New TfL's HGV's can't see you for s*** poster

There we go.

much more realistic;

(not knowing much about PS, I end up 'painting' the blue lane in, which took a while and look rather shoddy).

Perfect.

Everyone does realise that the current TFL road planning puts all road users on the same busy stretches of road and then attempts to segregate them.

Congestion is much worse these days, not just because of increased usage, but the closure of alternative routes.

I think that poster is bollocks. It's scaremongering to people who don't cycle not to start.

Maybe. But I had a word with a cyclist the other day who had squeezed alongside a tipper truck at a junction; she was genuinely amazed that it is in anyway a dangerous thing to do. She's already cycling; she needs to know what is unsafe. Maybe this poster would have helped. She had also never heard of Cycle Training. Perhaps Tfl could include on its posters information about all the free training that is available?

RPM^^ and Wigan^

Very good points.

I suspect that the aim is to get cyclists to think about where the blind spot of a large vehicle is and to try not to put themselves there (which obviously differs from being put there by the driver). Yes, all of the cyclist realistically would have had to move through the field of vision to get there, but that doesn't automatically mean that the driver has seen them. A cyclist could move from the field of vision into a blind spot without the driver realising it. Afterall, a HGV driver might be looking somewhere other than at his mirrors before making a manouver from a junction. In fact I would be rather worried if he was looking at his mirrors while pulling out into a junction. There are more things to look at from the cab of a HGV than just mirrors, paper, phone. The time required to move from the field of vision into a blind spot could be as little as half a second. Cyclists should be managing their own risk as well.

That's quite a weak criticislm.

Is it realistic to expect this of HGV drivers when London's cycle routes are placed on major arterial roads? Drivers don't own the roads, and neither do cyclists.
I agree, cyclists should be managing their risk, to the best of their ability. That doesn't absolve the driver from managing his/her risk - which is much more important as their potential for harm is much higher.
There is a small area where the driver cannot see what is beside the lorry. Currently it is seen as ok to drive through that area and blame the cyclist or pedestrian who is run down and killed. My view is that if a driver says he couldn't see the victim because of a blind spot it is an admission of negligence, he/she drove through an area they couldn't see. We don't accept drivers on motorways putting a paper bag over their head, why should we accept them driving over cyclists and pedestrians in an area they knew they couldn't see?

That truck is driving itself.

I agree, cyclists should be managing their risk, to the best of their ability. That doesn't absolve the driver from managing his/her risk - which is much more important as their potential for harm is much higher.
There is a small area where the driver cannot see what is beside the lorry. Currently it is seen as ok to drive through that area and blame the cyclist or pedestrian who is run down and killed. My view is that if a driver says he couldn't see the victim because of a blind spot it is an admission of negligence, he/she drove through an area they couldn't see. We don't accept drivers on motorways putting a paper bag over their head, why should we accept them driving over cyclists and pedestrians in an area they knew they couldn't see?

Exactly - I was trying to phrase that myself.

Cyclists obviously do have responsibility, but 'blind spots' should not be acceptable.

All of these bikes are in the drivers blind spot - because the haulage company is too tight to buy enough fucking mirrors.

Perhaps Tfl could include on its posters information about all the free training that is available?

+1 Definitely think more people should go on the two hour 1 to 1 tuition. Only costs £8 or often free!

My favourite was the two stickrs that had went>>

"Suicide".............."Right Side"

On the back of the lorry, short and to the point

My favourite was the two stickrs that had went>>

"Suicide".............."Right Side"

On the back of the lorry, short and to the point

the other day i was holding back at 0.1mph behind a left slow turning bus and a random guy tried to squeeze on the side of the bus. i stopped and watched as the stupid got boxed in. hopefully lesson learned. can scrap the poster now.

Video that goes with the latest press release:
YouTube- Cycle Smart

Another take;

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/forum/discussion/598/diagrams-of-hgv-blind-spots-from-nozzer-these-could-save-your-life/#Item_0

That really is only half the message. Cyclists need to be aware of and manage the risk as well as lorry drivers. Unfortunately cyclists and lorry drivers are as bad as each other when it comes to interacting with each other.

That could well be the 2 metre gap between them.

I never go up the inside of a lorry or bus when its the next to cross the line at a junction so i try to slip in the space between it and the vehicle behind then follow it out and move over once its clear (plan A). Failing this i try to hover around the back corner (plan B) but inevitably some fucking nodder (or several as clearly illustrated by the TFL poster) comes along on his £70 MTB and goes screaming up the inside only to get it my fucking way whilst executing plan A or B.

