Advocacy & Safety - Bicycle Safely Around Large Trucks

video produced by Portland Water Bureau

http://www.youtube.com/user/PortlandWaterBureau

well that was really annoying to watch, the audio sucked and made it really hard to follow
subtitles would have helped a lot
and maybe an actual clear message? didnt seem well organized

i guess they tried to say.... trucks are big and can't stop fast, they also cant see worth **** around them, so forget about anything you know about right of way and just stay clear of em?
Something along those lines anyway.

Common sense dictates that one would avoid riding near big vehicles.

While it is good to have some tips for riding around big vehicles, I find the video a bit annoying. Basically the message seems to be, "Our drivers are already trained, and don't need any more training, but since we have limitations, the onus is on you as the cyclist to not get hit".

So yes, don't ride near big vehicles, don't pass on the right of potential right-turners. Common sense. But on the other side, you need to be able to follow the law here, which is yield to cyclists in bike lanes when turning right, whether or not you are driving a big vehicle. If you can't do that, you don't belong on the road.

But I do appreciate the fact that they are banning their drivers from making right turns on certain dangerous intersections.

I got the same impression re "driver training" from the video, but otherwise there's some good advice in there. Trucks, buses, and RVs all have huge blind spots (the NO zone" all around them where they simply can't see cyclists, pedestrians, or even small cars even if they're looking for them. You need to make some general assumptions about where these are (hint: if you can't see the driver in his rear view mirror, he/she can't see you, either).

I tend to think of these things as wild elephants intent on stomping me to death, so I make a distinct effort to stay out of their reach.

Tom

Common sense dictates that one would avoid riding near big vehicles.

I would think that common sense would dictate banning any vehicle which does not provide the operator with a clear view of what is around him and a means to control his vehicle in a safe manner.

I would think that common sense would dictate banning any vehicle which does not provide the operator with a clear view of what is around him and a means to control his vehicle in a safe manner.


Tell you what Spanky, you design it. Make sure it's fool proof and accounts for every conceivable situation the ignorant cyclist might put himself in.

Common sense dictates that one would avoid riding near big vehicles.

A lot of people's *common sense* dictates that bicycles have no place on busy roads as well.

That may be why some BF members don't like to have *common sense* dictated to them.

But as an aside, I rarely overtake big vehicles compared to how often they overtake me. Given they prefer the right lane and dislike lane changes to my detriment, I'm not sure how I could avoid being around them. I do dislike it though.

Common sense dictates that one would avoid riding near big vehicles.

+1. This really is a no-brainer.


... But on the other side, you need to be able to follow the law here, which is yield to cyclists in bike lanes when turning right, whether or not you are driving a big vehicle. If you can't do that, you don't belong on the road.

You saw the same video as I did, right? Did you see how small cyclists appeared in the mirrors and how briefly they were visible?

What was unfair, IMO, was that they sat there pointing the camera at the side mirrors for long stretches of time. If anyone were to drive while staring out the side window, they'd hit anything that comes in front of them.

Arguing that cyclists don't need to share responsibility is pretty f'in stupid.

Common sense dictates that one would avoid riding near big vehicles.

Who has Common Sense?

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh187/10wheels/1245.jpg

The fact that they're all waiting behind that truck shows that they have some sense.

You saw the same video as I did, right? Did you see how small cyclists appeared in the mirrors and how briefly they were visible?

What was unfair, IMO, was that they sat there pointing the camera at the side mirrors for long stretches of time. If anyone were to drive while staring out the side window, they'd hit anything that comes in front of them.

Arguing that cyclists don't need to share responsibility is pretty f'in stupid.
You're misrepresenting what I said. Show me where I argue that cyclists should not take responsibility.

Of course people should look out for their own safety. I personally do not pass vehicles on the right at intersections, and am wary of riding in the blind spot of any vehicle. I'm even more careful around large vehicles.

However, blind spots and poor visibility are no excuse for violating another road user's ROW. The law is that a right-turning vehicle must yield ROW to a cyclist in a bike lane. If a vehicle makes this impossible, then something has to give. The vehicle must be improved (better mirrors, sensors, means of signaling intent - like a school bus, for example), the law must be changed (allowing them to behave differently, or changing the basic rules), or the vehicle must be restricted (no right turns, no usage on certain streets or intersections, or completely banned).

But to have a law that says you have ROW, and have a user saying that they can't promise to comply with that law, is pretty f'in stupid.

They're called "blind spots" for a reason. How can you violate someone's ROW if they're not even visible?

You've seen the variety of mirrors they already have on those trucks, so what more are you asking for?

