London Fixed-gear and Single-speed

f*** off somebody. you are a wanker...

good advice.

I did this poster.


It isn’t blaming cyclists. It’s instructing them to hold back and take care around lorries, especially left-turning lorries, at junctions, as the driver of the lorry literally cannot physically see any of the cyclists in this area. It’s that simple.


Here’s a film we shot on the shoot to show that none of the bikes can be seen from the driver’s seat.




You may not agree but at the very least it’s got cyclists talking about it. Which is good, no?

The h'bar flyer is brilliant, I was not taking the piss.

Hopefully the new mirrors will help too.

Great.
And then you contradict yourself. If you think cyclists are the ones who should change, that implies you think they are currently in the wrong. This may seem like a lawyerish quibble, but i think it matters because it frames your whole approach to the problem. If you base your solution on telling cyclist to do things differently, then you have to tell all cyclists, or you will be endangering those who don't know the rules have changed.
That film is a lot better than the silly image-tracking thing.

I agree it's a good poster, and i'm glad it's raising the profile of the issue, showing just how flawed lorries are.

Incidentally, it looks like you had the perfect set-up to try my idea.

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.

"None of these cyclists can be seen because the HGV doesn't have decent mirrors, and even if it does, the driver is probably not looking at them anyway. Even if the driver hits you and is found to be not looking at the road, they will get a piddling fine and probably keep their licence"

That little video clip is very good!

Don't know if it's been posted yet, but here's an article by Charlie on recent initiatives and the LCC's new 'No More Lethal Lorries' campaign:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...cling-campaign



Oliver
LCC

I saw a non-tfl poster warning against undertaking stuck on the back of a bus yesterday. It was by one of the london groups (sorry can't remember who). I know that these things don't have the biggest budget in the world, and you have to make the best of what you've got, but the poster was quite bizarre - it showed a really clunky photoshop of a smashed bike and a girl crawling out from under the wheels of a HGV, with a twirly italic hard-to-read font spelling out 'don't undertake large vehicles' set at a weird angle (I had to get 2 feet away before I could read what it was even saying!). I know its important to get the message out, but the way it was constructed really struck the wrong cord with me.

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com...the-world.html

Was it this one?

http://lcc.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=2024



We're not very happy about this at all, see link.

Yeah it was that one, I was stuck waiting behind a bus on gridlocked waterloo bridge, so had plenty of time to double-take and make sure I wasn't imagining it, someone really did photoshop a cyclist being run over...

Wow, that poster is beyond shit at conveying it's intended message.

terrible.

absolute dogshit. looks like it was done in MS Paint

Close up of the fakery. http://image.bayimg.com/capenaacd.jpg

That poster is just terrible.

By the way, our new HGV campaign has just been launched:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1911




Oliver
LCC

Off the top of my head....

IF YOU HAVEN'T MADE EYE CONTACT WITH THE DRIVER THEN ASSUME THAT HE HAS NOT SEEN YOU AND IS ABOUT TO DO THE FUCKING WORST THING POSSIBLE FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IF HE'S DRIVING A LORRY OR A NATIONAL EXPRESS COACH HE PROBABLY DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER HE KILLS YOU EITHER SO THE ABOVE COUNTS DOUBLE.

UNDERTAKING / FILTERING ON THE INSIDE IS FUCKING STUPID UNLESS YOU ARE 110% SURE THAT YOU WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE YOU ARE UNDERTAKING BEFORE THE THING HAS ANY CHANCE WHATSOEVER OF MOVING.

AND TRY OVERTAKING, IT'S SAFER.

then a series of photos of splattered cyclists underneath lorries turning left.

Saw (the original) advert on the 'Youngs Brewery' billboard on the Wandsworth one way system. Its one of the biggest billboards around, and must get thousands of cars/trucks passing every day. Good show TFL! I quite like it, its simple and clear.

It's still missing the cycle lane;

Might be a repost but has anyone seen these? Apparently they were banned.

staged.

wow.

that's almost worse for what you don't see. Heart stopping.

RIP

ok so having read the youtube comments, not RIP.

RIP for all the real ones we haven't seen.

I don't understand why it's not mandatory for hgvs and other large or articulated vehicles to display a standard, prominent warning.


Not that one, but something more obvious, simply "Cyclists. Do not pass this vehicle on the inside"

It's not going to cost millions, much like blindspot mirrors, there seems no reason not to do it.

There are plenty of signs on HGVs saying just that already. Obviously, they could always be improved upon.

My point was they should be on all of them, and of a standard design.

I had to warn a woman the other day who kept trying to scoot inside a massive bulk carrier on Finborough rd the other day, the vehicle had no such sign, but might have made her think a bit more if it had.

Of course it's not going to stop poor and dangerous driving, but as I said there's no good reason not to make it mandatory.

