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

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?

I think that this is a little simplistic. Afterall, whose fault would that blind spot be? If the driver is also the vehicle owner then yes, but if they're working for a haulage firm then its far harder to hold them singularly accountable for their inability to see certain things, particularly with the legacy of design we now have to work with. In an ideal world it would be nice to think that all HGV drivers would turn down work because a company didn't spec up their cabs to the highest possible standards, but in the real world we both know that things aren't that easy. You could just be saving one life at the expense of another.

And with the real world in mind, I like what TfL have done is highlight a problem in a simple manner in it's riskiest circumstance to the group at risk. Upthread you've mentioned that the HGV is M reg with some exceptions and without this and that mirror. That's all well and good that you have that in depth knowledge, but not all cyclists have that, the same way you probably don't have specialist knowledge of applying a spiral perm, tax accounting or the finer points of tuning an early model Ford Sierra RS Cosworth. Sometimes it's important to play to the crowd in the here and now.

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

I witnessed it two weeks ago, HGV at the lights indicating left, lights change, HGV starts moving, a cyclist start to undertake (!), HGV driver saw the cyclist and waited (as well as the rest of the traffic).

not all of them will do it though, at least that HGV drivers are driving carefully.

The poster is missing the blue cycle lanes putting the riders in that spot.

Really good point Balki. FFS let's all just dance around the trucks. How about removing them from peak hour traffic?!

...at least the HGV drivers are driving carefully.

You are having a fucking laugh, right?

Sure there are bad cyclists out there, but HGV drivers are driving carefully? What, like here?

There's a reason why large lorries are the biggest killers of cyclists, and it's not just because cycle lanes lead riders into the wrong place or because some riders ride badly you know? Whatever happened to the appropriation of responsibility and the biggest, most dangerous drivers being responsible for the machinery that they weild around the vulnerable road users around them?

This poster is all well and good for the message to get out there telling cyclists to look out for themselves, but there is much much more to the issue surround lorries than that, as I've said here before.

Sorry, rant over.

You are having a fucking laugh, right?

The HGV driver in Vee's post that is.

don't jump on my throat you ninny!

The HGV driver in Vee's post that is.

Gotcha, now. I'm glad they were looking!

The point I'm trying to make still stands though, there are serious problems with the types of lorries on London's roads and there is too much effort going into campaigns telling cyclists to 'look our for danger', rather than focussing on the driver of the biggest threat...

...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.

There's a school of thought that goes something like: remove road markings, traffic lights, signs where possible, and it makes the road users take more responsibility for what they do and how they do it.

They did it in a town in Denmark recently, and let it be known that the bigger the vehicle, the lower down the right-of-way ladder you are. Peds take priority over everyone.

Removal of traffic lights would be an excellent thing for London, but the ped thing is a problem. Sheer weight of numbers of pedestrians at certain times/places would mean a constant flow holding up traffic. But maybe that would be a good thing.

Gotcha, now. I'm glad they were looking!

The point I'm trying to make still stands though, there are serious problems with the types of lorries on London's roads and there is too much effort going into campaigns telling cyclists to 'look our for danger', rather than focussing on the driver of the biggest threat...

This is true. Its unfair, but at the end of the day it's easier to get people to notice and change behaviour which is dangerous to them (you'd hope, with some cyclist self-preservation doesn't seem the top priority) rather than a change legislation on HGVs.

This is true. Its unfair, but at the end of the day it's easier to get people to notice and change behaviour which is dangerous to them (you'd hope, with some cyclist self-preservation doesn't seem the top priority) rather than a change legislation on HGVs.

You're right about the easier path but I'd like to see both - I don't think it would be that hard to change the legislation governing the London Lorry Control Scheme and I think haulage firms would prefer it AND it would lead to a decrease in the amount of cyclist's deaths. As it exists at the moment the 'lorry ban' is total wank for everyone.

I think that this is a little simplistic. Afterall, whose fault would that blind spot be? If the driver is also the vehicle owner then yes, but if they're working for a haulage firm then its far harder to hold them singularly accountable for their inability to see certain things, particularly with the legacy of design we now have to work with. In an ideal world it would be nice to think that all HGV drivers would turn down work because a company didn't spec up their cabs to the highest possible standards, but in the real world we both know that things aren't that easy. You could just be saving one life at the expense of another.

