Avoid death by lorry

I read the sad news today that, once again, a female cyclist has been seriously injured by a left-turning lorry.

No. Not sad. Tragic and eminently avoidable.

It happens a lot. Hence Velorution’s advice:

This is what we tell our customers:

Lesson Number One: Ladies: beware of left-turning HGVs.
Lesson Number Two: Never ever forget Lesson Number One.

So why are women disproportionately affected? A suppressed TfL report gives us a clue:

Women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by a lorry because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot, according to a study.

You really don’t want to do that. You’re going to be injured or killed. And yet the road layout and traffic laws encourage it. There’s an inviting green-tarmacked cycle lane down the nearside. There’s a red light stopping you right in the vehicle’s blind spot. Combine that with a long wheelbase and, frequently, railings, and you’ve created what Watchdog used to refer to as a potential deathtrap.

So what can be done about it? I can think of a few institutional actions right off:

  • Don’t paint cycle lanes where using them will place a cyclist in danger. These are attractive nuisances. They encourage dangerous undertaking. Cycle lanes are, in any case, generally potholed ghettos that relegate cyclists to a dangerous and disadvantaged position.
  • Put more labels on the backs of long-wheelbase vehicles like lorries and buses telling cyclists not to undertake them. In fact, make it the law that they all have them.
  • Remove railings from junctions.
  • Install advanced green lights for cyclists to allow them to accelerate out of danger before motor vehicles.
  • Reduce the speed limit to 20 mph in more places. This won’t affect the overall speed of traffic on most roads in central London.

As a cyclist, you can do a few things yourself:

  • Hang back from large vehicles. The best place to be is behind them. If passing them at lights, do so on the right and only when there is plenty of time and space.
  • Don’t be afraid to jump red lights where it’s safer to do so. This is particularly true of red lights on straight stretches, or where you are turning left. Don’t go cruising through like the light’s not there, but if you can safely move away before the heavy machinery around you starts up, do so. This is probably controversial. It’s also illegal. But in this case the law is not your friend.
  • Don’t hug the kerb. Where the road is narrow, claim the whole lane to prevent risky overtaking. This requires a certain level of stubbornness, but hey, if they’re beeping, they know exactly where you are.

But I’m really wondering what can be done to educate the cyclists who engage in risky undertaking.

2009-06-02 23:46 UTC. Comments: 25.

Comments

Skip to the comment form

  1. Kristian

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 07:22 UTC using Chrome 2.0.172.28 on Windows XP:

    “As a cyclist, you can do a few things yourself:”

    Isn’t there a cycling proficiency course? As an experienced cyclist studying for my motor bike theory test, it is repeated again and again in there (truck and cycle behaviour). Having said that, I know tests/licences isn’t going to work for cyclists but they could voluntarily do it if they’re worried about their safety

  2. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 09:17 UTC using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP:

    So we should just bow down and kiss the feet of cyclists? How many times have they undertaken dangerously, how many times have cyclists thought that they were invunerable? How many times have they skipped the lights and suddenly become pedestrians?

    Railings are there for a reason. To stop idiots randomly wandering across the roads. Lights are there for traffic control, not cyclist comfort. Stop telling other people how they should do things for you and try fitting in with the rest of the traffic. If you don’t like it, well that’s what busses and walking are for.

    “Don’t be afraid to jump red lights where it’s safer to do so” – No. Try sticking to the law, remember that? it counts to other things than just cars. You want equal rights with cars, you get equal responsibility.

    “Don’t hug the kerb. Where the road is narrow, claim the whole lane to prevent risky overtaking.” – but only if you want grinding under the wheels of a truck. Remember they are much bigger and nastier than you. Show some consideration for other road users. Oh wait that is what cyclists keep telling car users, seems like it goes both ways. If the road is narrow and there is a pavement, get off and walk. Other people have the right to drive on the road.

    “Hang back from large vehicles.” – ah some acutal good advice. Here’s some more. Cyclists are squishy. They should be very aware of the fact that many people don’t expect you to cut up the inside of them and sit to one side. When you see a flashing yellow light on the same side as you, this means the vehicle is turning. If you want to die ride up the side of it.

    I keep getting told that cyclists have all the rights of ever other road user. Well you have the same responsibilities. You jump a red light you should get pulled by the police, you jump onto a kerb you should be punished for it.

    To me cyclists have sod all rights. When they have to have a licence, tax and mot to ride the roads, stick to the roads and don’t just apply the rules as and when they see fit, and treat other road users with a little consideration. Then, and only then will they get the same rights as everyone else. While they are kamikaze, vehicle-no-pedestrian-no-vehicle-no-pedestrian merchants. They can quit moaning.

