Annerley Rd tragedy

[Gunlock]

I agree. The ADR rules regarding mirrors, (number and required positions) could be improved. My current model truck only has 4 mirrors on the left side of the cab, and I can still loose an SUV over there. I suppose the question also needs to be asked - at what point do the mirrors themselves be considered a blind spot causing hazard? I can loose more than an SUV behind my mirrors...

Train style external cameras feeding to small internal screens?

[gorilla monsoon]

Proximity sensors as fitted to a lot of cars.

[RonK]

I have an issue with vehicles (trucks, for the most part) that are allowed to have a blind spot 'large enough to swallow an SUV'.

Surely you could design better mirrors that, at the least, minimize such a massive blind spot?

I agree. The ADR rules regarding mirrors, (number and required positions) could be improved. My current model truck only has 4 mirrors on the left side of the cab, and I can still loose an SUV over there. I suppose the question also needs to be asked - at what point do the mirrors themselves be considered a blind spot causing hazard? I can loose more than an SUV behind my mirrors...

I don't know how you can be comfortable with such large blind spots on your truck Pete.
A quite search reveals reversing camera kits can be bought for as little as $100. Every truck could/should be fitted with two or three of these to monitor blind spots.
I know you have two cameras on your bicycle. Why not on your truck?

[PiratePete]

I don't know how you can be comfortable with such large blind spots on your truck Pete.
A quite search reveals reversing camera kits can be bought for as little as $100. Every truck could/should be fitted with two or three of these to monitor blind spots.
I know you have two cameras on your bicycle. Why not on your truck?

I've got 3 [emoji1]

The bigger point is that the blind spots (there are several) exist on not just my Truck, but on all truck, and cars for that matter. Trucks have the added issue of height, permitting taller things to disappear.

Mack Tridents are quite good for driver visibility, even if I can loose a SUV. There are current model trucks with far worse blind areas than the Mack.

I see cyclists, they are built into my psyche, most drivers (cars, trucks or otherwise) don't or don't want to. It is up to us as the vulnerable road user to ensure we are seen. The key to my message is that the only way you can ensure the driver of the other vehicle can see you, is if you can see their face.

[human909]

If you have a blind spot then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure it remains clear of obstacles.

All this talk about blind spots on a car is a joke. A regular sedan has excellent visibility. A normal driver has a neck and should use it. Unless the objects are short and mobile then there really isn't much excuse.

[PiratePete]

Just for interest I've dug up a couple of photos I took when my latest truck was new, after I added an extra mirror to help reduce the blind spot risk:

This photo is taken from the top of the windscreen to the left of centre (a bit over a metre from the drivers head)


This one is from the drivers view point. Note the red car is missing... But is visible via my mirror. You might also note that red is bright, grey or other colours which blend into the road are not so easy to see.

Small short mobile things can easily go unnoticed:


Just jumped back in the truck after taking this photo, and from the drivers seat, where I sat the phone to take the photo is located in a blind spot because of the main blind spot mirror...

[human909]

There is no doubt plenty of blind spots on a truck where even larger objects can not be seen. But like I said it is the DRIVERS responsibility to ensure that the space they are moving into is clear.

(Though an object moves into the space after it being checked by the driver then the responsibility on the driver is much less.)

[PiratePete]

There is no doubt plenty of blind spots on a truck where even larger objects can not be seen. But like I said it is the DRIVERS responsibility to ensure that the space they are moving into is clear.

(Though an object moves into the space after it being checked by the driver then the responsibility on the driver is much less.)

This is not being argued. The purpose of the discussion it to enable people to see things from a perspective to which they may not be aware of or understand. I'm not particularly interested in each parties legal rights, but more interested in saving the life of a cyclist and eliminating the trauma caused by such an event to all the other people involved.

From a legal perspective, I suspect that a cyclist riding up the left side then possibly at the front corner of another vehicle could potentially be at fault. This doesn't help anyone after the event.

The number of times I've had someone riding a bicycle put themselves at risk in this exact location (relative to the truck) on the roads in Brisbane just blows me away. The most recent occurrence was just yesterday.

I'm the Truckie you want to encounter on the roads. However it is possible for even me, the cyclist Truckie, to not be aware of the presence of someone placing themselves in harms way. Which is why regardless of legal rights, we need to accept some responsibility for our own conduct, and ensure our own safety, by not making the huge assumption that it's someone else is responsible, so my apathy will keep me safe.

[Duck!]

If you have a blind spot then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure it remains clear of obstacles.

That's a pretty narrow view. How can a driver be responsible for other people sidling up & slipping into the blind spots?

[elantra]

The "swept path" issues and exposed rear wheels of a dog trailer present a massive hazard to cyclists and pedestrians that is largely mitigated by using two smaller trucks. Dog trailers have no place in urban areas where they mix with pedestrians and cyclists.

