Forum menu
As the demand for goods doesn't go down then you need to put more vehicles on the road otherwise they need to be longer
If your move the cab down and forwards, can the trailer not then extend over the cab to recover some/all of the lost capacity? Or is there something fundamental I'm missing there?
*genuine question BTW
Binners, humans didn't evolve in an environment that included several tonnes of fast moving deadly metal, nor are we particularly well equipped to pilot such things in a busy environment!
The entire concept of letting traffic move freely through our living space is frankly bizarre if you view it outside of the current context where it has crept in over a few generations.
Go find a tribe living in a non-urban area somewhere and ask them what they would think about letting streams metal boxes travel at 30+ mph through their village, and that it's their job to stay out of the way or be killed.
I think in many hundreds of years people are going to look back on this and their minds will boggle that we chose/allowed such madness.
If your move the cab down and forwards, can the trailer not then extend over the cab to recover some/all of the lost capacity? Or is there something fundamental I'm missing there?
Most goods are moved in cages/pallets that are rolled onto the load bed based on the drivers delivery route and unloaded at each drop in reverse order to that they were loaded i.e. last on first off.
Loads above the cab are very rare due to the weight over the front and it would mainly be one drop runs such as removal companies which a very small percentage of vehicles delivering goods on a daily basis.
Sorry for lack of data, I feel in a lot of cases that the for lobby tend to be for things which don't directly effect them and the anti lobby trends to be effected by them -motorists for helmets, cyclists (largely) against is the best parallel I could think of.
On a vaguely related note, I just went out in the work vehicle and whilst reversing (compete with beep and spoken warning) a pedestrian ran behind me, genius. Absolute genius.
In context I'm using the mirrors all the time whist reversing so saw her, but, had they stepped behind the vehicle and promptly stood there waiting for a gap in traffic they'd probably have been crow food, Cab design or no as I can't see though sheet metal.
as said NL with their own narrow streets managed it.I really can not see where the UK would have space for miles of segregated cycle roads, we simply do not have the space.
so on street parking is sacred? why? Thousands of acres of public road devoted to stationary private possessions, it's a ridiculous notion, if applied to anything other than cars I'm sure most of the public would agree.First thing you do is remove on street parking....Come on now, sensible, plausable solutions only please.
% of traffic vs % of fatal accidents HGVs are doing very badly, hence the scrutiny.80% of fatalities have nothing to do with hgvs yet we're not legislating all the other stuff.
thanks for the info craigxxl, that does make sense.
D0nk you're likely right it's down to numbers but my inner cynic can't help thinking it's more because there would be uproar if it were cars.
On a vaguely related note, I just went out in the work vehicle and whilst reversing (compete with beep and spoken warning) a pedestrian ran behind me, genius. Absolute genius.
Maybe people who can't hear should be locked up at home?
The hearing bit, maybe, possibly, I was actually moving at the time too, though not I should add for long after she stepped behind me.
Fortunately no harm done so I can just find it flabbergastingly stupid, rather than being mortified.
< edit> Any how no-one suggested locking people away, quote the opposite. My personal take is just people largely need to be more careful, the OP (when deliberately skewed) suggests people should encourage stupid people to get put and do stupid things in order to better out breeding stock and the other side of the argument when viewed through squint eyes says those same people should be hugged and befriended and told its ok to be stupid because we'll make the world safe for them.
How about something akin to parking sensors that beep in the cab when an object is in the lorries blindspot or maybe a small camera with a screen in the cab.
It's already been done - Volvo introduced their BLIS (Blindspot Information System) as an option on their cars several years ago. Basically, there's a small camera mounted in the car's mirror housings facing the rear of the car, looking at the blind spot. If there's an object in the blind spot area and the driver tries to pull into the space, the car gives an audible and visual warning. Not fool proof but it's a start.
Wouldn't it be better to admit that bicycle advance stop line entry design is all wrong and puts cyclists up the inside of lorries?
>>First thing you do is remove on street parking.
Come on now, sensible, plausable solutions only please.
That's what they did in Amsterdam and they're still doing it - taking out roads and replacing them with cycle facilities (I think in one case . In Singapore (and I think Tokyo) you're not allowed to buy a car unless you can evidence that you've got off street parking for it.
Take the true, free market, Tory way with the parking - aim to reduce by, say, 50% over 5 years. Auction off the remaining spaces so they reach their market value - income would be significantly above current levels so better local services/lower taxes. Take out the parking and you increase the road capacity of the city at a stroke without spending any money.
I was riding through Dulwich today. Pretty much all the houses had off street parking yet the street was still full of parked cars on both sides. What are those cars for? They're obviously not being used to go to work or they wouldn't be there on a weekday afternoon. There are a stack of local schools, all within an easy walk or cycle distance so there would be no need for a school run if there were safe facilities.
Wouldn't it be better to admit that bicycle advance stop line entry design is all wrong and puts cyclists up the inside of lorries?
yes and no
on continental europe, often the lights for cyclist will go green several seconds before those for motorised vehicles.
on continental europe, certainly pretty much most places I've lived/driven/ridden, you almost never have a right to turn right (left in UK) without giving way to bikes or pedestrians. in UK you essentially have full right of way to complete a junction or roundabout once you've committed to entering it. On mainland EU you have to give way to exit a junction/roundabout. Turn right at traffic lights... you will be crossing a pedestrian crossing at green, and possibly a bike crossing too.
570 to 88 from Euro MEPs for Safer Urban Lorries
Apparently, all UKIP MEPs voted against
What are your politics Binners?
What on earth has politics got to do with it? I presume the implication is that if I think this is a stupid idea, then I must be some swivel-eyed faragist loon? Don't UKIP just vote against everything in Europe?
I suspect most MEP's voted for it as part of a well thought through cycle-friendly transport policy they tend to have anyway, and used in conjunction with other measures like the ones described above in Amsterdam
In isolation it's just daft, and it won't make the remotest difference.
Good job it's not being done in isolation then 🙂
If you're really bovinely stupid enough to step out into the path of a truck, then the gene pool really is better off for your absence. I wouldn't rate riding up the inside of trucks much higher up the evolutionary scale either. How far do you go to save idiots from themselves? I know their general buffoonery adds greatly to the gaiety of the nation, and gives us all something to point at and laugh, but where's the cut of point?
Firstly, you're implying that in these incidents, it's always the vulnerable road user that puts themselves into harms way. This certainly isn't always the case, and where it's the HGV driver that has created the hazard, they almost certainly don't intend to kill anyone, so surely making it easier for them to recover from their mistake without killing anyone is a good thing?
Secondly, I don't think the size and location of all of an HGV's blind spots is obvious. Many people might reasonably assume that the visibility in such vehicles is much better than it is. Many people also might not think too hard about what path the rear wheels of a long vehicle will take at a corner - particularly if they were under the assumption that it was going straight ahead. At least one of the fatalities in London involved a cyclist directly in front of an HGV. I think that even people quite high up the evolutionary scale would be quite surprised that there's a blind spot big enough to hide a bike in there. It'd be great if all road users had a chance to experience the road from the perspective of other vehicles, but I can't see it happening.
Are you confident that amongst your friends and family there is nobody who doesn't understand the hazards of the blind spots around lorries? Or would you be comfortable writing it off as Darwinism in action if they got killed in such an incident?