And with the real world in mind, I like what TfL have done is highlight a problem in a simple manner in it's riskiest circumstance to the group at risk. Upthread you've mentioned that the HGV is M reg with some exceptions and without this and that mirror. That's all well and good that you have that in depth knowledge, but not all cyclists have that, the same way you probably don't have specialist knowledge of applying a spiral perm, tax accounting or the finer points of tuning an early model Ford Sierra RS Cosworth. Sometimes it's important to play to the crowd in the here and now.
It is very simple, a lorry driver's or cyclist's job is not to run into anyone else. That means not driving the lorry through an area of road they cannot see. In practice a lorry driver can ensure they are checking all the road area before the lorry moves into a 'blind spot' area. That's what most of them do.
TfL have tried to highlight the riskiest circumstance to the group at risk, using posters that most cyclists will not see, or will see and not understand and which will only be around for a few weeks. I think it would make more sense to target the drivers who have the ability and responsibility to remove the risk to cyclists.
Other problems with the poster are that, as shown, 90% of the cyclists are not in the driver's blindspot and from that position the artic could not get around the corner unless it turned to go straight ahead for another 10-15 feet. If that was done slowly all the cyclists would become visible before it turned.

I think that this is a little simplistic. Afterall, whose fault would that blind spot be? If the driver is also the vehicle owner then yes, but if they're working for a haulage firm then its far harder to hold them singularly accountable for their inability to see certain things, particularly with the legacy of design we now have to work with. In an ideal world it would be nice to think that all HGV drivers would turn down work because a company didn't spec up their cabs to the highest possible standards, but in the real world we both know that things aren't that easy. You could just be saving one life at the expense of another.

Highest possible spec? I'm not sure that being able to see round the outside of a vehicle that big and dangerous counts as optional extras. We're not talking about body kits, noisy exhausts and alloys.
Some of you will disagree but I can't accept the argument that it's ok for a motorist to drive something so big and inherently dangerous without being able to see out of it properly.

It's said before and I'll say it again, hold the driver responsible for doing something so obviously reckless, and hold the company vicariously liable for enabling/requiring him/her (equal opps) to do it. Yes cyclists, need to manage their own risk, but if I run something over in the bird's car cos I wasn't looking (hypothetically), I still expect to face the consequences.

It is very simple, a lorry driver's or cyclist's job is not to run into anyone else.

That and get the delivery to it's destination undamaged and on time, and keep costs down for the employer and make sure someone doesn't hit them by being stupid and pay attention to route changes and make sure they don't run out of fuel and get home to the wife/husband/kids/other dependants... and all the other things they do.

And this is because unlike our greatest wishes HGV drivers aren't a bunch of robots operating by an exact and exhaustive set of guideline. The real reason cyclists get killed by HGVs is because they are flawed machines being driven by humans? If we want to enhance the safety of cyclists on the road (who are awkwardly also human, some of whom are on flawed machines), we should be taking that into consideration.

As for the commentary about the depiction of the junction, that really is a ridiculous argument. I can't imagine any of the cycling public finding coming up behind a HGV and thinking "oh, this isn't exactly like the situation in that poster so it can't be relevant". And I'd argue that if that manouver were done slowly, at least half of the cyclists would have tried to nip round the front, two would have hopped up onto the pavement and the rest carried on as normal. The message is wisely simple, kerbside of a HGV turning left at a junction is not a safe place to be. Lots of caveats and footnotes just make the message to complex and thus ignored by the many and that's a fail. You may as well ride on the top of the truck and piss on any cyclists that venture into the blind spot and shit through the cab window if you think the driver isn't doing it right.

Highest possible spec? I'm not sure that being able to see round the outside of a vehicle that big and dangerous counts as optional extras.

But it isn't manadatory by law so at the moment it actually is.

Some of you will disagree but I can't accept the argument that it's ok for a motorist to drive something so big and inherently dangerous without being able to see out of it properly.

I doubt you'll find any disagreement here. But the law doesn't agree with you, and that becomes a legislative issue. You can argue negligence all you like, and I'll back you up every step of the way, but while the law allows flawed machines on the road, then the courts literally cannot take it that way if the driver made every reasonable effort they could to prevent an accident. So you either have to change the terms of reasonable (and make HGV's literally undriveable, and don't think you won't regret that in the long term) or you change the laws around what kind of machines are allowed on the road.

I doubt you'll find any disagreement here. But the law doesn't agree with you, and that becomes a legislative issue. You can argue negligence all you like, and I'll back you up every step of the way, but while the law allows flawed machines on the road, then the courts literally cannot take it that way if the driver made every reasonable effort they could to prevent an accident. So you either have to change the terms of reasonable (and make HGV's literally undriveable, and don't think you won't regret that in the long term) or you change the laws around what kind of machines are allowed on the road.
Part of the problem is that the law is not being enforced. Somehow courts and coroners have come to accept the excuse "I didn't see that cyclist in my blindspot, so I ran them down and killed them" as a reasonable defence. We don't accept it if they reverse into a loading bay without checking first, or if they drive around a blind corner to fast to stop etc.