The 'swept path' your referring to is smaller with a truck and dog trailer combination that that of a semi trailer. My new truck was built to conform to NHVR requirements for Performance Base Standards or PBS as it is commonly known. This scheme takes the full design and ensures that it is engineered to improve safety standards. The reason I mention this is that the trailer which was incorporated to the design and approval was a pre-existing (2 year old at the time) trailer. To get the correct amount of 'sweep' as you refer to it, the draw bar had to be replaced. The original draw bar was 3.9m long, the 'ideal' (from NHVR's Engineers) for the combination is 4.4m long. This has resulted in more difficulty in reversing maneuverability, however it has the optimum sweep for lane changes and directional stability.

Cyclists, pedestrians, and cars do not get sucked under a trailer of a truck and dog, especially at the low speed involved in this horrible event.

I'm really failing to see your argument against Rigid truck and dog trailer combinations, it sounds very much to me that your speaking with a lot of ignorance on the subject.

Also from the media reporting of the inquest, the testimony talks of the drive wheels of the truck breaking traction, and this was when it was noticed that the victim was under these 'drive' wheels. This event had absolutely nothing to do with a dog trailer, except that the driver would have as I previously posted, needed to drive deep into the intersection prior to making the turn to keep the inside turning lane unobstructed. But as I also previously stated, if it was a semi trailer then that vehicle would have needed to go deeper again to make the turn.

It is not the vehicle type which causes these incidents to occur, it is the driver/rider or a combination of both that create these situations. Education is the key to reducing (hopefully eliminating) these and other road safety issues. Licensing requirements could be tightened, but this would need to include cyclists. The minimum license to drive a articulated vehicle is a HC, this requires three times the theory and practical testing which the car driver has done, as well as a timed progression, between these levels to gain experience. A cyclist requires what level of training?

We need to wait and see what the coroner has to say at the completion of the inquest, however it does appear that the people involved did not, or could not, see each other at the intersection.

I have just looked at the video incorporated in the Brisbane Times news article http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... j4nnm.html

This appears to show footage of Police Officers inspecting the front of the trailer, and quotes the driver as saying that when he looked back in mirror he saw something coming out from under the trailer wheels.
This would strongly suggest that it was the trailer, not the truck, that did the damage.
I have seen this type of combination vehicle in operation hundreds of times over the years and the concept of a huge "gap" in the vehicle screams danger.
I am sure that the reason these vehicles are illegal overseas has nothing to do with population density, it is because the concept is fatally flawed.

No disrespect is intended to the operators of such vehicles, obviously to compete in the construction industry, these vehicles have become De riguer in Australian cities.

The real failure is in the bureaucratic systems that have approved these vehicles to be permissable in the city environment.

[PiratePete]

I have just looked at the video incorporated in the Brisbane Times news article http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... j4nnm.html

This appears to show footage of Police Officers inspecting the front of the trailer, and quotes the driver as saying that when he looked back in mirror he saw something coming out from under the trailer wheels.
This would strongly suggest that it was the trailer, not the truck, that did the damage.
I have seen this type of combination vehicle in operation hundreds of times over the years and the concept of a huge "gap" in the vehicle screams danger.

A one second grab of footage does not make for the whole story, nor does using Fairfax media video news report as evidence. Eyewitness accounts from people at the scene used in the inquest is probably going to give a better account of what has occurred:

"The rear tyre of the bicycle was hit by the front of truck and the cyclist was pushed onto right hand side and went under the front of the truck,"

Evidence tabled at the inquest into Ms Meyer's death at the Queensland Coroner's Court on Wednesday 19th August 2015, source Brisbane Times article:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... j2sih.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know you love to hate truck and dog combinations, that's OK, your entitled to your opinion, however can I please ask you to review the facts before passing judgement, and publishing inaccurate statements attempting to inflame the issue.

[herzog]

I feel sick. Only one day has elapsed and I saw this on the ride home this afternoon.

Motorcyclist got taken out by a Dog Trailer. Many police and Serious Crash Unit investigators on the scene. Location is near the SCG.



Picture off my helmet cam footage.

[herzog]

[schroeds]

I also passed that accident. ..rider on the ground. ..we don't know what happened yet so let's not pre judge

[herzog]

What we do know is that there was a collision involving a motorcycle and a Truck+Dog, resulting in the death of a 47 year old motorcyclist. RIP.

[trailgumby]

That style of prime mover renders it impossible to see vulnerable road users if they are close enough to be below the engine compartment and radiator.

I was almost taken out by one at Barangaroo a few weeks ago. The driver was an impatient dick, trying to force his way through traffic controllers' stop signs 200m earlier, only stopping when they ran in front if him to block his progress (kudos to them, that took some balls).

I had that uneasy feeling you get when someone encroaches right up into your space, after which you know that something is about to unfold. When the light went green I broke right into the space taken up by the right turn lane.