Ahh yes, maybe it needs to be more blunt like:

"Unless you plan to die today, don't even think about coming up this side."

The 'suicide' one is wrong: it's not suicide if the driver does not look in his mirror or is on the phone or drunk. It puts the blame unquestioningly on the cyclist and that's not acceptable. Cyclists may die because of their ignorance of the dangers of going up the inside of HGVs but ignorance is not an act of volition.

That's another reason why I call for standardisation. It's important to remember that signs and mirrors do not exonerate a driver who is at fault.

I was working at the Lambeth HGV awareness thing last Friday and the chap talking to people in the cab had had cycle training. He said he learned more in 4 hours of that than he had in 20 years of cycling in London. It should be compulsory for all HGV drivers.

And not being a complete fucking shitbrain should be compulsory for all drivers of any vehicle. But is it?

No, I saw a woman today, in a van, bombing down a residential street about 40 in a 20 limit, past a school whilst holding her phone in both hands and texting. More people need to loose their licences and right quick.

Ha! I had a first on Wednesday; going over Tower Bridge and a man in a car was using an i-pad on his lap.

TBH I got my laptop out and posted on the forum whilst stationary on the M4 once. (waiting for a car fire to be cleared) but I would hope discretion wins the day.

^euph?

20 years of driving?

No, cycling: c-y-c-l-i-n-g, cycling

He's been cycling in London for 20yrs as well as being an HGV driver.

Nah, Truph.

Could be a good one though

Totally agree, but many inexperienced cyclists just don't get how serious the dangers are when they just see an advisory-type notice, unfortunately. I'm not trying to pass (pre?)accountability to anyone, but I can see how that would be misinterpreted (or potentially used in that way should there be an incident with a warning like that).

Suicide sounds about right to me. If anything, I think it is the cyclist 'fault' (if you want to put it that way) for undertaking because the driver can't see you in their mirrors. What do you want the driver to do? Get out and run round the side and check for bicycles before making any turns? I think the responsibility lies with the cyclist to pass on the other side.

Not necessarily, here's one scenario:

An HGV pulls up to the lights and it goes red after he ('he' for the sake of this example) has crossed the stop line but chooses not to go because there is a back up of traffic at the turn, but is now in the ASL (and legally allowed).

An inexperienced cyclist follows a cycle lane up the left to the ASL but stays in the ASL (where the driver can't see him). While coming up the side the HGV driver turns the indicator on to signal a left turn. But the cyclist is infront of the indicators so doesn't see it.

Light goes green and cyclist goes starts riding to go straight, not realising he's completely in the driver's blind spot...

Point is that cycle lanes misdirect inexperienced cyclists into dangerous situations, because they are painted on the road and they may think that they're somehow 'safe'.

answer: better cycle lanes. a physical obstacle between the cycle lane and the traffic lane, coming up to the lights and at the lights. (bollards). a cycle lane that's wide enough for cyclists to bunch up. a green light for cyclists that happens a few seconds before the green for motor traffic (and perhaps goes red when the left for traffic is green). a clear continuation of the cycle lane across the junction (painted on the road) so that the presence of cyclists is clear.

there's still a problem that cycle lane still encourage people to undertake vehicles, even if it's quite wide.

Secondly, the power is down to the HGV drivers, they have the ability to prevent the death of a cyclists.

I see what you're saying Econodog, Chameleon and Ed.

All i'm saying is that there's only so much a lorry driver can do in that situation. If he can't see you it's because the cyclist has actively ridden into his blind spot. Educating cyclists to this fact and having mandatory standardised blind spot warning signs on the back of lorrys and large vehicles would no doubt help to prevent deaths. It's the cylists that are riding into the danger zone and IMO not the drivers fault when things gets fatal. The cyclist has the ability to not put themselves in that position.

have you read this thread?

thomas, when I talked to a HGV drivers, they often mentioned that it's not the amount of safety equipment that'll help prevent cyclist getting killed, but the driving standard.

if driven properly, HGV shouldn't result in the death of cyclist.

an example would be Will's post;

a good drivers make a huge difference than adding all sort of mirrors and electronic gimbots, if we get driving instructor to take cycle training as compulsory, then it would make a massive difference when the driving instructor teach the trainee on how to work with cyclists on the road beside the usual lesson.

ok.. so he's been cycling 20 years, he knows the cyclists's perspective already (unlike most hgv drivers..).... so what more did the cycle training tell him (i can understand how it would be useful to the hgv drivers who don't cycle..)?

the problem is, there will always be some bad/incompetent/badly trained/tired drivers on the road. pay is too low, and there probably aren't enough good drivers to go round.

you can engineer out conflict,


even where there's much less space than this, the same basic structure can be used. but you're right. the skinny little cycle lane up the inside at the junction is much more dangerous than nothing at all.