Why do trucks & buses still rely on mirrors?
- Share
If you cycle on roads, you MUST watch this video!
Anyone who cycles on roads should make a special point of watching this video (it’s only 54 seconds). So should anyone who drives a large vehicle, especially bus and truck drivers.
It’s timely following the widely reported death of a cyclist outside Olympic park in London last week in an accident with a bus carrying Games officials.
According to an eye-witness, the cyclist collided with a bus turning left (I’ve read the witness’s full account but he’s subsequently removed it from the web – comments are still up though).
Much of the subsequent discussion in London has been about the temporary removal of bike lanes during the Games. There’s another issue here though that has implications for all cities.
I can’t know the full circumstances of this accident, but it’s certainly possible limited visibility was involved. Drivers of buses and trucks often have major blind spots in their rear and side vision, as the video shows.
I think it’s appalling we still accept as unavoidable that drivers of large vehicles must have restricted rear and side vision. It presents an obvious hazard to all road users, but especially to cyclists and pedestrians who’re particularly vulnerable.
The number of cyclists and heavy vehicles on our roads is increasing, so the potential for conflict is also increasing. The reality is cyclists will have to share road space with drivers for many years yet.
Australian cities won’t be turned into Danish or Dutch cities with fully bicycle segregated infrastructure overnight or even within decades. There are too many competing demands for money and there’re too many O’Farrell’s.
Rather than accept the enormous shortcomings of mirrors, there’s a straightforward technological solution – in-vehicle cameras. They’re now very cheap to buy and easy to retrofit to existing vehicles. They could supplement mirrors to increase the driver’s field of view; or multiple cameras could replace mirrors altogether.
Cameras seem remarkably good value relative to the potential contribution they can make to reducing death and injury to all other road users. More travellers might cycle if they felt drivers of large vehicles were likely to have better information about their presence.
There’s no guarantee, but I expect drivers will very likely look at a screen if it’s there and providing pertinent information. And the fact of installing cameras, along with training and publicity, should increase driver awareness of their responsibilities to other road users.
This isn’t something that should be confined only to new vehicles. Cameras are cheap enough that existing owners of large vehicles should be obliged to install them too. Suitable standards need to be formulated and a fair time frame for implementation established, but it needs to be done sooner rather than later.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Not an expert, but I believe there are some limitations, depending on the technology chosen, such as use in low light or poor weather. As well as potential issues with over-reliance and with maintenance of these sorts of systems for vehicles that cover a huge number of kms.
Different technology, but you may be interested to see that the EU are mandating autonomous braking (for forward collisions) in order to achieve a 5 star vehicle, see: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/08/eu-autonomous-braking-law/.
Technology will continue to improve, but it is a challenge as to how you roll it out to the existing fleet.
One of the areas of constant change in our society is the perception of safety within our vehicles due to crumple zones, antilock brakes, stability control, airbags, seatbelts, etc. This is significant as an inevitable outcome is greater complacency on the part of drivers leading to less safety for those not encased within metal. This is called risk compensation.
For trucks though an exaggerated sense of safety was inherent. They are, from experience, horrifyingly easy to do damage with while maintaining a smug safety for the operator but have been subject to the same technological changes.
No real adjustment on the part of road authorities has ever been made.
Steven J Gould pointed out that in the game of baseball, as players became better the game authorities adjusted the rules. This had some interesting effects which is why he wrote about it, such as causing the demise of extreme run scoring.
Such thinking desperately needs to be applied to the game of road driving in the wake of the relentless changes to driver perceptions of safety.
Particularly to trucks. Dr Ian Walker’s famous study of passing distances found that trucks and buses always passed a little closer to riders than did other vehicles, a possible indicator of a lack of awareness of the driver of his vehicles inherent danger.
I noticed on a trip to the north of Europe that, in their cities, the role of tip-truck or earthmoving truck was taken up by tractors or articulated loaders pulling tipper trailers.
As a user of trucks and also tractors with trailers I can vouch for the huge difference there is in the sense of safety between the two methods. In the tractor there is clear vision and total awareness of the danger the vehicle is to all around. In the truck, the driver is insulated from this.
By all means, do something to allow more vision for the drivers of trucks but also consider the other options.
Great. Another electrical thing that can break. This is a solution looking for a problem!
Mirrors are cheap and they work fine. It is drivers not checking mirrors that is the problem. Better driver training for bus and truck drivers to check mirrors/blindspots would be a better solution than retro fitting all buses and trucks with cameras.
mb12 #1
Doubtless there are limitations with camera technology but need to evaluate against the performance of the alternative i.e. mirrors or, in the situation shown in the video, nothing. Cameras have also shown remarkable improvement over time.