It was very fortunate that I made that decision. He launched his empty truck when the light went green, and would have gone straight over the top of me.

[herzog]

Meanwhile, every truck in China - yes China - has sideguards fitted by law:

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/there-a ... erica.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PiratePete]

That style of prime mover renders it impossible to see vulnerable road users if they are close enough to be below the engine compartment and radiator.

I was almost taken out by one at Barangaroo a few weeks ago. The driver was an impatient dick, trying to force his way through traffic controllers' stop signs 200m earlier, only stopping when they ran in front if him to block his progress (kudos to them, that took some balls).

I had that uneasy feeling you get when someone encroaches right up into your space, after which you know that something is about to unfold. When the light went green I broke right into the space taken up by the right turn lane.

It was very fortunate that I made that decision. He launched his empty truck when the light went green, and would have gone straight over the top of me.

Unfortunately there is always a small proportion of drivers who let the rest down. Trucks, cars, motorcycles and even bicycles. [emoji17]

[Ross]

If you have a blind spot then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure it remains clear of obstacles.

All this talk about blind spots on a car is a joke. A regular sedan has excellent visibility. A normal driver has a neck and should use it. Unless the objects are short and mobile then there really isn't much excuse.

Not always. The windscreen A pillar on many late model cars are quite thick and can easily hide a cyclist and in some cases a complete car (VE-VF Commodore are supposedly quite bad).

[Thoglette]

Not always. The windscreen A pillar on many late model cars are quite thick and can easily hide a cyclist and in some cases a complete car

Absolutely - it's still my responsiblity to account for that, but current cars (and mirrors) suck badly.

Not as bad as "conventional" (non-cab over) aerodynamic trucks - another beast which seems to be extinct everywhere bar the USoA and here. I can see the attractions of aero cabs (eg. Kenworth T660) on highspeed, long-haul trucking, but not for urban/suburban work.

Bad truck design for visibility (conventional)


Better truck design (cab over)


Our old tray-truck had windows at knee level, either in the doors or just infront of the door pillars. Great visibility.

[Thoglette]

Oh, and it's an old problem BBC reports improvements in cab over - using an existing design, not a new one.

And more Guardian 2013 & BBC 2015 which underlines the over representation of HGV in cyclist deaths.

[il padrone]

Unfortunately there is always a small proportion of drivers who let the rest down. Trucks, cars, motorcycles and even bicycles. [emoji17]

That excuse barely holds water in these types of incidents.

When a cyclist "lets the rest down", he or she is likely to suffer serious injuries or fatality. Other road users may be inconvenienced, at times injured.

When a car driver "lets the rest down" they, and other road users, may be killed, seriously injured..... or it may be a matter of severe panel-damage.

When a truck-driver "lets the rest down" it is quite likely to result in someone else's fatality. The truck driver will often walk away.

[PiratePete]

Unfortunately there is always a small proportion of drivers who let the rest down. Trucks, cars, motorcycles and even bicycles. [emoji17]

That excuse barely holds water in these types of incidents.

When a cyclist "lets the rest down", he or she is likely to suffer serious injuries or fatality. Other road users may be inconvenienced, at times injured.

When a car driver "lets the rest down" they, and other road users, may be killed, seriously injured..... or it may be a matter of severe panel-damage.

When a truck-driver "lets the rest down" it is quite likely to result in someone else's fatality. The truck driver will often walk away.

Agreed.

But I feel you may have taken my comment out of context, I was not referring to the topic of this thread, but to the previous post.

[myforwik]

There is a qld road rule that says:
"A driver must not drive a motor vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of the road, and traffic, ahead, behind and to each side of the driver."

How do trucks get away with not complying?

At the end of the day a blind spot is not an excuse, it's an admission that the vehicle shouldnt have even been on the road.

[human909]

If you have a blind spot then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure it remains clear of obstacles.

All this talk about blind spots on a car is a joke. A regular sedan has excellent visibility. A normal driver has a neck and should use it. Unless the objects are short and mobile then there really isn't much excuse.

Not always. The windscreen A pillar on many late model cars are quite thick and can easily hide a cyclist and in some cases a complete car (VE-VF Commodore are supposedly quite bad).

Quite true. But that doesn't relinquish a drivers responsibility. Why do you think I mentioned the NECK. Drivers need to use it. A slight movement will completely fix the A-pillar blind spot issue. I certainly check, check and triple check for traffic when entering a roadway. This is deliberate. And I deliberately look for cyclists AND pedestrians. There are plenty of drivers who don't look for either.

(As a driver of an old car with excellent visibility all round I definately am aware of how bad some A-pillars are in modern cars.)

Stronger education and stronger enforcement is needed. The number of pedestrians who are struck by right turning motorists is quite high too. Drivers simply are not looking for cyclists or pedestrians.