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

Making any vehicle with an axle weight of over a certain limit be electrically propelled would also remove a major source of city centre pollution.

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

Cyclists are usually the fastest vehicle on the road during rush hours, and they are getting killed by vehicles manoeuvring badly, not going too fast.

True, good point. I reckon though that if a slower limit is in place, even if the traffic is moving slower than it, the lower speed limit just implies a more "drive safer" kind of attitude? I know that if I drive through a 20mph school zone, you definitely tend to be checking about you mirrors and generally driving in a more controlled manner, just in case.

Cyclists are usually the fastest vehicle on the road during rush hours, and they are getting killed by vehicles manoeuvring badly, not going too fast.

I do not live in London or a major city so maybe my view is a little different. If cycling on the road where I am, you are definitely going slower/ the same speed as the rest of the traffic as there are no cycle/ bus lanes to speak of.

Our cycle lanes are on the pavement ;p...Which has a lot of downfalls of course, but at least when it comes to crossing junctions, where the road splits the cycle lane, inexperienced cyclists treat the cycle lane as more of a path/ pedestrian type mentality thus checking for incoming/ turning traffic.

The on road cycle lanes that go past junctions, inexperienced cyclists may very well have no idea that vehicles may turn left into them. A cycle lane is only for bikes, right.

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

Because then you don't have to replace the entire fleet before you ban old-style cabs from cities.

• what tester said.

• it might allow road trains which would be better than lorries nose-to tailing on the motorway as they do now, and require fewer drivers, and probably be more fuel efficient.

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

That makes sense if rear wheels cutting corners is a significant part of the problem, because the rear axles on long rigids do that even more than articulated trailers. (I don't think it's the whole of the problem - suspect poor visibility and blind spots are more significant.) Steered rear axles would help here too, and again would pay back in other ways too. The 'driving force' for such a change could come from extending construction site health & safety law to the full impact of the construction.

Steered rear axles would help here too.

Very expensive on a conventional rigid truck, since they all use live axles. More or less trivial if drive switches to Diesel-Electric, like railways have been for over half a century.

There's certainly scope for better freight consolidation, but a lot of detail to be worked through. It's difficult. In the meantime, the LCC's five-point plan outlines the most effective measures that can be taken more quickly and which won't break the bank.

http://www.no-more-lethal-lorries.org.uk/

(Repost.)

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"

Your derisive sarcasm has hardly engendered me towards your point of view, but I accept there may be facts to the argument behind which you've obfuscated with petty twattishness.

Here's another idea then - no HGVs in urban areas between 7am and 10am, 4pm and 7pm. I believe Paris operates a similar rule and it doesn't seem to be hurting them too much financially. Also no HGVs at all that don't have the full gamut of modern mirroring, rather than the current cop out of no 'new' HGVs not having such mirrors. I'm sure it's not going to bankrupt any hauliers if they have to spend a few hundred quid sticking some mirrors on their cabs.

That makes sense if rear wheels cutting corners is a significant part of the problem, because the rear axles on long rigids do that even more than articulated trailers. ...

Or a little less sloppily, the amount of cutting in depends on the length of wheelbase, the amount the front pulls out, and the minimum turn radius. Given enough road space to their right, articulated lorries can turn their trailer wheels on the spot which means they could follow a sharp curve without their trailer wheels cutting in at all - something i notice while constructing these diagrams a while ago.

There's certainly scope for better freight consolidation, but a lot of detail to be worked through. It's difficult. In the meantime, the LCC's five-point plan outlines the most effective measures that can be taken more quickly and which won't break the bank.

http://www.no-more-lethal-lorries.org.uk/

(Repost.)

But but but, we're having fun dreaming up ways to rebuild the world to our whims and spend other people's money... (And maybe freight infrastructure with road-trains would drift into getting more freight onto real trains.)

Seriously though, what does the current state-of-the-art consist of for point 3 of the LCC list?

Seriously though, what does the current state-of-the-art consist of for point 3 of the LCC list?

Cameras, sensors, mirrors, better cab design, sideguards--Charlie might be along to explain it better, he's the expert.

That advert would be more realistic with a tipper truck/skip lorry on it.

I don't know about elsewhere in London, but in the Victoria/Belgravia/Pimlico area, it isn't the 40ft HGV delivery lorries (can't say I've seen many), its all the construction traffic up and down Victoria Street and Grosvenor Place (where I work). Is Grosvenor Place part of some sort of rat run (like Park Lane and Edgware Road) where you can go North to South to avoid the congestion charge?

