Posted By Dave Dowan
Hi John happened to me on the M1; luckily it was in a contra-flow and the HGV that hit me and I where only doing 40, my car was wrecked but no injuries. The Polish driver said that he looked but did not see me in the blind spot.
This type of Accident has been featured on one of the motor programmes (5th gear I think)
Regards Dave

Posted By Dave Wilson
OK lets ban all RHD on the continent!

Posted By Raymond Rapp
It is an interesting concept that LHD HGVs have a blind-spot, causing a number of RTAs. In my experience some RHD HGVs are also guilty of such a problem, or perhaps they don't really look or care.

Whilst driving on the A40 recently I was cut up by a HGV who indicated and then pulled straight into my lane when I was half way past it. Even though I tooted my horn twice it did not deter the lunatic and I narrowly averted a collision with a vehicle passing me in the fast lane.

Regards

Ray

Posted By dave burrage
It seems to me that the standard of HGV driving has deteriorated to such an extent that it shouldn't be any surprise if there are more accidents than ever before. As somebody who drives around 45k miles every year, i see more and more instances where HGV's 'close the gap' between themselves and the vehicle in front when being overtaken. When i was a nipper, (not THAT long ago!)my dad was a trucker and we used to travel all over the UK during school holidays and even on a weekend run to scotland and back. There was a definite feeling that truckers were respected and had earned their reputation as gentlemen of the road. How many people would put them into that category now? It might be an interesting topic for a study into the human behaviour factors behind RTA's involving HGV's?

Posted By J Knight
Fiar bit of food for thought in the responses. No, I don't think banning LHS HGVs is practical or necessary; not is banning RHD tricks on the continent! Myabe some sort of practice cert is needed? Or would that be just too much red tape?

Is anybody keeping numbers of these? I do agree with general comments about lower standards among HGV drivers. My partner's brother drove for years, and one of the reasons he gave up was disgust with the way his fellows behave, he really felt that attitudes had changed, though to be fair to the drivers at least some (if not all) of this seems to come from the top in the form of ever shorter schedules and ever increasing pressure to meet deadlines.

And while I have much respect for the police driver's college, I find it hard to understand the idea that the injured party is always partly responsible for an accident. To take an example from on of the RTAs we've had recently. Our driver was doing 60 to 65 in the left hand lane of the M40 and was clipped by the HGV while being overtaken (limiter?!); how did she contribute to that?

John

Posted By Chris Packham
Didn't the original question refer to soemthing called a 'blind spot'? Why should there be a blind spot? Surely it should not be beyond the ingenuity of man to arrange that all HGVs must be fitted with additional rear view mirrors if necessary adjusted so that no vehicle adjacent to the HGV cannot be seen.
I drive a fair amount on the continent and my left hand mirror has an additional mirror glued to it that ensures that even it a car in the left hand lane is adjacent to me I can see it. Makes driving on the right much more relaxed and safer!
Perhaps there could be spot checks on foreign trucks arriving at UK ports to ensure that their mirror system is adequate?

Posted By Sean Fraser
HGV drivers are expected to take greater care on the roads (at least, they used to be) as they are bigger and form a lower proportion of what usually travles on the road (cars and vans).

All vehicles have blind spots - if you don't know what yours is, you shouldn't be driving. You should also be able to anticipate someone elses.

Large vehicles do not have the same maneouverability on roundabouts as smaller ones - if you go with or even along a large HGV while it is turning, you will be in danger of collision as it HAS to encroach on your lane just to get through. Let HGVs go slightly ahead and you keep to their rear and you can follow safely through the hazard and accelerate past once back on the open road beyond. If others behind you are irate at that, let them overtake you and see how well they get on at the next roundabout as they try to overtake the HGV on the circle - it was a lesson I was never told but had to experience myself and I was chastened by it.

Blind spots can be fixed with CCTV on board - a quick glance at the screen as well as the mirrors will inform the driver if it is safe to make the change. They are DIRECTLY responsible if they hit you (assuming you weren't attempting a dangerous action yourself at the time) as they wished to change their lane / direction and should make sure it is clear before doing so, as well as indicating their intention. Just shoving on the indicators and making the move in the hope the other road users will have modified their behaviour to accomodate is negligent in the extreme.

Remember - everyone has the same right to use the road, but different vehicles have different characteristics and you should be able to anticipate them. Walk a mile in their shoes and see if your own horizon broadens as a result.

