Is the entire field of view blocked for an HGV?

[cicatriz]

An alternative interpretation of the BBC article is that it is making a tacit admission that human operation of such vehicles is inadequate with technology being the only legitimate solution to the problem.

[iviehoff]

'Interesting' article on the incident here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33622318 It made me quite angry.

Having read that, I now realised I witnessed a very similar incident recently, albeit with no collision. A large delivery van (Waitrose) turned left into a sidestreet, occupying the whole width of the road to make the turn. A cyclist who was ahead of me on that sideroad escaped onto the footway, being further back I just stopped where I was. In fact the lorry did stop, probably in time to avoid the front cyclist if she had simply stopped, but she couldn't be sure that would happen, and thus took evasive action to be sure of her life. Clearly he should not have started a manoeuvre into the roadspace of an on-coming road user. Also, several years ago I saw an accident where a car turned into a narrow sidestreet and collided head on with an on-coming moped that couldn't stop in time, even though it was going quite slowly - in this case the road just wasn't wide enough (due to parked vehicles) for two vehicles to pass.

The BBC article suggests that the driver was probably unsighted by the pillar at the corner of the cab. What I don't like is the "that's all right then" attitude. Although the following statement isn't an explicit quotation, I think it implicitly comes from this Melvyn Hodgetts, who is supposed to be some kind of a safety officer, not the journalist, but the journalist doesn't challenge it.

There's no suggestion that in this case the lorry driver was acting negligently.

No, it's not alright to proceed along a road if you can't see properly and assure yourself that it is unoccupied. That's the same kind of argument that says its all right to drive down a cyclist when your vision is impeded by fog or a low sun or a reflection or the like.

[Psamathe]

If the driver couldn't see the road was clear, he should have stopped and got out and asked someone to help him.
It is unfortunately the modern defence is that 'I didn't see x'.

You should only complete a move if you can see that it is clear. That's quite different to not being able to see that there is someone there.

A thing people often get wrong in many aspects of life in the sense "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Ian

[[XAP]Bob]

"Without ever being able to see the motorcyclist"

Rubbish - he just didn't look early enough.

[aspiringcyclist]

Even if we are to accept that there was nothing that could be done, which I don't, then we must reach the conclusion that these vehicles are not suitable for roads like this and should be removed.

[Mark1978]

Is this the new "the sun was in my eyes so it's not my fault". "I couldn't see because of the blind spot so it's not my fault"

It's like not being able to see where you're going but plowing on regardless is acceptable now?

[thirdcrank]

There was a coroner's inquest reported recently - probably within the last couple of weeks - where a delivery van driver reversed into an "elderly" pedestrian (younger than me IIRC)

The reported causes were that having driven into a street to make the delivery, the driver could not turn so he reversed. He did not notice the pedestrian because of his limited view to the rear and the pedestrian walked with a stooping gait. Presumably no prosecution for what might appear to be a straightforward case of causing death by careless driving and the coroner recommended better reversing aids including reversing alarms. (The reversing alarm bit received most prominence in the reports I read.)

[[XAP]Bob]

So elderly deaf people are still legitimate targets.

Surely cameras would be a better technical solution. The problem is that you can't see, how does shouting resolve that problem?

[aspiringcyclist]

So elderly deaf people are still legitimate targets.

Surely cameras would be a better technical solution. The problem is that you can't see, how does shouting resolve that problem?

Because then it doesn't become 'their' problem. They've given us sufficient warning and so they are not accountable to any dangerous behaviour.

[Flinders]

I repeat:
You should only complete a move if you can see that it is clear. That's quite different to not being able to see that there is someone there.

If your van/lorry/car construction means you can't see the full picture of where you are going, then you have to get someone to help you, or go very slowly and change your position repeatedly so you darn well can see it is clear.

[Flinders]

Is this the new "the sun was in my eyes so it's not my fault". "I couldn't see because of the blind spot so it's not my fault"

It's like not being able to see where you're going but plowing on regardless is acceptable now?

Not to me.
It's like having your eyes closed and firing a gun and then saying it wasn't your fault you shot someone because you 'didn't see them'.

[Flinders]

WTH




Is he telling me that the driver was supposed to crush the bike!? Is that part of the driving course?

MUPPETS

I can only say I'm glad he is a 'former logistics safety director' I'd hate to think anyone like that was a safety director anywhere, and I'm sure the HSE would be interested in the logical outcome of his opinions - that flattening the motorcyclist and killing him would have been perfectly in order if he hadn't got out of the way in time.

[bovlomov]

It's like having your eyes closed and firing a gun and then saying it wasn't your fault you shot someone because you 'didn't see them'.

Known as 'the Pistorius Defence'.

[Psamathe]

... Surely cameras would be a better technical solution. The problem is that you can't see, how does shouting resolve that problem?

It is astonishing, particularly as the technology is so available, reliable and cheap these days. I suspect it is the shareholder greed and the quest for ever higher profits that is stopping adoption of such devices. Why spend money on something you can get away without and you can just blame the victim for being in your blind spot.

Ian

[Tom Richardson]

A truck driver walked into me this morning. He climbed out of the cab of his truck at the side of the road and walked backwards across the road and into me as I was riding past. This in spite of me wearing a bright yellow rain top and shouting at him as he went.

He seemed a bit embarrassed but I got the feeling that he saw it as my fault for being there rather than him walking backwards across the road. (I guess the 'proper manoeuvre' would have been for me to ride over the top of him and chuck the bits into the verge).