Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

[pwa]

Ian,

having worked on construction sites I have to point out that they are themselves congested places and they cannot receive all their daily deliveries in neat little time slots. And the hauliers have to deliver to a range of customers. To limit deliveries to certain times of day would be problematic. I'm not discounting it completely, but it would be hugely disruptive and expensive for all of us in the end.

[tyreon]

FWIW: Might is Right.

When newly qualified as a car driver my wife would be heading down some highway where,at the same time,a humungous lorry would be overtaking...on a blind bend,over a humpbacked bridge,over double white lines. As we were being transported to our deaths my wife would say she had the right of way and was right in her driving. At the top of my voice I would be reminding my wife whilst legally she was correct we were on the way to a coffin or a wheelchair. There was then a lot of screamin and shoutin involved,from me.

At any stop sign or corner any heavy goods vehicle can then arrive and park themselves alongside the cyclist. HG decides to go left(and may signal): its then over if you're going straight ahead or going left. When HGV arrives beside me and when I am stationary before that vehicle,I either get well ahead,or make sure on my left side there's some avenue of exit.

£500,000 in compo with no legs is no compo at all should I even gain such amount for wrong driving. Your own fatality is just a glance-over the local newspaper.

It can be frightening out there. Glad I am no longer a cycling commuter.

[661-Pete]

We should certainly not speculate further on this particular case, even after the eyewitness account.

But, although the cases of cyclists stupidly filtering up the nearside are common enough (as a simple browse through YouTube will testify), there are other circumstances which can lead to a collision.

Only yesterday as I was coming up to a roundabout (slowly - it's a slight uphill), a large refuse truck half overtook me, then came to a standstill, still alongside me. This put me in a bit of a quandary: even if the truck was about to turn right (it wasn't indicating), being a roundabout it would have had to move to the left first. So I could either stop, myself, and wait until the truck had passed, or filter forward until I was ahead of the truck once more, and then firmly put myself in primary to stop it from trying to pass me again.

I chose the latter option. The truck driver didn't seem to object. Conflict avoided.

The point? I wouldn't normally filter on the left of a truck approaching a roundabout, but I was already on its nearside in a potentially dangerous position, through no action of my own. I think my only mistake was not being in primary before the truck approached. But that's hard to justify sometimes especially when I'm going very slowly.

I would also add that I think my truck driver was in the wrong to half overtake me. Do others agree?

[mjr]

I would also add that I think my truck driver was in the wrong to half overtake me. Do others agree?

Yes - I'd say it was bordering on careless driving.

It can be frightening out there. Glad I am no longer a cycling commuter.

Frightening because you can limit some of the common ways of ending up in a collision (don't overtake on left, don't continue when you should stop, don't ride in the door zone) but not others (left hooks, others continuing when they should stop, side-swipes) but despite all that, keep remembering it's not as dangerous as it may feel... unlike driving, breathing in the exhaust of the car in front and failing to take a great opportunity for exercise, which is more dangerous than it feels.

To limit deliveries to certain times of day would be problematic. I'm not discounting it completely, but it would be hugely disruptive and expensive for all of us in the end.

Yes, it would be expensive, but is killing people for mistakes really cheaper and the cost we'd prefer to pay?

[tyreon]

AGREE.

As a (vulnerable)cyclist and human being I think it is incumbent to also be aware of wotsgoin-on 'in-the-rest-of the-world'. By this I mean,our roads are becoming over-crowded,this island(GB)is filling up,the population is growing,more and more people are 'having to travel by car'. Some(not all)van and truck drivers have delivery times,bonus schemes they have to meet,or want to meet. Add all the above to a mixing-pot and stir: everyone now seems to be stressed out,targets-to-meet. Cyclists are an inconvenience: not my thinking. If I don't meet my target someone else will: I will be replaced. Howsabout if I do knock someone over: chances of being caught? Then,if caught? Chances of the slammer? I wouldn't think that great. Following this logic...go for the risk,go for the bonus,you have a wife or husband to support,a mortgage to pay.

No. As a cyclist you should be aware of the culture you're living in,the policing of laws and cycle defensively. David versus Goliath was a one off. Big Boys in most respect win small boys: Darwinian Rules. And as echoed through our flawed society.

[Vorpal]

Ian,

having worked on construction sites I have to point out that they are themselves congested places and they cannot receive all their daily deliveries in neat little time slots. And the hauliers have to deliver to a range of customers. To limit deliveries to certain times of day would be problematic. I'm not discounting it completely, but it would be hugely disruptive and expensive for all of us in the end.

Maybe we should just put barriers up, so the motors can't use the roads, but cyclists can.

