Phanerothyme Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 who did the indepent research and how was it done? The clue is in my post In independent research by TRL … TRL did the research, using VOSA figures and VOSA's own research. VOSA themselves bought the lenses and gave them away at points of entry to see if they could affect the rising number of sideswipe accidents. After the lenses were distributed (half a million of them), the number of sideswipe accidents per month stopped increasing and started to go down. VOSA and the police agreed that they and HATOS would complete a special proforma to keep a track on the number of side-swiping incidents - both before, during and after the lenses were distributed. These figures were then given to TRL who had already done some research into HGV blind spots and the solutions. They found that: The Fresnel lens could eliminate 78% to 90% of the blind spots; whereas additional mirrors could only manage a maximum of 75%. This solution costs a couple of orders of magnitude less than a mirror, yet offers better, unreflected, vision and a greater field of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobos Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 One thing that would help cyclists is to just have the chance to sit in a large truck and you would actually get and incite into what or what the driver can not see.there are blind spots that a lot people just don't understand in the vision of the driver, the worst one is at the front nearside,cyclists tend to stop there at the red lights,and the driver does not see them there,nor can the cyclist see the indicators on the truck,so a truck turning left does not know the cyclist is there and once an artic truck starts to turn left all he can see in his nearside mirror is the side of the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 One thing that would help cyclists is to just have the chance to sit in a large truck and you would actually get and incite into what or what the driver can not see.there are blind spots that a lot people just don't understand in the vision of the driver, the worst one is at the front nearside,cyclists tend to stop there at the red lights,and the driver does not see them there,nor can the cyclist see the indicators on the truck,so a truck turning left does not know the cyclist is there and once an artic truck starts to turn left all he can see in his nearside mirror is the side of the trailer. I agree, and it's for this reason If a lorry is waiting at a junction I'll either wait behind it, or only overtake if it is possible to wait in front of the lorry at the junction. It would help if drivers indicated whilst waiting at the junction so other road users can know their intention and then act accordingly. I see too many drivers wait in line at a junction, and then only indicate just before their manoeuvre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oooo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Helmets increase the risk of being in a collision. Lights are already compulsory, the same as for other vehicles, high viz would be fair if all vehicles had to be painted luminous yellow. ---------- Post added 02-12-2013 at 09:04 ---------- Are you actually trying to argue with the factual evidence that wearing a helmet increases the chance of being in an accident? The wearing of high viz is not a stab at cyclists over equal rights. If the study by cycle weekly is the case, then that study must be flawed. A rider wearing a black jumper or a high viz?? Its almost a daft as trying to eat soup with a fork. When we ride, we all wear high viz vests, and im sure this helps drivers see us, rather than having no high viz clothing at all. Im surprised Cycling Weekly has even run this stupid nonsensical story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 There's plenty of middle ground between dark matt clothing and hi viz isn't there. My waterproof cycling coat is blue with reflective patches. Not high viz, but much more visible than a black jumper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The wearing of high viz is not a stab at cyclists over equal rights. If the study by cycle weekly is the case, then that study must be flawed. A rider wearing a black jumper or a high viz?? Its almost a daft as trying to eat soup with a fork. When we ride, we all wear high viz vests, and im sure this helps drivers see us, rather than having no high viz clothing at all. Im surprised Cycling Weekly has even run this stupid nonsensical story. The study doesn't claim to show that wearing hi-viz you are no more visible than not. It shows that drivers notice cyclists who aren't wearing hi-viz anyway. If you are visible enough to be seen, wearing something to make you more visible doesn't provide a benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I don't think we should do this though, it gives ammunition to fuel the prejudice of bad drivers and they then use it to justify endangering other cyclists. Be in the position of moral authority and do things correctly. I agree, although I have some sympathy for those who cycle on the pavement (as long as they defer to pedestrians) out of fear of motor traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 More often than not when I see a cyclist on the pavement they appear to be riding there because it's more convenient for them. They also often lack any lights (so staying off the road is at least a good idea, but really they should fix both problems). There's one cyclist who routinely goes through the tram only section at Hillsborough to avoid the red light. Annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I recently went on a CPC training course for one of my HGV modules and part of the course was cycle awareness training all to do with this thing in London Boris is doing ,they had us out on a bike peddling around the roads and I felt very vulnerable when cars and buses came flying past us,I think it would do a lot of motorists good to do one of these courses it certainly gave me an incite into what a cyclist has to put up with on the roads, I think I will be more tolerant towards cyclists in the future. I think it is awesome that this is now part of the training for HGV drivers. It should also happen vice versa: My eyes really opened when I went on a long haul trip with a friend, I had never been in a lorry before, just seeing how much effort is involved in keeping the thing going in a busy city, all the gear changes involved each time some car driver decided to cut in front 'because there was room'. I don't know how lorry drivers aren't tempted to bring a real shotgun rather than a fella like me... What it did do was show me how to deal with lorries, I now habitually drive my car to expect them to need room, so for example if I am on the M1 and I notice a lorry is going slightly faster than his predecessor, I either stay behind him, creating room for him to use the middle lane if he needs it or I accelerate past rather than hanging about next to him (depending on the space/time he has). If I see a lorry has to make a 90 degree turn into the road I am coming from I stop to give him plenty of room etc. etc. In my opinion it should be compulsory for learners to spend time with a lorry driver and to spend a day on a bike, or at least on the back of a motorbike if cycling is a problem for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 how about tye cyclist's who ignore everyone, ride on the roads with no helmet, no consideration fir other road users and wearing headphones so they have no idea whsts going on around them, and yes I have just seen this today Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android this is the attitude I despise- yes some cyclists are idiots! I am sure there is a point there somewhere but I doubt even you know what it is:huh: Also what does it matter if they don't wear a helmet-that won't hurt anyone but themselves. Are you suggesting that if a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet they deserve to be hit by a car? Headphones are not really a problem either-you just make sure to look around. They have stopped me from swerving into traffic when a pedestrian tries to make me jump by a sudden shout as I cycle past (that has happened at least 3 times now and I have no idea why!) ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 15:29 ---------- I am always very respectful of/careful around cyclists, as a driver I 'handle' them as I would a horse and rider. Slow and wide overtake. But I draw the line at those riding two abreast, which constitute a dangerous obstruction on narrow roads, due to the speed differential. Usually to be found out and about at weekends. Tools. There is nothing wrong with two abreast-they are no wider than a car and it takes less time to overtake them. ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 15:31 ---------- its also no excuse that you take your own safety very seriously, im sorry but the amount of cyclists who have this belief that they own the road and can do and go where they like is breathtaking, there should be a law about cycle safety because yes they are vulnerable, just like all other road users, but take some basic safety road awareness course and perhaps there will be less fatalities Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android what is this based on-do you think there are more well behaved drivers. What law? and just the one? I feel that maybe you havent thought this through:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.