Posted By John Mackessack
Interesting thread. Excellent answers. As a keen motorcyclist, car driver, son of a wagon driver, etc, ect, I would still put more trust in HGVs than I would in the 'average' car driver.

It's funny how car drivers hate HGVs, motorbikes and cyclists and always complain about them. When you stop seeing cars plodding moronically at 65 in lane 2 (the middle lane), fog lights on, vacant stare, dribbling down their fronts, completely oblivious to anyone else or worse still, using a mobile phone, THEN you'll see a host of other dangerous activities decline.

The car is king, although their operators are usually the least trained, hence the have no empathy or inkling as to how a big truck needs to be 'worked' to get its load to Tesco on time.

Speak to any truck driver and they'll also bemoan the unrealistic demands placed on them by JIT practices....but that's another story.....

Mr Angry

Posted By Nick House
Here here John M!

Also, I believe the reason tht the police state that there are no completely 'innocent' parties to an RTA (although I now believe they are called Road Traffic Incidents) is due to the very thing this thread started off discussing - OBSERVATION.

If all parties were completely aware of what was going on around them, and were travelling at the correct speed for the conditions, leaving the correct gap from the vehicle in front, then the vast majority of accidents could be avioded.

Of course, there will always be the odd exception as no-one is perfect, but this is the theory behind it all.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Nick

Hang on there. No innocent parties in any RTA as a standard assumption. What about the person sat quietly in his car having pulled up at red lights only to have someone jump the lights as an amber gambler, hit another amber gambler coming the other way. The second one careers into the stationary car. Is not the stationary driver innocent, or not guilty of any action?

I think that there are often too many excuses for poor road positioning and inattention. I also can remember being on a roundabout, with dual carriageway approach and exit, and found an HGV speeding round my offside and pushing me across into one of the access roads so that he could actually swing into the dual carriageway exit point. Yes HGV drivers used to be exceptional on the roads but nowadays I find many of them as selfish as many other drivers. But we must not descend into name calling.

I think Merv makes the point very eloquently concerning the use of LHD vehicles in RHD countries, and vice versa. Perhaps it is time that a serious consideration of the problems needs to take place and for us reflect on the need for prohibitions.

The whole standard of driving on our roads has deteriorated over the last decades. Indicators are seen as a means of insisting on the right to change lanes. How many of us find drivers flash an indicator as they move across. How many of us gnash our teeth at motorway junctions because the main traffic flow is brought to a halt by somebody on the slip road forcing their way in.

I believe defensive driving courses should be manadatory once the test is passed. It is the only way to try and remove the aggressive urges present in many drivers. I also by the way believe that, if you are using your indicator to access a motorway from the slip road in most situations, you are driving agressively. There is only one thing you intend to do if you are going down the motorway slip road and that is join the motorway. The Hi-way code states clearly that you match your speed and enter an appropriate gap, not create one. Indicators do not give a right to space and thus require everyone to give way behind. If I cause someone to brake then I am being aggressive.

My moan is over for the day but would welcome any ideas on changing the driving culture of so many drivers.

Bob

Posted By J Knight
IT,

Here, here! Agree with all of that. Like Bob, I too wonder how we can affect the kind of culture change we need.

I'm concentraiting on one small organisation at teh moment, let alone the whole of society, and its hard enough,

John

Posted By John Mackessack
Many people confuse the insurance implications regarding liability with actual fault and causation.

Because the insurance company makes a declaration that is was the 'other' driver's fault, the 'non-fault' party assumes that they are completely exonerated and have nothing to learn from the crash. (They are not accidents, they are crashes).

For instance, you get shunted from the rear. Not your fault? Probably not but if you'd maintained better rearward observation and covered the brake pedal (keeping the brake lights on a little longer) could you have improved the chances that the inattentive idiot behind would see you? Yes, probably.

Are you a good driver/rider? Yes? Do you know what makes you good? Hmm, maybe, but probably not.

Critical self awareness is what many people lack. Many drivers are fiercely defensive about the subject of their driving abilities to the point of not even entertaining the possibility that they may need improvement. I heard a police instructor once say that there are two things for which you must not criticise men: 1) their driving ability and 2) the size of their *?**.

The best drivers in the world are the one's whom seek the most guidance, because they want to stay sharp and see the value of it.

Advanced/defensive driving courses are a good start in the process of becoming a driving/riding god.

