TKs and Traders used to have a window down in the n/s passenger footwell.
And/or a window in the lower half of the passenger door
And a wide angle mirror down on the front n/s bumper corner
might allow the driver to see cyclists sneaking in on the nearside.
Do any truck designers read this forum?
Or how about teaching the cyclists not to sneak down the N/S in the first place. That seems to be the time most of them get hurt or killed. I keep saying it, but how much more idiot proofing do we need to do to our trucks. Not saying its always the cyclists faults, but most of the time it seems to be. How hard can it be for a cyclist to see a big truck and keep out of its way.
Here we go again.As I have said before it does not matter how many ways you have to see the cyclist if the driver is not looking he will not see him.
damoq you are sounding a little biased with your view.Yes the cyclists are stupid to go where they go but also there are many times when the truck driver does not see the cyclist simply because he is not looking.
As I said in another thread next time you are out and about take a look at a truck driver when he is sitting at a red light.
I have done it many times and just last week I watched one texting while at a red light.I have also seen a situation where the truck driver saw the cyclist and deliberately drove off started turning and then stopped before hitting the cyclist.( totally unprofessional)
Think you will find you are wrong about it being mostly the cyclists fault as well.Not taking sides but more needs to be done by both parties.Remember we are meant to be the professionals…not them.
+1
You can be at a tight junction and be checking the other mirror waiting for a gap for the tail swing and miss the vital moment when a cyclist decides you are taking too long and goes for it.
I used to cycle from Leyton to Bond street every day, and the mentallity of many cyclists is that they are on bikes to go faster than the traffic. unfortunately that means they do not take kindly to stopping for any reason!
There is no obvious answer to this conflict, we truck drivers keep checking our 6 mirrors as best we can and move off slowly, and get all the abuse when we miss spotting the cyclist with no lights dressed in black, and apparently if we all were forced to ride bikes it would be better. But cyclists are completely unregulated, and I love the idea of making them sit in a truck, but there is no framework to make this happen.
A television advert showing it from the truck drivers point of view would probably do the most good.
When the renault premium 1st came out it had a window in the bottom of the door and the passenger window slid back like the old landrovers. My view is that cyclists should have to obey road markings, rather than weaving between vehicles. I saw a cyclist knocked off by a motorbike last week, both were passing stationary queues…
Really I do not agree that you can miss a cyclist coming up your inside unless you are very unlucky.I drove in London for over 12 years and never had a problem although I realise now it seems to a war between the 2 groups for some sad reason.
Of course cyclists think they can go quicker than London traffic probably because they can when it is busy.
Sitting a cyclist in a truck would no good.It would be the same as putting a truck driver on a bike.How long would it take before they became impatient and went up the inside or outside of standing traffic?
I saw a cyclist knocked off by a motorbike last week, both were passing stationary queues…
And what is wrong with that…perfectly legal.
albion1971:
Really I do not agree that you can miss a cyclist coming up your inside unless you are very unlucky.I drove in London for over 12 years and never had a problem although I realise now it seems to a war between the 2 groups for some sad reason.
Of course cyclists think they can go quicker than London traffic probably because they can when it is busy.
Sitting a cyclist in a truck would no good.It would be the same as putting a truck driver on a bike.How long would it take before they became impatient and went up the inside or outside of standing traffic?
You seem to be trying to make the case for giving cyclists some bs special dispensation to committ dangerous overtaking manouvres when there’s no reason as to why they shouldn’t be treated as every other road user in that situation.
So for argument’s sake suppose we’re both driving cars and you’re indicating to turn left or right and I can see enough room to overtake you while you’re starting the maouvre and then go for it.If you’re saying that you’d be in the wrong in that situation,assuming that I manage to run into the side of you as you make the turn,then you’re making the case for dangerous anarchy to apply on the roads.
While assuming that really is what you’re saying then just suppose that you’re riding a cycle or a motorcycle and indicate to turn and I decide to overtake you as you make the turn thereby knocking you off the bike.Who’s in the wrong in that case in your view 
.
Let me guess the whole thing then suddenly gets turned back against the driver because cyclists and motorcyclists are the most vulnerable road users so have carte blanche,in your view,to do as they like on the road,while it’s always going to be the least vulnerable road user’s fault.If you’re a driver of a motor vehicle good luck with that because I’m sure that there’s plenty of motor cyclists,let alone cyclists,who already think that they’re in the right to overtake vehicles,on either side,which are indicating to make a turn. 
You are misunderstanding what I was saying I think!?!?!
I saw a cyclist knocked off by a motorbike last week, both were passing stationary queues…
This is the statement I was referring to…Where does it say anything about vehicles signalling?
My biggest bugbear of cyclists is that they will use the road when the pavement has been marked out as a cyclist and pedestrian right of way. They still use the road and that causes trucks to slow down to bike speeds even if the road is dual carriageway.