That "something" that you says "has to give" is the cyclist, not the truck. We're smaller, more nimble, more flexible, and can see better.

Damned A&S'ers still don't understand what it means to share the road. It's all about me me me me, get out of my way, I don't know how to turn or brake or stay out of blind spots.

How can you violate someone's ROW if they're not even visible?
:lol:

That's what I told my insurance agent, when I merged into another car that was in my blind spot. "I couldn't possibly be at-fault, since the other car was in my blind spot."

Take a break, cool off, and stop trying to pick a fight. You're creating strawmen out of a faulty reading of my posts. Knock it off.

Tell me you were driving a dump truck when you merged into that other vehicle. Please.

To reiterate:


Damned A&S'ers still don't understand what it means to share the road. It's all about me me me me, get out of my way, I don't know how to turn or brake or stay out of blind spots.

Maybe I should just stay out of A&S since most people here don't have a clue. You're just going to have to learn the hard way, I guess.

You're misrepresenting what I said. Show me where I argue that cyclists should not take responsibility.

Of course people should look out for their own safety. I personally do not pass vehicles on the right at intersections, and am wary of riding in the blind spot of any vehicle. I'm even more careful around large vehicles.

However, blind spots and poor visibility are no excuse for violating another road user's ROW. The law is that a right-turning vehicle must yield ROW to a cyclist in a bike lane. If a vehicle makes this impossible, then something has to give. The vehicle must be improved (better mirrors, sensors, means of signaling intent - like a school bus, for example), the law must be changed (allowing them to behave differently, or changing the basic rules), or the vehicle must be restricted (no right turns, no usage on certain streets or intersections, or completely banned).

But to have a law that says you have ROW, and have a user saying that they can't promise to comply with that law, is pretty f'in stupid.

If the truck is at the intersection and has already signalled his intent to turn, at what point does his obligation for avoiding an overtaking cyclist end? A cyclist who intentionally moves alongside a vehicle with an active turn signal deserves his Darwin award.

I've got to agree with the common sense folks. You can scream "right of way!!1!!1!!1!!!" as you're crushed beneath several sets of truck tires, but being delayed isn't nearly as permanent as being dead.

I have seen the issue from both sides having driven commercially and biked for a long time. I have burned 20-25 minutes driving buses behind cyclists on narrow roads waiting for a clear chance to pass when it would have been easy for them to pull off for a few seconds and let me by. I helped my wife recover the time her helmet was hit by over-sized wing mirrors on a U-haul driven by a class 3 driver who did not stay aware of his/her width. I still enjoy riding on Interstates and their open equivalents, riding the tail-winds generated in both directions. Just think ahead and anticipate what can go wrong then act accordingly.

If the truck is at the intersection and has already signalled his intent to turn, at what point does his obligation for avoiding an overtaking cyclist end? A cyclist who intentionally moves alongside a vehicle with an active turn signal deserves his Darwin award.
There are two answers, depending on what you are asking. If you are asking from a practical point of view, the answer is that you as a cyclist should do whatever you can to avoid this, obviously, as I have stated in this thread since my first post. (In other words, I agree with your second sentence, no question.)

However if you are asking from a legal point of view, this is Oregon law:

811.050 Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if the person is operating a motor vehicle and the person does not yield the right of way to a person operating a bicycle, moped or motorized wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.
(2) This section does not require persons operating mopeds to yield the right of way to bicycles if the mopeds are operated on bicycle lanes in the manner permitted under ORS 811.440.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane, is a Class B traffic infraction.
And this means, that when I am driving, and turning right across a bike lane, I am legally obligated to allow cyclists the right of way, even if they are foolishly passing on the right. I don't necessarily agree with the current law, and I certainly disagree with passing potential right-turners on the right (especially large vehicles!),

-----(responding to BarrackSi, below)-----


Tell me you were driving a dump truck when you merged into that other vehicle. Please.
Tell me that the vehicle code is different if your car is larger, or has larger blind spots. Please.


Maybe I should just stay out of A&S since most people here don't have a clue. You're just going to have to learn the hard way, I guess.Do you not understand the difference between practical and legal considerations?

You apparently haven't read any of my posts in this thread have you? In each of them, I speak of not passing on the right from a practical point of view, and the law requiring drivers to yield to cyclists in bike lanes. They both exist. You're creating a false dichotomy. Trying to respond to you is like arguing with a cat. You've repeatedly accused me of advocating passing on the right, not sharing responsibility, or the road. You're either a liar, or you can't read.

Do you not understand the difference between practical and legal considerations?