Use the force

Posted By IT
John M ,

Well put and yes the insurance companies will always distribute responsibilities (10 your fault because you should have not stopped in the middle of the road to turn right. I knew I should have drove defensively when the car undertook me and crossed the hatchings to force me to stop, it was my fault I did not see or expect him to come from my left over hatchings and I would be at fault because I did not pay due care and attention to my driving.

Rubbish stop making excuses for these arrogant self serving I am more important than you and don't want to play by the rules.

MAKE IT SIMPLE BREAK THE LAW ITS YOUR FAULT 100 %

Posted By Nick House
Good discussion, it a few raw nerves being touched...

Bob, I do accept your point about the stationery driver - like I said, the vast majority of accidents/ crashes/ collisions could be avioded, but there is always going to be an exception to most any rule.

I still, however, maintain that most drivers/ riders are not as good at getting from A to B as they like to think they are.

I also think it is a little unfair to blame everything on poor driving skills (those who have recently passed take the brunt of this, but are possibly better trained than those who took their driving test 20+ years ago, and have received no training ever since.

I think that it is also fair to say that there is a far greater volume of traffic populating our roads network today than there has ever been. Also, in todays 'instant' world, people (whether driving for work, or pleasure) feel that there are greater demands to 'get there' quicker than they would have been 20+ years ago.

If you take all of the above into account, then it is really incredibly difficult to see where to start in order to make the most significant change.

Yes, driver awareness/ advanced driver training is an excellent idea, but if you can't change the current 'instant' culture, then it will all be for nothing, as within 6 months or so, people will potentially slipped bak into their old ways.

As a guide to attention/ observation, how many people on here cannot remembe ra large portion of a journey that they have driven recently? It may have been a familiar route, which people often use as an excuse for not being able to remember those 'lost' portions. However, If, say, you have a 50 mile commute to work, and you 'lose around a third of it from your recent memory, how much attention to your driving/ riding do you honestly think you were paying in your conscious mind? What do you think that would have done to your reaction times should something have happened in front of you?

I for one am perfectly aware that my driving skills could do with continual improvement, and yes, I have undertaken additional training. as has previously been said, those who think they drive without fault are often a far bigger risk than those who know their limits and respect them.

Posted By Nick House
Bob - the "weaving in and out of traffic by bikers" is already (and to the best of my knowledge always has been) illegal.

However, 'filtering' - which means filtering in between lanes of stationary or slow moving traffic (no more than 5 - 10 mph faster than said traffic) is perfectly legal, and is also encouraged on the motorcycle test - it's called making good progress. If conducted properly, it is a relatively safe manoeuvre. The biggest risks are posed by the motorcyclist, as they are the ones who are the least protected. they are also at risk from those drivers who constantly lane hop without warning in order to move forward an extra car length further than they would have done if they had stayed put.

In my opinion, something that is far and away more dangerous is driving a 1.5 - 2 tonne weapon whilst taking a cigarette out of ones pocket and lighting it/ changing a cd over for one that is in the glove box/ taking a swig from a can/ bottle of drink/ eating a mars bar/ sandwich/ gazing at the Sat Nav....... instead of concentrating on what is going on in front/ beside/ behind.

However, this will always be a moot point between riders and drivers, and the discussion could take on a whole life of it's own.

Posted By Nick House
I doubt that 'free on demand' training would be taken up by the masses on a regular basis. However, I do think that if additional refreshers were mandatory at set intervals in order for someone to keep their licence were implemented, they would make a difference in the longer term.

However, it would have to be implemented in such a way so as the 'instructors' were not able to use it as a giant cash cow - perhaps rates should be set by the DoT?

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Nick

Can you find me a biker who does it properly. Does this mean that forcing your way to the front between two lanes at traffic lights is a good idea!! If the legality cannot be enforced it should be stopped. I simply cannot see the logic of the manoeuvre other than to put people at risk or to say that bikers are a special case. Try having it done to you at 50mph, that is my speed, when you are overtaking on a dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit. And yes he had a non-flashing blue light on the back.

The reason I would make the training free is to prevent the cash cow mentality and thus give nobody an excuse for non-attendance.

Bob

Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,

True, there is now a hazard perception test; but in the last five years the proportion of teenage licence holders killed on the roads has more or less doubled (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4871854.stm). These people will all have passed their theory test, but it hasn't stopped them wiping themselves (and other people) out.

Drivers (and I speak for all of us really; even though I think I'm safe I know that everybody else does as well) have an approach to driving which puts safety pretty low down; people don't drive for their safety and that of others, they drive to get to where they're going.