  3. Crosbie Fitch

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 09:27 UTC using Chrome 1.0.154.65 on Windows XP 64 or Server 2003:

    Given the tiny size of piezo sounders these days, it should be possible to sell replacement side indicator bulbs for lorries that incorporate a sounder, such that anyone alongside (but not within a vehicle) will be alerted of an intended left hand turn. This sounder should be quiet enough to be used at all hours, but loud enough for an adjacent cyclist to hear in busy traffic. In other words, it can be as loud as the lorry’s engine, but obviously will be distinctive.

    Put a sticker next to the indicator “If you can hear this beeping you are about to get run over – ESCAPE!”

  4. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:06 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    Or a sticker that says “if you can read this, how did you miss the flashing light?”

  5. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:12 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    That does rather assume that they do indicate, and that they do so in a timely fashion. This is not always the case.

  6. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:14 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    Mark:

    ‘If the road is narrow and there is a pavement, get off and walk. Other people have the right to drive on the road.’

    Riding in the middle of the lane does not prevent cars from using the road. At worst, it merely slows them down. Their right to use the road is intact.

  7. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:16 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    Slowing cars is not the issue. Many narrow roads have poor visibility, this and the fact that a lot of motorists are arrogant pratts leads them to drive fast with no visibility. Would you want to be in the middle of the road when some fool comes speeding up behind you? I know I wouldn’t.

    These things sound fine IF the vehicle starts behind you. If there is no vehicle around and you try it, it is asking to get squished.

  8. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:22 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    Also, Mark:

    ‘To me cyclists have sod all rights. When they have to have a licence, tax and mot to ride the roads, stick to the roads and don’t just apply the rules as and when they see fit, and treat other road users with a little consideration. Then, and only then will they get the same rights as everyone else.’

    Well, I think we know where you stand. Don’t forget that the cost of maintaining the road system is far greater than that gleaned through vehicle licensing, and is topped up through general taxation. We all pay it, car drivers or not.

    And, much as you may fervently wish it to be otherwise, cyclists already have those rights.

    But seriously, do you consider blind obedience and your ability to get from A to B as fast as possible more important than the lives of other road users? Are you really that callously inhuman?

  9. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:24 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    Oh, I should make it clear that I’m talking about city riding here, where visibility is not an issue.

  10. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:36 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    “Well, I think we know where you stand. Don’t forget that the cost of maintaining the road system is far greater than that gleaned through vehicle licensing, and is topped up through general taxation. We all pay it, car drivers or not.”

    And the insurance? and the MoT? and the driving licence? As I see it every single bike out there is capable of causing a multiple pileup, wrecking vehciles, people and property, with zero liability. Bikes are allowed on the road without lights and brakes. So unroadworthy vehicles, that are not insured for other peoples protection are allowed on the road by someone that has never ridden a bike, and that is apparently fine.

    “But seriously, do you consider blind obedience and your ability to get from A to B as fast as possible more important than the lives of other road users? Are you really that callously inhuman? ”

    Let me ask you this. Do you consider a cyclist invulnerable? Cyclists ride around as if they own the roads. Drive down the middle when they could pull over, but why should they. They have rights. Screw everyone elses rights, and common courtesy. They have a bike. So do I. It annoys me immensely when people seem to think they have the right to moan about other peoples actions when acting like a pratt themselves.

  11. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 10:39 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    “Oh, I should make it clear that I’m talking about city riding here, where visibility is not an issue. ”

    I mean more country. Some of the roads are 1 – 11/2 car wide and cyclists ride down the middle and wonder why they get squished.

  12. Musashi

    Wrote at 2009-06-03 20:02 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    Stuff like this only started to happen when police started punishing cyclists for going through red lights…
    1. Cycling lanes are barely worth the paint. Just a token gesture to delude cyclists in a sense of safety.
    2. Why put labels on lorries/buses? If the cyclist is too stupid to realise just how big the bus/truck is, then maybe they deserve to get knocked out…
    3. Railings are there for a reason – protect pedestrians from falling into busy junctions.
    4. Advanced green lights for cyclists will cause confusion for other road users.
    5. Speed limits are low enough. Just make cyclists learn to ride and teach everyone to take some F***in’ responsibility…

    Disclaimer: I’m an experienced cyclist that has been riding across Central London since 1992 (long before the congestion charge and long before cycle lanes). Everything was perfectly safe then and it is still safe now – so long as councils stop changing junction designs and traffic light timings and all the other ridiculous ways our tax money gets wasted.

  13. Crosbie Fitch

    Wrote at 2009-06-04 17:06 UTC using Chrome 1.0.154.65 on Windows XP 64 or Server 2003:

    A hazard of our times that almost caused an accident with me this morning…

    A woman exited the passenger, road-side door of a car parked on the right (facing away from me).

