the site where I found the picture had all sorts of truck vs cyclist 'shock' message ads.
I saw the truck going down montague road this morning.
if you have driven a pantec style truck the viability to the rear is very poor.
also trucks are a lot wider and longer than many cars.
If the driver doesn't know you are there they may not give you room
There is also a move in London to install mirrors at intersections on left side of intersections. To enable truckies to see cyclists who are legally riding in bicycle lanes. A sign on a truck may appear good, but what if the indicator is belatedly flicked on? OK, such a driver might not check public mirrors for cyclists, but worth a try considering how many cyclists are hit by trucks in London.
A study by Dr Marilyn Johnson, MUARC, found that many Australian drivers do not use indicators, or indicate too late for cyclist safety.
Whether the truck is stopped or not, I think in this country it is suicidal for a cyclist to undercut them at a red traffic light.
The fault lies in the design of the road that puts truck drivers and cyclists in such an obvious and lethal conflict point.
Two additions to my post.
Campaigners have persuaded Transport for London (TfL) to prioritise this problem as part of its Cycle Safety Action Plan. Two of TfL's most recent lorry safety measures involve installing 'Trixie' mirrors at the most hazardous junctions to help drivers see better, while the Freight Transport Association (FTA) is supporting some rescheduling of deliveries and improved training for drivers. This action is welcomed to some degree, but Trixie mirrors aren't proven to save lives, and there must also be enforcement against those rogue operators who put profits before lives by using sub-standard equipment and pressurising drivers.
Note: the accompanying photo shows a green-coloured stand-ahead bike box that places the bicycle in front of the truck. Could help.
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'.
The standard of some driving is very poor.
Do you need a PhD and a university study to work that out?
Some drivers don't even have a drivers licence
Being a victim of someone else's negligence won't make the pain stop.
All road uses need to be aware of blind spots unfortunately some aren't.
While it may be legal to pass on the left it can be a potentially hazardous maneuver.
How much extra risk is worth a few extra minutes is a personal choice.
I think there is a good case for making double crewing (Driver + observer/"jockey") compulsory on all heavy vehicles (in built-up areas) which do not have full-length windows to the kerb side of the driver. My own experience in driving trucks is that I welcome an observer's input. Double crewing would also make for safer reversing.
A rear gunner to sort out the cyclists :-)
Had not thought of that, but the powerful Australian truckie lobby would resist because of the extra cost. The lobby managed to stop underrun panels becoming mandatory on trucks, even though they save lives (not just of cyclists), are mandatory in some European countries (where safer design), and reportedly save on fuel consumption and therefore costs.