"Turning Left" recorded announcement by lorry

[iviehoff]

Yesterday I came up behind a lorry at a red light which had an automated recorded announcement "Turning Left Stand Clear" repeatedly sounding. I've come across "reversing" announcements before, but never this one. The lorry was not in fact turning left at that moment, or the moment immediately following. Rather it was waiting at a long period red light in anticipation of turning left when the lights changed. Fortunately I knew there was plenty of time before green, so I passed up to the front on its inside (only possible on the inside as the lorry had occupied an extreme right hand position on the carriage way, in preparation for the acute left turn ahead) and made sure I left very promptly the moment the lights changed.

I'm in two minds about this automated public announcement. Is it actually a benefit to cyclists, or tail-covering gesture by the driver, who will now feel he is completely covered for turning left without checking? I would appreciate having a recorded announcement that did in fact operate briefly before the left turn started. But to have it operating for the whole extended period while the lorry waited at a long period red light struck me as bullying and attempting to avoid responsibility for the driver's actions.

[Claireysmurf]

Did it do this though because it is outside of the driver's control. For example, it would be straightforward to make this part of the left hand indicator functionality by linking the on position to a speed check (for example through wheel ABS sensors). Therefore, if the lorry is stationery and the left indicator is on, it says this even if the vehicle has pulled in to a layby. Vehicle reversing warnings are surely just linked to a switch on the reverse gear as reversing lights are

[iviehoff]

Did it do this though because it is outside of the driver's control.

That's what I presume.

What do people think about trucks repeatedly announcing "Turning left stand clear" the whole time the left indicator is switched on. If truck owners thinks it covers their tail against squashing cyclists when they turn left, it might become common.

[wirral_cyclist]

No advantage for deaf people.

Sent from an Android by a human

[thirdcrank]

... What do people think about trucks repeatedly announcing "Turning left stand clear" the whole time the left indicator is switched on. If truck owners thinks it covers their tail against squashing cyclists when they turn left, it might become common.

Compared with driving through thick fog relying on blowing the motor horn, it's only a matter of degree.

The operators of these vehicles realise that there's pressure to use technology to prevent cyclists being crushed. This may operate either way: it could enable drivers to be more aware of what's in the vicinity of their vehicle or it could efffectively warn "Get out of the way or I'll run you over." The former would recognise the duty of care owed by drivers to other road users, the latter would be good enough to get the CPS etc off their backs.

[theenglishman]

No advantage for deaf people.

Although the indicator's a bit of a give away....

People who cycle up the inside of vehicles, especially at junctions, are taking a risk. They know this. It may well be the drivers fault if a cyclist gets squashed, but the cyclist still gets squashed. Either don't do it, or accept you're taking a gamble on the outcome. A recorded announcement isn't a bad idea, given the number of people who seem to be bad gamblers.

[iviehoff]

No advantage for deaf people.

Or those wearing personal stereos, or inside well sound-proofed vehicles. The hearing impaired already have to take their own particular care for keeping themselves safe in a traffic environment where they cannot sense the many audible warnings of danger that exist in that environment. Fortunately an indicator light is already provided in this case, and I expect the law would not currently condone some alternative much more visible visual method of indicating a turn. But apparently the law does not control this supplementary audible warning.

[iviehoff]

People who cycle up the inside of vehicles, especially at junctions, are taking a risk. They know this. It may well be the drivers fault if a cyclist gets squashed, but the cyclist still gets squashed. Either don't do it, or accept you're taking a gamble on the outcome. A recorded announcement isn't a bad idea, given the number of people who seem to be bad gamblers.

Is it still a good idea when it operates whenever the left indicator is switched on, therefore people quickly learn that in fact vehicles making this announcement are frequently not in the fact on the point of turning left.

What are people using the feeder lanes to cyclist's advance stop lines to think?

[bovlomov]

People who cycle up the inside of vehicles, especially at junctions, are taking a risk. They know this.

I'm not sure you are right about that. I have no problem with a cyclist taking a calculated risk; that is, understanding what might go wrong and being ready to respond. I get the impression, though, that most of those squeezing between buses or passing up the inside of lorries have no thought of the risks, and so when things do go wrong they are utterly unprepared. At least, that seems to be the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from most of the accidents and near-misses that I've seen.

[wirral_cyclist]

OK so indicators are all that deaf people need to avoid being squashed, so all the lorry casualties therefore must be functionally blind or acting blind? Anyone know the percentage of crushing that is actually the cyclists fault for sneaking up the inside ?

Sent from an Android by a human

[gaz]

Yesterday I came up behind a lorry at a red light which had an automated recorded announcement "Turning Left Stand Clear" repeatedly sounding...

I came across one of these a few weeks ago on a local industrial estate (saying that or something very similar). The truck was in full flow, moving at normal speed, so like others above I'd guess it's simply linked to the indicators.

As for what difference it makes, I'm also in two minds.

I expect there are cyclists out on the road who don't understand the risks of squeezing up the left hand side of a truck that might be about to turn left. If you don't understand the risk would you take heed of the warning?

[james01]

There's the issue of day and night noise pollution for unfortunate residents living next to traffic lights.

[hexhome]

There is an overide switch to turn it off, they are illegal after 23:00.

There is little point using such devices (or even indicators) because as Iviehoff has demonstrated, people ignore them. Reversing bleepers are a well proved case in point. The only way I can avoid crushing a cyclist is to check my mirrors before commencing the turn. Trouble is that I can't watch the mirrors all the time! I have even had to stop in the middle of a left turn to allow a cyclist to 'undertake' me, only to have several others follow on as soon as I stopped.

The fact is, that whilst I have a duty of care to other road users, I believe that I cannot be held legally responsible for people who take such risks. I would however be severely adversely affected by any collision.

Why do so many of my fellow cyclists feel that the responsibility for their safety is with others? The duty of care extends to us all.

[hexhome]

What are people using the feeder lanes to cyclist's advance stop lines to think?

I think that this is a real problem. How do we know that the lights won't turn green before we've reached the ASL? What if there is no ASL?

When I cycle in York, ASLs work very well. I am familiar with the light sequences, where there are ASLs and where there aren't. In other cities, but London in particular, there is less room and less consistency.

I think that unless I am certain, I hold back.

[meic]

The duty of care extends to us all.

I think I can take the moral high ground there, I make absolutely every effort necessary to avoid crushing truck drivers and other road users when I am out on my bike.

They on the other hand always fail to hear or act on the safety warnings that I issue to them, which are not automatic and only issued when really applicable.