    I expected her to sidle to the front of the car to the pavement, but given cyclists have to expect the unexpected if they’re to survive, I moved to ring my bell as a precaution. As I rang it, whilst still looking down at her hands, she turned and strode without the slightest glance around into the middle of the road and into my path – I had already moved hands to brakes and now had to slam them on removing 2 10inch strips of rubber from my tyres. She looked up from texting on her mobile phone to venture a sheepish apology. I think she should have thanked me for braking in good time given my expectation of her to be so mindless – other road users may have assumed her to be cognisant of her predicament.

    I guess the pedestrian on the pavement to the other side of the road that she was intending to catch up with was her husband patiently waiting for her to complete her text. I had also been prepared for him to unexpectedly stride into the road, hence me taking the mid-line of the 10feet between him and car.

    Some might say natural selection is the solution, that people who endanger their lives through incompetence will eventually improve the species. Others might say that we can’t wait that long, we must take measures that make allowance for the fact that people do stupid things.

    A cyclist that collides with a pedestrian is a priori in the wrong. Ringing the bell or shouting Move because I’m not stopping! is not license to kill, nor excuse to injure.

    A lorry that collides with a cyclist is also a priori in the wrong.

  14. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-06-04 17:20 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    Crosbie, you’re right about pedestrians! I always expect people to walk out in front of me without looking. I can usually predict it—mobile phone use is a good indicator—and slow down or move out of their way in advance. Ringing a bell or shouting seems more dangerous: it tends to startle pedestrians and make them act erratically.

  15. Dennis

    Wrote at 2009-06-05 18:42 UTC using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP:

    As a finally retired lorry driver with 50 years experience, I’d like to add my twopen’th. I taught my children and they are now teaching their children that the only safe place for a cyclist is on the pavement. I have seen too much blood and body parts being scraped off the road, but NEVER seen this on the pavement. Obviously when a vehicle mounts the pavement sometimes people get killed. Pavement cyclists will on the odd occasion cause only bruised ankles. Where I live we have shared pedestrian/cyclist routes with never any problems. Nuff sed?

  16. Emil

    Wrote at 2009-06-05 20:40 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    I think HGVs should only be under/overtaken when they are stationary and with extreme care.

    It is also important when cycling to be aware of side roads, and to not under/overtake a car when it is passing a side road, or allow yourself to be overtaken by a car.

    I think sometimes it is definitely a good idea to go through red lights to get a head-start on the other traffic, but this must only be done when there is absolutely nothing coming, including pedestrians.

    I also think cyclists should be allowed to use pavements if they do so safely – i.e. cycle at or close to walking speed.

  17. Chris Rust

    Wrote at 2009-06-07 19:39 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    I’m getting bored with motorists whingeing about cyclists jumping lights so I’ve started counting how many motorists jump lights – guess what? they all do it. When the light is red there will always be one more coming across, at 20+mph in a lethal weapon.

    Meanwhile I pay road tax, I just leave my car at home most days, I’m in the CTC so I have third party insurance and I jump lights to stay out of the way of cars and trucks.

    And yesterday I was nearly killed by a Sainsbury’s HGV that overtook me when it was clear the traffic ahead was going to slow for it to work, then pulled in on me before his trailer was half way past, Tosser!

    Motorists need cyclists to give them a fright, otherwise they’d stay in their dopey stupor. Most urban car trips are unnecessary for able bodied people (I use my car once a fortnight) so self-righteous motorists are just in denial. It’s only uncivilised people who don’t get it about bicycles.

  18. David

    Wrote at 2009-06-07 19:39 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    And here lies the crux of the problem for cyclists: most car drivers would support the view that cyclists should not over/undertake cars (mainly because of the dangers associated with pedestrians/cars pulling out), but are absolutely not prepared to accept the converse position presented by a cyclist holding up their journey – so where can a cyclist safely ride in this circumstance?

    I have been overtaken more times than I can count by lunatic drivers who, despite the gusto with which I ride (meaning that in London I am typically near to or at the speed of free traffic), will feel obliged to get past at any cost, usually having to break the speed limit to do so, only to slam their brakes on 20 yards further on as they reach other traffic or lights, saving themselves no time at all and endangering everyone around them in the process.

    Mark: you generalise to an excessive degree – I accept that some cyclists are idiots who make life difficult for other road users (including other cyclists), but your apparently preferred concept of applying naval doctine to the road (i.e. smaller craft must always get out of the way of larger), is both unworkable and leads me to fear that you may be prone to the unreasonable behaviour mentioned above.