The current TfL ad does have a 32 ton tipper lorry in it, we don't usually see them from that angle.

These lorries could be much safer if the cab was lower, they all claim exemption from European directive 2000/40/EC in order to have front bumpers 200-400 mm higher than other lorries. They are much more likely to push you down rather than push you away. We think there is no valid reason why these lorries should be exempt from the rules for other lorries. It is also possible to specify lower cabs with larger windows making cyclists more visible.

There are still many lorries out there without a forward facing class VI mirror which shows the area in front and to left of front, where most crashes with cyclists happen, in the risk zone.

We also support the companies that fit side sensors or cameras to help them notice cyclists and pedestrians near by.

Having said all that the most important thing is for the driver to concentrate and drive very cautiously on streets where cyclists rides (=all streets in London).

TfL are very keen that cyclists know about the information they are giving out to drivers and the special training courses they have helped develop with on bike experience sessions.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/hgvs_and_road_safety.aspx

The lorry I saw at London Bridge which was driving along, whilst pushing a woman along the road (on her back, feet on the bumper) having driven over her bike, had a front facing mirror.

They don't seem to do any good, at least not in that case.

The lorry I saw at London Bridge which was driving along, whilst pushing a woman along the road (on her back, feet on the bumper) having driven over her bike, had a front facing mirror.

They don't seem to do any good, at least not in that case.

Wtf :/

here are some more ads for cycle safety. I keep the 'too late - the rear wheel crushes james' image in mind when riding under blackfriars bridge in the mornings.

http://www.retronaut.co/2012/02/death-caused-by-carelessness-by-the-bicyclist-1940s/

Ah, mirror in the top right (as you look at it) but no central one:

Ladies bike is under the front wheel/fuel tank.

shivers

"Winner chosen in hunt for new HGV warning sign for cyclists"

http://intandemcompetition.com/

Designed by Littlepixel of this parish.

Hm. It's not exactly clear what that actually means...

^and that lorry is fucking tiny

fify

Has anyone mentioned the "drivers mate / tea boy/ fluffer"

when I was a lad etc etc. drivers almost always had a 'mate' with them to do the jobs in the cab other than the actual driving. navigation, looking out of the side window etc. now that the drivers seem to be predominantly 'forever alone' are there demonstrably more deaths due to the 'blind side' no longer being covered by another pair of eyes. even if those eyes are in the head of a Neanderthal?

JSL

Has anyone mentioned the "drivers mate / tea boy/ fluffer"

Yes, I mentioned the possibility of mandatory co-pilots (esp. on the killer large rigids) earlier. Construction companies look after their on-site H&S with rules prohibiting reversing without a banksman, but they are not incentivised to give a fuck about the general off-site public.

Why don't they just build all HGVs (tractors and rigids) like this:

Seems like placing the driver's eyeline level with other road users would not only improve their vision but also cause them to be more cautious in general, as there seems to be a correlation between how high (and, to a lesser extent, how far behind the front bumper) you sit and how much of a twat you are as a driver (see Chelsea Tractors). Something to do with perspective, I imagine. I'd certainly be perpetually worried about running into stuff if I was placed that low and forward with 44 tonnes behind me.

I realise that this is a radical transformation of the whole architecture of large vehicles, but it has happened before, when they switched from a "conventional" to a "cab-over" layout. Low-floor buses and large mobile cranes already have this layout (i.e. cab in front of the front axle instead of over it), so it looks feasible. Obviously changing the "Construction and Use" regulations to place an upper limit on driver's eyeline would, as an unintended consequence, outlaw tall bikes, but it's a small price to pay.

They don't like the idea because of the heavy loads and increased braking distances, being higher up allows them to see the road ahead and plan better.

They don't like braking because it cost money, mostly in fuel to accelerate back up to speed. I don't see any evidence of better planning by better forward vision, but every day I see a lot of wilful intimidation of other road users by throwing that heavy weight around in order to force costs onto others which should rightly be borne by HGV users.

It's something everybody should know, particularly cyclists; if you are going round a roundabout and have right of way over an HGV bearing down on the entry at 30mph, assume at all times that he is a massive cunt who is not going to brake and will quite happily run you down rather than spend and extra 50p on diesel that week.

Also, you can't see the road ahead and plan better if you're texting your mate about the norks on today's page 3 girl in the copy of the currant bun that's spread out on your steering wheel.