I would guarantee that the only reason that they have been granted rights to use the pavements is that they have complained about the safety of that road for themselves.
albion1971:
You are misunderstanding what I was saying I think!?!?!I saw a cyclist knocked off by a motorbike last week, both were passing stationary queues…
This is the statement I was referring to…Where does it say anything about vehicles signalling?
I was referring to what seems like a generalistion on your part,in blaming drivers,in most cases,on the basis that their drivers aren’t using their mirrors,for the type of turning accident,as in the case of cyclists moving alongside trucks,while those trucks are starting a turning manouvre.In which case it’s a reasonable assumption that their drivers would be indicating their intention.
I’d actually removed that part of your post concerning the motorcycle cycle incident for that reason.
So I’ll ask again.Assuming that a cyclist has indicated an intention to turn left or right and a driver of a motor vehicle decides to overtake,thereby colliding with the turning cyclist,who would be to blame in that case,the cyclist for making the turn,or the vehicle driver for overtaking as the cyclist was making an indicated turn .
The thing that was wrong was that both were weaving around the traffic, cyclist didnt see the bike as he didnt look, motor bike was passing stationary traffic in an imaginary lane between the oncoming traffic. Both as at fault as each other, which was the general consensus of the police too.
Quite a sensible article appeared in The Economist when the government were talking about introducing a new offence for causing death by reckless cycling.
An extract:
Broadly speaking, the world of London cycle commuting divides into two ideological camps, united only loosely by our yearning for better cycle lanes and fewer horrible drivers. There is a confrontational camp of eco-rebels on wheels who feel morally superior to carbon-belching motorists and sufficiently persecuted by motorised carriages of death that they have a right in self-defence to jump red lights, mount the pavement (and ride the wrong way up one way streets at night without lights while dressed all in black and listening to music on headphones).
Then there are square bikers like me, who sport multiple flashing lights, reflective vests and ride with their corduroys tucked into their socks (apologies for the mental image, but I fear it is true), and who stop at red lights and obey other traffic rules as a point of principle.
I want van drivers to stop trying to kill me as much as the next rider, but I don’t think confronting them into good behaviour is likely to work. I want bicycling to become boringly normal and un-rebellious, so that you don’t need Lycra and an attitude to take it up, and the roads become so infested with us that car drivers simply have to adapt to us and town halls realise that providing better cycle lanes might be a vote winner. I have ridden in countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands where cycling is a joy, and the secret is that grannies and men in suits are a part of the throng, and that glassy-eyed mother on the school run has her brood of children strapped into a bicycle built like a wheelbarrow, not a car built like a tank.
Albion1971 has it in a nutshell, it’s basically down to the driver to be fully observant. If you keep an eye on your passenger side mirrors you will see any such idiotic cyclist ride up the inside, cyclists are mostly stupid and think they have the right to go where they want, so most do. Things you can do to prevent idiot riding up the inside include stopping so close to the curb that there is no room for the afore said idiot to ride along side your vehicle in the first place … Problem solved 
As for the little mirror in the passenger door ? They still put them in some trucks here, there was one in my old Columbia and it had that strange but usefull magnifying sticky stuff on it to enable wide visibility. Another good thing to have is a curb mirrow fitted to the top of thet door. Basically just do the first thing and drive leaving no room for them to ride between your and the curb.
When I did my first driving job here I was sitting at traffic lights in Albany NY, there were 2 lanes each way and I left a gap for an old couple in a Cadillac to turn across the front of my truck into a gateway, as they did so a cyclist rode up my inside and hit the car full on, he went over the roof and the cops were called, the cop asked me what happened and I told him as it happened, he told me to pull to one side and I ran over the extremely expensive sports bike and flattened it 
The cop said it was not my fault or the fault of the car driver but the cyclist got a ticket and no doubt a very expensive new bike bill
Carryfast I am not really sure exactly what your point is here.My assumptions are mostly based on what I have seen but also what I have read and my own experience with cyclists.If you are ever in London or any big city try standing at a set of lights and watch the average truck driver as they sit there and you might understand more what I am getting at.Of course it is not wise for a cyclist to go up the inside of a truck at a set of red lights especially if the truck is signalling left but it amazes me how many drivers on here seem to think it is so easy to miss them before they enter into a blindspot.If they are constantly checking their mirrors it is very unlikely they will not see the cyclist as he or she approaches.