  19. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-08 13:38 UTC using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP:

    The problem with any group is that it will always be judged on the ones that stand out, and they tend to be the ones that shouldn’t be used to judge a group on. I am marked as being a worse driver than a 20 year old female that has just passed her test. Why? because a large section of male drivers are idiots. I have never had a crash and never even had a parking ticket. Generalisation states I am a worse driver more likely to kill people. Facts show I am not. I cycled across Nottingham for many years and never came close to getting killed. A little thought is all it needs.

    Where I work are several bike riders, most quite happily confess to going the wrong way on a one way street, jumping lights and riding where ever they like. To me these people are breaking the law. They should be punished, but yet are repeatedly not.

    Re: undertaking. No. Just no. It is bloody dangerous in a car so doing it on a bike is asking to get squashed. You are lucky if people look over their right shoulder when they pullout or change lanes. The chances of them looking left are miniscule.

  20. Mark

    Wrote at 2009-06-08 13:39 UTC using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP:

    “I’m getting bored with motorists whingeing about cyclists jumping lights so I’ve started counting how many motorists jump lights – guess what? they all do it. When the light is red there will always be one more coming across, at 20+mph in a lethal weapon.
    ”

    Just because someone else acts like a dick, doesn’t give you the right to. The motorists are breaking the law, the cyclists are breaking the law. Simple as that.

  21. David

    Wrote at 2009-06-10 16:56 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP:

    “Re: undertaking. No. Just no.”

    And yet that, going back to Paul’s original post, is exactly what the green bike lanes encourage cyclists to do, so that if the traffic on the road slows down at all, cyclists will, by definition, undertake.

    Sadly this debate will not be resolved before more people are killed on the roads, and I fear may never be until and unless an attitude change is achieved by both sides, with both cars and cyclists recognising that to run smoothly together they both have to make significant concessions in their pursuit of speed, rather than the “devil take hindmost” attitude which prevails at present.

  22. Steve

    Wrote at 2009-06-10 18:20 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    I think it needs to be said that (for cars or cyclists) jumping the lights isn’t to be recommended or condoned unless it prevents an otherwise unavoidable accident. Having said that, cyclists have AS MUCH RIGHT to use the road as motorists – I’m looking at you Mark.

    If a cyclist jumps a light they are doing it at their own risk knowing that if their judgement is out they’re the ones who will be scraped off the tarmac. If you jump the lights in a car, chances are you’ll walk away.

    My views on HGVs are: never undertake ‘em. At junctions where traffic can go straight on or turn left I will move out in to the middle of the lane and make the traffic go at my pace until I have cleared the turn and can’t be cut up.

    A final thought – I’d like lorries to have a panic button on the nearside which would make a noise in the cab. It wouldn’t cost much (perhaps a tenner) and it could save lives.

  23. William

    Wrote at 2009-06-14 11:32 UTC using Firefox 3.0.10 on Mac OS X:

    Dear Mark

    Please consider you may be mistaken.

    When you say

    > It annoys me immensely when people seem to think they have the right to moan about other peoples actions when acting like a pratt themselves.

    ...do consider carefully your own role in this spiralling discontent.

  24. ceedee

    Wrote at 2009-06-14 12:30 UTC using Firefox 2.0.0.13 on Windows XP:

    @Steve – Cyclists have more right to use the road—everyone else requires a licence!

    I drive 7.5t trucks within central London a couple of times a month and am particularly careful around bikes as I lost a dear friend to a left-turn blindspot many years ago.

    My suggestion for cyclists wishing to survive the nearside of trucks at traffic lights is to pull a few feet forward and make eye contact with the trucker, tapping on the windscreen (if you can reach it) if necessary.
    Give the driver a friendly wave, maybe indicating which way you’re heading?

    Just make sure we know that you’re there, please!

  25. Ewan Marshall

    Wrote at 2009-07-10 04:47 UTC using Firefox 3.5 on Linux:

    There are special add-on mirrors HGVs can get to specifically to cover these blindspots.
    I use to help a cycle proficiency instructors one of who was also a HGV driver who demonstrated them before one session while we were waiting for the students to arrive. Maybe it’s about time the government made these a requirement.
    It’s been a good few years since then, so I can’t remember the manufacturer but if I recall correctly they are in common use in one of the other EU countries.

    Also, with the government pushing initiatives of cycling over driving and such, maybe the laws should be modified a little. I see no harm in cycling on pavements as long as one has working brakes and gives way to pedestrians.

    As a cyclist I hate cars more, at least HGV drivers give more room on wet roads where they can. Business men car drivers like to squish you into the curb on the wet days.

Leave a comment

Please read the comment guidelines before posting. Comments are Gravatar-enabled. Your email address will not be published.

To prove that you’re human, type human in the Bot check field.

Trying to post some program output or a long code sample? Please use a paste service and link to it instead.