Legal stuff will not save you from two tons of steel and glass. No piece of paper is that strong.

Do what you can to stay alive, and don't think that some piece of legislation will protect you from some idiot. Like uke said, being delayed isn't nearly as permanent as being dead. Who cares how "right" you are when you've lost a limb or your life. I'd rather not pick a fight with a machine bigger than an elephant if it means I won't have to breathe through tubes for the rest of my life.

Legal stuff will not save you from two tons of steel and glass. No piece of paper is that strong.
And I said that when?

You picked this fight with me, and keep making stuff up.

Reread my first post:

So yes, don't ride near big vehicles, don't pass on the right of potential right-turners. Common sense. But on the other side, you need to be able to follow the law here, which is yield to cyclists in bike lanes when turning right, whether or not you are driving a big vehicle. If you can't do that, you don't belong on the road.

Now your response:

Arguing that cyclists don't need to share responsibility is pretty f'in stupid.
And no matter how many times I tell you to stop misrepresenting what I'm saying, you just keep on with the same message.

You do realize that you can know and discuss the law, and still manage to cycle safely, including not insisting on ROW just because you legally have it, right?

And I said that when?

One post ago.


However if you are asking from a legal point of view, this is Oregon law:

I said that legal stuff would save you from a right hook?

Are you intentionally being thick?

Actually, yes, you did. You said that a driver is obligated to yield to someone to the rear and to the side, which means that that legal obligation would save a cyclist from a right hook.

And, like I keep trying to remind you A&S lunkheads, no piece of paper is going to stand in the way of getting yourself hurt.

Why bother. You're not going to listen anyway.

Actually, yes, you did. You said that a driver is obligated to yield to someone to the rear and to the side, which means that that legal obligation would save a cyclist from a right hook.

And, like I keep trying to remind you A&S lunkheads, no piece of paper is going to stand in the way of getting yourself hurt.

Why bother. You're not going to listen anyway.
I said that a driver is legally obligated to yield to someone in the bike lane. That's Oregon law. It's not my opinion.

You're the one making up this crazy **** about it saving a cyclist from a right hook, which is all in your own feeble mind.

You have this crazy idea that knowing what the law is will somehow make you pass semis on the right.

What did I say immediately before that?

You as a cyclist should do whatever you can to avoid this, obviously, as I have stated in this thread since my first post. (In other words, I agree with your second sentence ["A cyclist who intentionally moves alongside a vehicle with an active turn signal deserves his Darwin award."], no question.)
And no matter how many times I say that I agree that a cyclist should not ride in a blind spot or pass someone on the right, you continue to lie about what I've said.

I've listened, and responded to you. You haven't listened to one post.

This is the sixth and last time I'm going to tell you: you are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, misrepresenting what I'm saying.

Only a freaking idiot or a habitual liar would continue to do this no matter how many times a person has told them to stop.

Please, put me on ignore. I'm doing the same right now.

The problem is, people here -- in this very thread, in fact -- rely on the law to dictate where they ride, thinking that just because the law says something it will make them safe.

Whenever someone goes, "Well, in statute 23.23.,2.3211, it says this-and-that, so you were in the clear," it's a sure sign that they're hoping to go where they think they have legal protection even when it can get them killed.

The only place a law really matters for a cyclist is in the courtroom where their survivors are trying to place blame for their death. Until then, if they ride with some sense, the laws aren't even a factor.

the only place a law really matters for a cyclist is in the courtroom where their survivors are trying to place blame for their death. Until then, if they ride with some sense, the laws aren't even a factor.

+1.

Admittedly this is not cycling related, but it is big truck related.

My friend was sitting at an intersection, in his car, waiting for the light. There really is only one lane at this intersection and he was turning left. The light turned green and he pulled into the intersection.... BAM! gets rear ended by the huge truck behind him. It launches his small car forward several feet..... BAM! Gets hit again, this time his foot slips of the clutch and he stalls his car, he's freaking because he thinks the truck is doing this on purpose... BAM! Gets hit a third time! At this point the truck driver clues in and pulls over. My friend starts his car pulls over and asks the driver "WTF! Didn't you see me?"
"Nope"
"Didn't you feel the impact?"
"Nope"
"Didn't you hear it?"
"Nope"
Granted this was one of those "off road" oil derrick hauling trucks and as such was jacked up and had a big old bambi bumper on the front. I guess the driver was like a 20 year veteran. My friend called the cops and had dangerous driving charges applied to which the driver responded "Oh well, i guess i'm done".
Anyways, just be careful around trucks.