night you admitted on this very forum you rode your bike on pavements, and you incurred log book offences.
Why was that do I ask?
Because it didn’t fit in with your agenda!
Typical truck driver
A painted “don’t really want to describe it as this” (death zone) in red on junctions surely is a idea for debate.
Not sure about cameras, as you would have to have bikes with a VIN.
Although collisions between vehicles and cycles in already highlighted areas the authority’s have already fo-warned, I think it may aid the LGV driver in any investigation.
Carryfast:
It won’t work because cyclists refuse to cooperate with anything that doesn’t fit in with their idea that they should be able to use the roads as they wish regardless.
Do you not learn anything!
Only last night you admitted on this very forum you rode your bike on pavements, and you incurred log book offences.
Why was that do I ask?
Because it didn’t fit in with your agenda!
Typical truck driver
Exactly right…thank goodness I am not a typical truck driver!
Actually this isn’t a bad idea at all, and don’t be shy about calling it a death zone, sod PC, those very words should be in blood red paint on the sections described with billboards at various points spelling out the dangers…if you put your cycle HERE when a lorry is THERE you might well die.
This doesn’t absolve the drivers responsibility in any way, there are too many incompetents doing the job and training them for 40 hours every week by some DCPC (expert in his/her own mind) still won’t make wheat from chaff.
Carryfast:
It won’t work because cyclists refuse to cooperate with anything that doesn’t fit in with their idea that they should be able to use the roads as they wish regardless.
Do you not learn anything!
Only last night you admitted on this very forum you rode your bike on pavements, and you incurred log book offences.
Why was that do I ask?
Because it didn’t fit in with your agenda!
Typical truck driver
And you’d be the typical type of not very bright copper who tells people to ride a bicycle on the road where they can be,and often are,run over by trucks,when there’s a perfectly acceptable alternative off the road,and who can’t understand the advantage of the ‘flexibility’ which log books provided in actually adding to road safety by allowing the driver to take a rest when the guvnor wanted that driver to be driving/working.
While if you’d have read and actually understood what I said ( would have been ) the level of the bs so called ‘offence’ ‘if’ there’d have been a copper or ministry man at the time who’d have been stupid enough to actually look for and prosecute drivers for having a break while the guvnor wanted the driver to be driving/working.While even in the case of tachos the so called ‘offence’ would obviously only be a mode infringement not an hours ‘offence’ assuming all legal break requirements were also complied with.Which,as an underpaid council worker at the time,I can assure you they were.
Carryfast:
And you’d be the typical type of not very bright copper who tells people to ride a bicycle on the road where they can be,and often are,run over by trucks,when there’s a perfectly acceptable alternative off the road,and who can’t understand the advantage of the ‘flexibility’ which log books provided in actually adding to road safety by allowing the driver to take a rest when the guvnor wanted that driver to be driving/working.
While if you’d have read and actually understood what I said ( would have been ) the level of the bs so called ‘offence’ ‘if’ there’d have been a copper or ministry man at the time who’d have been stupid enough to actually prosecute a driver for having a break while the guvnor wanted the driver to be driving/working.While even in the case of tachos the so called ‘offence’ would obviously only be a mode infringement not an hours ‘offence’ assuming all legal break requirements were also complied with.Which,as an underpaid council worker at the time,I can assure you they were.
Can you give be 6hrs until I win one of these on eBay so I can decipher your post.
Carryfast:
And you’d be the typical type of not very bright copper who tells people to ride a bicycle on the road where they can be,and often are,run over by trucks,when there’s a perfectly acceptable alternative off the road,and who can’t understand the advantage of the ‘flexibility’ which log books provided in actually adding to road safety by allowing the driver to take a rest when the guvnor wanted that driver to be driving/working.
While if you’d have read and actually understood what I said ( would have been ) the level of the bs so called ‘offence’ ‘if’ there’d have been a copper or ministry man at the time who’d have been stupid enough to actually prosecute a driver for having a break while the guvnor wanted the driver to be driving/working.While even in the case of tachos the so called ‘offence’ would obviously only be a mode infringement not an hours ‘offence’ assuming all legal break requirements were also complied with.Which,as an underpaid council worker at the time,I can assure you they were.
Can you give be 6hrs until I win one of these on eBay so I can decipher your post.
Unfortunately even that won’t be any substitute for common sense which is what it would actually take to understand what I’ve said.I’m guessing you’ve never actually driven a truck under log books as opposed to tachos and therefore you don’t have a clue as to what I’ve described.
Carryfast:
Unfortunately even that won’t be any substitute for common sense which is what it would actually take to understand what I’ve said.I’m guessing you’ve never actually driven a truck under log books as opposed to tachos and therefore you don’t have a clue as to what I’ve described.
I understand that you use rules and regs to suit yourself.
Carryfast:
Unfortunately even that won’t be any substitute for common sense which is what it would actually take to understand what I’ve said.I’m guessing you’ve never actually driven a truck under log books as opposed to tachos and therefore you don’t have a clue as to what I’ve described.
I understand that you use rules and regs to suit yourself.
So are you saying that using the flexibility provided by log books to take ‘more’ breaks during a shift than legally required and than allowed by the guvnor,and that riding a bicycle on the pavement wherever and whenever possible,to avoid involvement with large vehicles etc,are all beneficial to road safety,regardless of so called rules and regs,or not.Yes or no.