Near us there's a small town on a 'B' road (racetrack), and my partner's dad drove through it a couple of weeks ago. 'What they should do' he said 'is make off road parking bays and get everybody parked on the same side of the road'. What he, a very intelligent man, had failed to appreciate, is that parking in that particular village is deliberately 'haphazardly' organised as part of a comprehensive suite of traffic calming measures. He is a clever man, but put him in the car and he thinks like a motorist; everything should be so arranged to speed his passage from A to B whatever the social, emotional, financial or environmental cost. When I pointed his solipsism out to him he saw his error immediately, but by then he was walking around and the motorist had gone from his brain.

If people like being in their cars so much, why do they drive so fast? Surely if they slowed down they'd have more time to enjoy driving,;-)

John

Posted By Brett Day
Nick: " Also, I believe the reason that the police state that there are no completely 'innocent' parties to an RTA (although I now believe they are called Road Traffic Incidents) is due to the very thing this thread started off discussing - OBSERVATION."

Pretty much, the Class one training teaches that you should apply COAST at all times when driving - CONCENTRATION, OBSERVATION and ANTICIPATION, which will give you, SPACE and TIME to react. It is also taught as a way of overcoming the natural tendency to 'blame the other driver'.

Quoting from Roadcraft "Every drive should be an application of skills and experience previously gained, with the ability to learn from new experiences."

Whilst there are some accidents where one party is blameless, there are things that can be done to avoid accidents that are rarely taught or tested, such as ‘Tyres and Tarmac’, ‘LOOKOUT’ and ‘SLOW’:

Tyres and Tarmac – When coming to a stop at lights, or a junction leave a gap so that as a minimum you can see the rear tyres of the vehicle in front and a patch of tarmac (this is roughly 1.5meters). If the car behind rolls forward or is slow in stopping, you can roll forward increasing the gap between you and the car behind.

LOOKOUT – Observation tips – LOOK OVER, UNDER & THROUGH.

SLOW – Used at roadworks – SPEED LOW, OBSERVE WARNINGS.


Our standards of training and testing new drivers has not kept up with actual road/traffic conditions, we used to have a good regime of safety using the three E’s Engineering, Education and Enforcement.

Less money is being spent on maintenance let alone engineering, with one MP actually stating that potholes should be left, as they act as additional speed humps despite the numbers of motorcyclists killed as a direct result of poor road surfaces.

Our education at present is predominantly speed fixated and at times contradictory, with a testing system that has (apart from minor fiddling around the edges) remained relatively unchanged since the 1950’s, we don’t even test for the basic system of car control.

And we are losing our enforcement to additional duties and camera enforcement.

Then we come to work related driving; I have seen many companies that in their (company) car/driving policies stress the driver’s duties under the Road Traffic Act, yet fail to take into account their (employers) duties under the Management Regs and PUWER. The HSE did start to get more involved with occupational driving but have had funding allocated to this cut.

Few companies assess their drivers, assuming that because they hold a driving licence they are competent, even less offer defensive driver training ( http://www.iam.org.uk/Pr...Releases/2006/nr0603.pdf ) despite work related drivers covering more miles than a domestic drivers and being involved with nearly a third of all road deaths.

End of Rant.



As for drivers who wish to improve their driving off their own back I would heartily recommended the IAM ‘Skills for life’, it costs about £85 and takes about 2 hours a week for about 8-12 weeks, as a bonus some insurers will give a reduction in premium for passing the advanced test. http://www.iam.org.uk/

Posted By Nick House
Blimey Brett - I can't remember how long ago it was that I last read Roadcraft! A timely reminder to pull it back off the book shelf!


A good friend of mine is both a Class1 driver and rider, and one of the things he has said in general conversation that sticks in my mind is that he strives to learn something each and every time he goes out on the road. He said tha tas long as he keeps that frame of mind, he should (hopefully) never become complacent.

John - Whilst I agree with the general thinking around the 'Speed Kills' campaigns, it is a slightly ambiguous statement to make. What it should really say is 'INAPPROPRIATE Speed Kills', but that does not really have the same level of impact.

One thing that the vast majority of drivers seem to forget is that the posted speed limits are a maximum, not an objective.....

I also agre that although the basic framework of the current practical side of the driving test has changed very little over the years, more and more instructors are taking things a step further than simply teaching a learner driver to pass their test (it is a common misconception that driving instructors teach people to drive....)