At any corner a driver should either have checked the road for cyclists and pedestrians or if he/she is at all unsure then he/she should take the corner slow enough to reveal people in the mirrors before they are run down. That is reasonable behaviour and it doesn't make HGV's undriveable. To be fair there is some improvement, drivers are now being sent to jail if they kill someone while on the phone or while checking their paperwork.

Part of the problem is that the law is not being enforced. Somehow courts and coroners have come to accept the excuse "I didn't see that cyclist in my blindspot, so I ran them down and killed them" as a reasonable defence. We don't accept it if they reverse into a loading bay without checking first, or if they drive around a blind corner to fast to stop etc.

At any corner a driver should either have checked the road for cyclists and pedestrians or if he/she is at all unsure then he/she should take the corner slow enough to reveal people in the mirrors before they are run down. That is reasonable behaviour and it doesn't make HGV's undriveable. To be fair there is some improvement, drivers are now being sent to jail if they kill someone while on the phone or while checking their paperwork.

Charlie said it before I got back to my desk. The law is "clear" that you have to take every reasonable effort they could to prevent an accident. I'm not gonna mess around with exact wording, but that is the general interpretation. I take the point that humans do unpredictable things all the time, but when you can't even see out of your vehicle properly, you're inviting trouble. The law doesn't need to be re-drafted. Judges just need to interpret it properly and hand down sentences/ deliver civil judgments in a way that reflects that.

If you're trying to save yourself the extra 40 quid (sorry no pound signs on dutch keyboards) that Stelios will charge you for missing check-in or trying to get the missus to her train for work, that doesn't excuse you not bothering to scrape the ice of your windscreen and killing poor Timmy who was just doing his paper round. I don't see why saving yourself whatever nominal amount it'd cost to fit some mirrors is justification for killing a cyclist. Cos that's the result. Money versus life. If the judges are saying money is more important than life then cool. Let's acknowledge it and move on...but they're not....not explicitly anyway.

Hope that doesn't sound like a rant, but I'm running late and gotta be brief.

The real reason cyclists get killed by HGVs is because they are flawed machines being driven by humans.

I though HGV weren't design with cities in mind? just mainly for motorway?

I though HGV weren't design with cities in mind? just mainly for motorway?

This. Someone at TFL has a really black sense of humour to publicise the message "This is a big killing machine, don't go near it", rather that just not having big killing machines in cities.

I don't see why saving yourself whatever nominal amount it'd cost to fit some mirrors is justification for killing a cyclist. Cos that's the result. Money versus life. If the judges are saying money is more important than life then cool. Let's acknowledge it and move on...but they're not....not explicitly anyway.

Hope that doesn't sound like a rant, but I'm running late and gotta be brief.

That's exactly what the government already does. A life is 'worth' about £35k for the purposes of economic calculation for road policies (if I remember correctly). That is to say, if putting in a speed limit will save 3 lives a year, the economic cost (wasted time on the roads etc) will have to be less than 105k for the limit to be worth putting in. For example, the several hundred annual motorway deaths could all but be eliminated by a 5mph speed limit, but the economic cost would be prohibitive, and we'd soon be up in arms about taking three days to get from London to Portsmouth and the shops being empty.

The deaths are the price we pay for mobility of ourselves and our goods.

An equally disgraceful assumption that Labour made is that a wasted minute for a cyclist is worth less than a wasted minute for a driver! So if there's a marginal quid to be spent on improving journey times, the balance is tilted in favour of drivers...ridiculous.

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.

Would you want to be educated by someone who calls you a 'nodder' and sneers at how much your bike cost? Or would you think, piss off you snobby idiot and carry on as you were? Cycling isn't a bloody club who's membership a self-regarding elite decide. If you want to help other cyclists to be safer then there are better ways to start than by having a contemptuous and dismissive attitude towards them.

That's exactly what the government already does. A life is 'worth' about £35k for the purposes of economic calculation for road policies (if I remember correctly)....

I was told each cyclist death costs the UK £1m once you account for lost taxes, court costs, investigation costs, legal costs, insurance, etc. Surely that's worth extending the London lorry ban legislation for.

How will your cycle stuff get from manufacturer to shop? Or food to supermarket?

How will your cycle stuff get from manufacturer to shop? Or food to supermarket?

Changing access hours from 8am to 10am is hardly going to effect anybody.

Lorry companies could then stay in London until 12am rather than 10pm... it's just a juggling of hours to protect vulnerable road users.

How will your cycle stuff get from manufacturer to shop? Or food to supermarket?

Lots of bikes. Some with trailers.

Vans?