[[XAP]Bob]

Indeed, AIUI a banksman is required on work sites - where everyone is (or at least should be) trained and aware of the danger of large, heavy, un-sighted, dangerous vehicles. Where these same vehicles are used around inexperienced road users however, no such safety feature is required. The logic of this is patently daft.

The difference in a works site though is that the contractor is in total control of what happens there. On a public road, the rules of the road apply and the contractor - along with everyone else - should be following those. If temporary road layouts are necessary these have to be designed and approved by the local authority in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Occasionally there are instances where an operative may need to intervene - hold up traffic for example, but a full time banksman wouldn't be permitted out on the road in my view on the grounds that it's impractical. The road layout in question wass a "tunnel" with no safe space for a banksman to be.

Why would having a co-driver/banksman be impractical?

In cities there is so much going on around a large vehicle that it is difficult [citation needed] to be aware of all the people in and approaching that area. Having a second person, whose job it was to monitor said areas, particularly when the vehicle is turning (at all), would increase the available attention on the danger areas.

Yes it would make large vehicle deliveries in cities slightly more expensive, but that's a small price to pay compared with the repeated loss of life.

[pwa]

We have a witness stating that the cyclist sped past on the left of the vehicle. If this is a site access and not open road a banksman could have been used, but would this cyclist have taken any notice of a person in a yellow jacket advising against doing something most of us would never do anyway? After all, a banksman has no official status on the highway, only on a building site.

Surely we cannot overlook the fact that we cyclists should do our bit too. This death was needless, and several things could have been done to prevent it happening. The simplest and most obvious is for the cyclist not to try to pass a left turning lorry on its left side. No amount of traffic calming, segregation, patrolling or whatever can make the us safe if we don't look after ourselves as well. Today I used my chainsaw and, being a big boy now, I did all the checks and wore all the safety gear and used the machine correctly. I took care of myself. I do the same on a bike. I do not pass lorries on the left. If I did, and it cost me my life, I would not want my family to blame the lorry driver or his/her company or the highways people or the police or anybody else for my mistake.

[beardy]

The simplest and most obvious is for the cyclist not to try to pass a left turning lorry on its left side.

Yep, I have got that one sorted, unfortunately they are not all reciprocating and still occasionally turn left before finishing the act of overtaking me.

[pwa]

Beardy

you are right, of course, but that does not appear to be what happened in this case.

[[XAP]Bob]

We have a witness stating that the cyclist sped past on the left of the vehicle. If this is a site access and not open road a banksman could have been used, but would this cyclist have taken any notice of a person in a yellow jacket advising against doing something most of us would never do anyway? After all, a banksman has no official status on the highway, only on a building site.

Actually there are two points here. Yes the cyclist would have taken some notice - but more importantly the driver would have been told that there was someone there, and could have prevented the accident - whoever made the initial error.

Maybe banksman isn't quite the right term, maybe co-driver would be more appropriate. There is no excuse for this level of mechanised killing.

I would be all for time segregation of these vehicles - rush hour is not a time for these vehicles to be on the roads of our cities. If a building site can't organise it's affairs to have enough materials onsite for a couple of hours work in the morning then that's a pretty poor effort.

These vehicles are massively over represented in the stats relating to deaths on our roads. It's not just cyclists, although those are the ones most often reported here. There is no reason we couldn't require such vehicles to have a co-driver - maybe that would encourage the development of self driving trucks...

[AlaninWales]

+1 and a repeat of: A death sentence is not an appropriate punishment for making a mistake on a cycle journey.

The only reason we tolerate it in this country, is because in this country we have become so used to cyclists and pedestrians being killed by motor vehicles.

[pwa]

Nobody deserves to die because they make a mistake, but when that mistake is as big as trying to pass a left turning lorry on the left nobody should be surprised that someone dies. To me it's obviously a terrible gamble, and I'm concerned that there are cyclists out there who don't seem to have any road sense. That, to me, is a suicidal manoeuvre. It's in the same league as nipping between closing barriers at a level crossing.

[661-Pete]

It has now emerged that the cyclist killed in this tragedy was French.
I cannot help but recall that the only other person killed while riding a 'Boris bike' was also French. I hope this is pure coincidence.
I would hope this won't put under threat the whole scheme, despite the fact that I have some misgivings about it.
Also it appears that the lorry had a full set of cameras fitted - re my earlier post. Perhaps this will help uphold the eyewitness evidence.

[SteveHunter]

An update from me now my brain has calmed a bit.

This did not occur at a Building Site Access.

There are a lot of Building works occurring at the junction, and hoardings up alongside the road everywhere, but the accident did not take place at the entrance to the site, and I'm not aware that the lorry involved was evening going to that building site.

The accident occured at a normal junction with a left turn filter just before the traffic lights, that left turn filter is however hoarded on both sides and becomes very narrow.