I've a meeting in Barnsley on Wednesday, and would like to drop by en
route to catch up if that's OK.
Would like to see how we can tie in some known detail which seems to
correlate and point to further research.
1) at least 80% of HGV-cycle fatal crashes in London are initiated by an
impact between the front nearside quarter of the HGV and the rear
offside quarter of the cycle.
2) immediately prior to an impact in this area the cyclist will be in
the position of least visibility from the driving position - viz masked
by the nearside A pillar, (ironically) the cluster of external mirrors
placed to remove the blind spots across the front and down to the rear
and side of the truck, and the entire solid panelled front nearside
corner and door of the truck.
3) there are indications that the cyclists are also unaware of the
approaching truck because they do not maintain good all round
observation by both aural and visual checks, especially the rearward
over the right shoulder visual check, which is known by motorcyclists as
the Lifesaver - which pretty bluntly tells you why you need to keep
doing this in busy traffic.
4) 10 years ago a robust 5000 response survey of cyclists clearly
highlighted 2 points
i) female respondents answered that they had problems with looking
back over their right shoulder
ii) female cyclists were disportionately involved in traffic
incidents where they moved to the right (or the vehicle movement was
equivalent to this?) without adequate rearward observation.
5) it is thus no surprise that female cyclists feature strongly in fatal
crashes where the major feature if the convergence of HGV and cycle
paths equivalent to the cyclist moving right without adequate rearward
observation potentially compounded by a failure to recognise or hear
vital clues (truck engine note changing as driver slows down to turn
left/truck approaching close behind)
6) the Oxcam survey concluded that the most effective cycle safety
campaign would be to encourage all cyclists to become competent at
looking back over their right shoulder.
Aside from a limited local poster campaign no safety organisation has
taken this on board but instead pursue the futile and insulting campaign
to tell cyclists not to ride through on the nearside, when the figures
scream out 5 from the 7 HGV-cycle fatal crashes in London this year fot
that 80% group, another was a rear end shunt, leaving only the detail of
the Homerton High Street (HGV turning on to the main road - a very low
speed move at 10mph or less? - and yet stopping over 50 metres from the
point of impact?) 6 out of the 7 impacts might have been avoided had the
cyclist been more aware of the HGV entering their road space from the
rear offside quarter.
I think I know one reason for females having the rear shoulder check
problem. Many women I know who ride diamond frames make their first move
a change of handlebar stem to get a shorter reach. This is because
proportionately a 'normal' female has shorter arms relative to their
torso than a male of similar height or leg length, and many cycles are
built to fit male body proportions. Thus a female will be more likely
to be riding with straight arms, on a bike which a male will be riding
with slightly bent arms. and turning the head will bring the shoulder
back sufficiently to pull back on the steering, and make such an action
something that she will not feel comfortable doing.
Who do I go to kick some sense into to get cyclists using the lifesaver
as a key danger management campaign?
The whole issue of hearing is much broader - we need to discuss the use
of audible warnings of approach in their correct sense by both drivers
and cyclists. the noise must be made BEFORE the situation degenerates to
an unavoidable collision. Should we promote the practice of the rail
industry of train drivers sounding the horn and getting an
acknowledgement from all staff on or near the track that they have heard
and are taking action.
Drivers may complain about cyclists with headphones (and the review of
fatal level crossing incidents confirms this is a serious issue) but
equally we should go through the fatal HGV-cycle crashes and not how far
the truck driver continued after the noise of impact, screams & shouts
from the victim and bystanders. At one inquest we heard that it took 49
metres to stop after an impact at 13mph! Hardly an emergency brake
application.
Dave Holladay
I think I'm on the way to cracking the tram lines issue too.
|