Regarding your question the way you have worded it (some important facts missing) it it would be the motor vehicles fault.
albion1971:
Carryfast I am not really sure exactly what your point is here…
You wouldn’t be the first and you definitely won’t be the last… 
albion1971:
Carryfast I am not really sure exactly what your point is here.My assumptions are mostly based on what I have seen but also what I have read and my own experience with cyclists.If you are ever in London or any big city try standing at a set of lights and watch the average truck driver as they sit there and you might understand more what I am getting at.Of course it is not wise for a cyclist to go up the inside of a truck at a set of red lights especially if the truck is signalling left but it amazes me how many drivers on here seem to think it is so easy to miss them before they enter into a blindspot.If they are constantly checking their mirrors it is very unlikely they will not see the cyclist as he or she approaches.Regarding your question the way you have worded it (some important facts missing) it it would be the motor vehicles fault.
On the mirrors thing we’ve had the same argument before.In my view,assuming that a driver isn’t driving a truck on it’s mirrors ( as that driver should have been instructed from day 1 ) correctly,which includes while stopped,then it won’t just be cyclists that the driver in question will come into conflict with very quickly.It’ll also be street furniture,cars and pedestrians.
As for the question it’s quite simple.For example cyclist ahead positioned wherever in the road about to turn right or left having made a suitable signal of intent and then the motor vehicle driver decides to overtake said cyclist causing a collision as the cyclist turns into the overtaking vehicle.
Assuming that you’re saying that’s the fault of the motor vehicle driver in that case then why is it you’re then taking the opposite view when it’s the reverse situation of a cyclist overtaking a turning motor vehicle,on whichever side,that’s making an indicated turn,thereby causing a collision . 
In the case of the motor vehicle driver you’re saying that it’s the motor vehicle driver’s fault having not seen the cyclist’s overtaking manouvre in the mirrors during the turn.While in the case of the opposite situation of a motor vehicle driver colliding with a turning cyclist you’re then saying that it’s not the cyclist’s fault but it’s the motor vehicle driver’s fault for overtaking during the indicated turning manouvre made by the cyclist.So why the two opposing incostinsent views and double standards .
It’s my bet that you’re just one of those who wants to introduce the dangerous situation that blame depends on the vulnerability of the road user in question regardless of the common sense rules of the road and who was actually to blame for the accident.
A cyclist sticks a camera to their head and they think that makes them invincible. For me they put themselves in dangerous positions and they put their life in a lorry drivers hands and they have no idea how good that driver is or isn’t. Even an good experienced driver can go into a day dream(maybe money troubles or family worries) and miss that cyclist sneak up his nearside.
If a driver has just passed a cyclist, then turns a corner causing harm to them, then they deserve the book thrown at them. No excuse for something like that.
However if a cyclist takes it upon himself to come up the N/S and into the blindspot of a vehicle, then they deserve the to bear the responsibility of whetever happens to them. I’m quite sure somewhere in the highway code is states that you shouldn’t attempt to pass a vehicle on the inside anyway. Highway code applies to cyclists too afterall.
As for failing to spot a cyclist entering your blindspot, it’s probably quite easily done these days. There is already a million and one things to watch out for on our roads as it is.
Carryfast you have got it all wrong or you are not understanding what I am saying.I have never said that the cyclist is not at fault if he goes up the inside of a vehicle when it is signalling left.
What I am saying is if some truck drivers were a bit more observant and actually looked for cyclists there would be fewer collisions.
Simple as that.
I am not taking sides I just would like to see both parties taking more responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming each other all the time.
albion1971:
Carryfast you have got it all wrong or you are not understanding what I am saying.I have never said that the cyclist is not at fault if he goes up the inside of a vehicle when it is signalling left.
What I am saying is if some truck drivers were a bit more observant and actually looked for cyclists there would be fewer collisions.
Simple as that.
I am not taking sides I just would like to see both parties taking more responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming each other all the time.
The issue can only really be one of just black and white blame or innocence considering the severity of the charges and penalties involved.As I’ve said we’re actually possibly talking about the difference between a driver’s freedom or inprisonment and probably life changing results in the case of many of these types of accidents.
In which case the case for the prosecution would obviously rely in large part on that issue of the use of mirrors,while the case for the defence,as I’ve pointed out,would,hopefully,at least to some extent,rely on at least the question of wether the case is being erroneously decided on the relative ‘vulnerability’ of the road users involved rather than who was ‘actually’ to ‘blame’ for the accident. 
Assuming that I was a driver who was unlucky enough to need such a defence I’d hope that the defence would raise that issue which I’ve described as to what seems like double standards being used against motor vehicle users in the case of turning accidents resulting from being overtaken by cyclists while making a signalled turning manouvre.
By the way the fact that the issue seems to be more one related to cyclists,as opposed to motorcyclists,both being relatively similar in terms of vulnerability on the road and very similar from the point of view of size and visibility,it seems that the issue has more to do with what cyclists are doing wrong,compared to their motorcyclist counterparts,than what truck drivers might or might not be doing wrong.