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

simply to produced a point that no matter how many poster they'll make, cyclists will always go on the inside due to the placement of the cycle lane/feeder.

Ed has a good point; that picture on a road with a cycle lane/ASL would look absurdly contradictory.
I think the difficulty is in getting a more complex point (that there are times when it is ok to use a cycle lane/ASL and times when it is not) across in a graphic way. Maybe this photo poster will make some people think about where they position themselves on the road but infrastructure, as Ed points out, seems to undermine it.
OK, I see.

More like:

often happens when a lorry turns left, hitting a cyclist on the nearside

or when cyclists stop too close to the front of a stopped lorry.

All good points above

But, if you stay back, you're also safer, so it's not all bad is it?

All good points above

But, if you stay back, you're also safer, so it's not all bad is it?

The point they're trying to make is that the big blue bits on the road say "come, little cyclists, come, and ride along me, I will make you safe. Look! You can get to the front of the queue! Aren't I beguiling" whereas the poster says the opposite.

What are most cyclists are going to pay the most attention to? The large, attractive, ubiquitous blue bits that all the other cyclists are already using, or the occasional grubby billboard that doesn't make contextual sense?

More like:

The blue "cycle here" sections are pretty much spot on for showing the lorries blind spot.

Interesting diagram in terms of road safety.

(I am aware they have been shopped in)

Anyone else seen 'If you can't see my mirrors. I can't see you' signs on the back of lorries. This "safe" zone is exactly where you will not be seen.....

You won't be seen, but if you're behind them they can only kill you by engaging reverse gear.

Apologies for not having read through the entire thread in case this has already been brought up, but isn't the elephant in the room here the fact we allow HGVs into built up urban areas?

They DESTROY the streets, kill more cyclists than any other vehicle, and could easy be stopped at outer-city depots for their loads to be transferred to vans, thus also creating more jobs - albeit more WVMs - the problem of which can be resolved by holding van drivers up to the same (or at least similar) standards to which HGVs are supposed to.

And between cities they could be replaced by trains.

Basically, fuck HGVs.

More like:

That's incredibly powerful because it demonstrates not just how clearly the cycle lane attracts bikes down the inside, but also how the ASL attracts bikes generally forward down the right hand side of the lorry (not necesarily a bad thing, but completing the absolutely contrary message they give off in contrast to the message of the poster).

Can we have this in large please, so that we can print it out and plaster it everywhere.

My exact sentiment, hence the request for a large one, and find a way to convey the message to TfL more effectively, via the LCC perhaps?

Apologies for not having read through the entire thread in case this has already been brought up, but isn't the elephant in the room here the fact we allow HGVs into built up urban areas?
.

It's a very good and important point, Paris banned HGV in their cities in the day time and have fewer fatalies (zero in 2011), of course Paris is a very different city compared to London so it's a bit of an unfair comparison, but does show the effect of what can be done to the No1 cyclist killer on the road.

Why don't you guys contact TfL and tell them.

Oh done that already and inthe past, they're just ignoring the bull as usual.

The poster is absolutely fine, as demonstrated by how much people have had to 'shop it to make it non-acceptable. Presumably, this isn't really an anti-poster protest, but an anti-cycle lane protest? ;)

My exact sentiment, hence the request for a large one, and find a way to convey the message to TfL more effectively, via the LCC perhaps?

You're a member, Ed--get involved, make your voice heard.

this has already been brought up...could easy be stopped at outer-city depots for their loads to be transferred to vans, thus also creating more jobs

1: On the total vehicle movements, road space, congestion, exhaust emissions etc. do the math HGVs exist because they make sense
2: On the economics of building transshipment depots, buying fleets of small vehicles, hiring thousands of new drivers, enlarging loading bays and staffing them to cope with shipments split into multiple loads etc. do the math HGVs exist because they make sense

You might think saving lives (I don't think you'd save any lives, but let's humour you for a moment on this delusion) would be worth any cost, but it isn't. Economics doesn't work that way. If you reduce economic efficiency by your HGV ban, that means fewer resources available for other things. Maybe you'd stop treating cancer in patients over 70; that would cover the cost, and all that would happen would be a load of old people not having their lives needlessly prolonged. So to save a few cyclists (which you wouldn't anyway), you want to kill off their grandparents? Sounds like a fair swap, why not write it up as a serious, fully costed policy document, you can even reuse a title which is long out of copyright; "A Modest Proposal"

^ yup

but like tester said there is no incentive to do so.

Don't worry I know it's Jake, can't find it either.

ftfy

The externalities of requiring a different cab design are insignificant compared to those of a city-wide HGV ban.

^This, and I already pointed out long ago that there seems to be no good reason not to put the cab in front of the front axle, so the drivers' eye line would be on a level with everybody else. The chassis already exist for cranes, airport service vehicles etc.

Ban all Addison Lee drivers immediately, and then ban any driver that joins the company.

ftfy

The externalities of requiring a different cab design are insignificant compared to those of a city-wide HGV ban.

And the economics of switching to city-centre specific tractor units are a bit less implausible that repacking everything into vans. It would be a logistical challenge, but there could even be savings from optimising long-distance and city centre tractor units differently.

But this is missing construction traffic, so also extend industrial health and safety regulation to road transport. It's crazy that building sites can kill people to get their concrete delivered on time and still claim to meet their lost-time accident targets because the accidents weren't on site.

A while ago there was some media coverage of steered axle trailers. Boffins at some university had come up with an optimal algorithm for steering them - at high speeds they do something clever to avoid tipping or jack-knifing, but at city-centre speeds they steer the trailer wheels to follow the same path as the front wheels. That would mean: if the front wheels haven't run you over, the trailer wheels probably won't either.

There were lots of other potential (non-cycling) benefits too, and as trailers apparently have a relatively short service life, it's a change that could be made much quicker than replacing lorry tractor units. Anyone heard any more about it?

With that kind of technology + long-distance specific tractor units and out-of-town transfer depots, road trains become plausible.

tractor units...tractor units ...steered axle trailers...trailers...tractor units

Are tractor/trailers the problem? I thought the big 3 and 4 axle rigids (tippers, concrete mixers etc.) were the ones killing cyclists.

All cycle lanes do is create a false sense of a protective bubble for inexperienced cyclists.

Reduce speed limits on major commuter routes, with high pedestrian/ cyclist volume.

Restricted access on the same major routes to HGV type vehicles, especially perhaps at peak times.

Make every cyclist take some kind of training/ test especially if they have no drivers licence. Cycling on a road with no road knowledge/ experience = insanity.

Construct HGVs out of pillows and marshmallow.

Finally, in an ideal world, bike only roads.

Why would you switch at all? Why not have cabs that can do both?

The load/range regimes are so different that there might be a case for specialist units, especially if there is an artificial incentive (like congestion charging) to use low emission vehicles in the city. Long distance motorway work needs a 300kW continous power plant with 3MWh net fuel capacity, whereas city deliveries only need 75kW continous/150kW peak and 200kWh fuel/battery, assuming charging points at loading docks to allow recharging during unloading.