Carryfast:
I think the message is a cyclist’s life is worth more than a truck driver’s.
Ian58:
Carryfast:
I think the message is a cyclist’s life is worth more than a truck driver’s.0
can still see the tipper drivers hooning about like loons in these also means you get a better angle for viewing that bit of totty in the sports car at the lights
Looks like a terberg after a failed episode of pimp my ride. 
seth 70:
dsbu:
I wouldn’t like to sit that low down, tbh.Its only as low as most buses.
It might be as low as most buses, but I don’t (won’t) drive a bus and would still hate to sit that low, even in a bus!
Ian58:
Carryfast:
I think the message is a cyclist’s life is worth more than a truck driver’s.0
Lycra clad idiots with a death wish ride under the wheels of trucks and the haulage industry has to spend millions changing our equipment,you couldn’t make it up 
Not a new idea, used to be lots of this type of truck about running empty tins around Europe so to improve cargo space they narrowed the cab down so the back of the door was right upto the rear of the cab with the bed on top they were like a rabbit hutch. always lorry and drag as well…
Econic Tractor Unit
Steve
Coffeeholic:
dieseldog999:
looks like a double manners dream. extremely ugly and extremely paractical…walter koops prob has an order in for 100 of them already.you could probably triple man that…work your way round about that one mr vosa…Nothing for them to work round, 2, 3 or more drivers makes zero difference to the multi-manning regs.
ive not really any idea about multi manning though id have thought it would be a scarce thing to see if it was triple manned. would there not be an argument for 1 dude to be in the bunk off duty for 20 hours while 2 and 3 did their double manning stint,then jump in with 20 hours off duty behind him for a 15 spread? he could be spending his spare time in the in cab gym,sauna,shower,or tennis court judging from the room there looks to be in that thing.?.)
If this is all about bringing us down to the cyclists level so we can spot them easier, why didn’t they just re introduce these to the streets of London.
For a trucking forum that, in the main, doesn’t like cyclists, you lot do spend an inordinate amount of time discussing them. Luckily for you CF you’ll never have to drive any of these trucks, but feel free to shoehorn your cycling paranoia in whenever you can.
how about a hi viz tophat for added health and insanity?
They use to have a merc like that years ago and it was nick named the Wendy house. And it looked as bad as that one
nightline:
They use to have a merc like that years ago and it was nick named the Wendy house. And it looked as bad as that one
The wendy house was the volvo fl 10 ,spent many nights out in one of them bad boys 
dieseldog999:
Coffeeholic:
dieseldog999:
looks like a double manners dream. extremely ugly and extremely paractical…walter koops prob has an order in for 100 of them already.you could probably triple man that…work your way round about that one mr vosa…Nothing for them to work round, 2, 3 or more drivers makes zero difference to the multi-manning regs.
ive not really any idea about multi manning though id have thought it would be a scarce thing to see if it was triple manned. would there not be an argument for 1 dude to be in the bunk off duty for 20 hours while 2 and 3 did their double manning
Nope, because you can’t take a daily rest period in a moving vehicle unless it’s a ferry or a train. Two, three or more drivers and it would still be a maximum duty time of 21 hours in 30.
Ian58:
Carryfast:
I think the message is a cyclist’s life is worth more than a truck driver’s.0
As I’ve said on the cyclist crash topic left hand drive would probably make more sense to solve most of the cyclist issues in the urban environment.
BillyHunt:
For a trucking forum that, in the main, doesn’t like cyclists, you lot do spend an inordinate amount of time discussing them. Luckily for you CF you’ll never have to drive any of these trucks, but feel free to shoehorn your cycling paranoia in whenever you can.
I think it is mainly the issue of suicidal ‘cyclists’ which is causing the moves towards the ridiculous low line greenhouse type cabs as shown in the post quoted above.
seth 70:
dsbu:
I wouldn’t like to sit that low down, tbh.Its only as low as most buses.
Carryfast:
Ian58:
Coming to a city near you…0
1
Fine in the urban refuse collection etc environment at low urban type speeds.But not so good in the real world of high speed motorway use where more height means more vision.Or potential high speed motorway impacts where the last thing anyone needs is to run into the back of a trailer where the deck is about waist or chest height and all there is between the driver and the crash is a bit of glass.I think the message is a cyclist’s life is worth more than a truck driver’s.
Don’t run into the back of another truck, it’s not exactly rocket science.
Coach drivers sit just the same and have done for ever and they manage not to rear end other trucks
nickyboy:
Carryfast:
Ian58:
Coming to a city near you…0
1
Fine in the urban refuse collection etc environment at low urban type speeds.But not so good in the real world of high speed motorway use where more height means more vision.Or potential high speed motorway impacts where the last thing anyone needs is to run into the back of a trailer where the deck is about waist or chest height and all there is between the driver and the crash is a bit of glass.I think the message is a cyclist’s life is worth more than a truck driver’s.
Don’t run into the back of another truck, it’s not exactly rocket science.
Coach drivers sit just the same and have done for ever and they manage not to rear end other trucks
Firstly any driver should be able to understand the advantages in forward visibility provided by more height in driving position and vice versa.Bearing in mind that a coach is lighter than a truck in most cases.
As for running into something ahead it is possible for that to happen and be caused by the truck that cut in after an over take and then had to brake for whatever reason amongst other scenarios.In which case the difference between the crash tests involving the FH as opposed to the coach provide a good guide as to the results.However if drivers prefer the idea of sitting in amongst a collision crush impact area rather than sitting above it,especially in the case of the already compromised cab over type,that’s their choice.From my point of view the idea turns an already not ideal design in that regard into a likely death trap.