What cracks me up is that poster could be a photograph of any single junction in London (bland grey buildings/pavement aside). Educate the fucking nodders that what i say!

Rant over.

I don't see how the blue lanes come into it? They would only confuse the message, and the vast majority of London's famous 'London Roads' have no cycle lanes whatsoever, of any colour.

the blue lane make people think it's okay to undertake vehicle at junctions.

the blue lane make people think it's okay to undertake vehicle at junctions.

This.

K&C Cyclists out riding with someone from K&C Council on Monday night - and this exact thing happened.

Upon being asked said council person 'we're removing them as fast as we can on our roads'

TFL routes need TFL to remove them sadly.

the blue lane make people think it's okay to undertake vehicle at junctions.

I don't buy this theory anymore. Some cyclists are just determined to be ahead regardless.

And on the other hand a cycle lane will make drivers aware that cyclists are likely to be there and are more likely to check both sides before turning.

I don't buy this theory anymore. Some cyclists are just determined to be ahead regardless.

And on the other hand a cycle lane will make drivers aware that cyclists are likely to be there and are more likely to check both sides before turning.

i very much agree with you. any sort of road marks make easier to drive. has anyone ever driven on a large road that has had new asphalt laid on and therefore no road marks? it's nearly impossible to drive in a decent line. a huge blue mark would make drivers more aware of where they should not go. it's the riders' responsibility not to try stupid undertakes as much as the driver has to respect them.

Exactly - I was trying to phrase that myself.

Cyclists obviously do have responsibility, but 'blind spots' should not be acceptable.

All of these bikes are in the drivers blind spot - because the haulage company is too tight to buy enough fucking mirrors.

Well said. I concur.

Absence of cycle lanes will never stop undertaking. As well as those determined to get ahead, i think virtual cycle lanes tend to occur on roads even without any paint. Cars pull out to overtake cyclists between junctions, then if there is enough room (and particularly if there are more cyclists around) they tend to keep out as they approach junctions.

But painted cycle lanes invite you to pay less attention to what you are undertaking. The highway code even allows undertaking by cars when the vehicles in the outer lane are in a slow moving queue. Cyclists reasonably take the same approach, only to get caught out when their cycle lane fails to provide the right of way that a full lane would. Cycle lanes are dangerous because they promise more than they deliver.

In theory there are two possible solutions to this problem. Stop cyclists undertaking lorries, or make it safe for cyclists to undertake lorries.

Doing a bit of both isn't necessarily good: If most cyclists don't undertake lorries, the risk to the few who don't know better will go up. If it's mostly safe to undertake lorries, more people will do it casually and be caught out when it isn't.

And looking closer there are more problems with both solutions: Stopping cyclists undertaking does nothing for the ones who are overtaken by a lorry, while the size and geometry of lorries (let alone the costs and legal inertia) probably make it impossible to ever make undertaking sufficiently safe.

To actually improve things, both sides need to take more care, and technical fixes can help by making that care easier and more effective. Cycle lanes are a poor solution because although they encourage motorists to take more care, they also enocurage cyclists to take less care.

The main problem with this poster for me is that if you are a cyclist in london that has never driven a car and obviously doesn't know that undertaking is wrong then you wouldn't know what a blind spot is.

obvious to you or I but not the next guy.

i very much agree with you. any sort of road marks make easier to drive. has anyone ever driven on a large road that has had new asphalt laid on and therefore no road marks? it's nearly impossible to drive in a decent line. a huge blue mark would make drivers more aware of where they should not go. it's the riders' responsibility not to try stupid undertakes as much as the driver has to respect them.

Another way to see it is that a lack of any road markings means the drver has to concentrate harder and will drive more slowly and cautiously.

obvious to you or I but not the next guy.

me?

Another way to see it is that a lack of any road markings means the drver has to concentrate harder and will drive more slowly and cautiously.

This is plausible, I've seen drivers end up being careful when the traffic light brokes, ironically more careful than the temporary light that was set up.

However I doubt the lack of road markings would encourage them to concentrate harder, we do need road marking to know when's a junction approaching/where to turn.

I don't buy this theory anymore. Some cyclists are just determined to be ahead regardless.

oh - whilst out - we asked them. 'the lane is there, must be ok' was the reply.
They hadn't heard of the problem with that - they had heard the Mayor telling them to get to the front tho :-/

I do agree that at commuter times though 'GET AHEAD' is the mandate. I wonder how many look ahead, would they ride into a hole into a junction having not seen it?

And on the other hand a cycle lane will make drivers aware that cyclists are likely to be there and are more likely to check both sides before turning.

you have to hope - the first few cases of issues on the superhighway will be very interesting for this...