Scott # 3
Agree there’s an issue with drivers not checking mirrors but I don’t agree they always work fine. There’re blind spots with cars let alone B doubles. In any event if the main source of rear/side vision were located directly in front of the driver, even inattentive drivers would be likely to see more.
Some of Melbourne’s newer trams use rear facing CCTV cameras instead of mirrors: in the past month the suitability of the new technology has been called into question:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/trams-cop-a-low-blow-as-report-slams-design-flaws-20120713-221ki.html
http://www.yarratrams.com.au/media-centre/news/articles/2012/safety-of-citadis-trams/
In this case the technology is 10 years old: I would hope that newer cameras would provided a much better view.
While you’re at it, why not insist on automatic transmissions on rigs ? The technology is there.
Interesting point pjrob1957.
When I’m on my bike I find that in general the bigger the vehicle the closer the overtaking. But with buses they generally cut in far too soon. It’s hard to know whether it’s incompetence or deliberate dangerous driving. It’s hard to explain why a vehicle would attempt a dangerous overtaking when there is a red light just up ahead, but that’s what generally happens – drivers need regular testing not just a one off licence they took 3 decades ago when cars where different and the road rules simpler.
Parker Alan • OAM
Truck rear vision mirrors problem is problem made worse because Australian trucks are not compelled to have side under run panels that forces cyclists and pedestrian under the rear wheels.We now have to share the roads with longer B-doubles with no under run panels because the safety bureaucrats do not recognise the need to prevent cyclists , pedestrian, scooter and motor cyclists going under the wheels of all trucks and their trailers. Why are road safety planners so ignorant of world best practice in the National Transport commission and road agencies like VicRoads when the fitting of side under run panels has been standard practice on all trucks in the UK and Scandinavia for around 30 years there is a practical cure to reduce the potential for injury and death. Cyclists in some states already share roads roads with B-Triples with three sets of rear wheels
I wrote a Bicycle Federation of Australia submission in 1988 which supported a submission of Bicycle NSW 1988, that stated that:
“government has the responsibility to do the research needed to assess the potential dangers of B- double trucks and to investigate the use of protective side guards”
Bureaucrats obsessed with truck technology should not forget that they have a legal duty of care in regard to other road users and bicyclists legal rights of access. As usual in 1988 the bureaucrats involved ignored this reasonable request and the Australian design rules were not modified to make this happen. When the National Road Transport Commission reviewed of the safety issues again in their 1996 review of vehicle mass limits those involved did not consider the issue either. No considersation of under run panels reducings aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption. And perhaps pay for he cost of installing them. The only good news is that ESSO B-double trucks have already been fitted with side panels on oil tankers to reduce risk of a catastrophic crash and fuel explosion .
Meanwhile some bureaucrats have advocated 45 metre long 100 tonne B-quadruple and one state government has already asked the Commonwealth for more freeway widening funds to enable it to be used? This is absurd because theplace for big loads is on trains The capacity of freight trains to shift even the heaviest of loads is brought home by the illustration of a record breaking Australian train pulling 11,000 tonnes of coal.
Bicycle NSW 1988,”The dangers to bicyclists arising from the use of B-double transport vehicles”. Submission to the Minister for Transport NSW July 1998.
Parker, Alan A. ‘Attack of the Road Monsters’. Australian Cyclist August – September 1998 pp. 56-57 See my website and search by date: http://alanparker-pest.org/
I think more and better convex mirrors are part of the answer. There’s no reason why there couldn’t be more than one convex mirror on each side, together with the standard mirror – with one covering the blind spot shown in the mirror.
As always, there is a need for commonsense for all road users, including cyclists, particularly the ability to think ahead. For example, I just know that a semi is going to cross the lanes while going through a roundabout – so I slow down and let them through at their own pace.
I notice that in Europe many trucks have doors that extend further downwards (eg. so the driver climbs up to the seat inside the vehicle, rather than outside) which has the added benefit of longer side windows and more visibility.
As always, I don’t think that the answer will be a single design change…
9 cyclists died, Australia wide, in 2010 through collisions with trucks/buses, according to the abs. This is not a large number when you consider the amount of heavy traffic on the road.
Not worthy of more legislation or changes in safety standards for buses and trucks, especially mandated cameras that will add cost but little else to the safety.
I don’t think that video proves anything except that on that particular vehicle the mirrors are incorrectly adjusted. Regular car mirrors can be adjusted to avoid blind spots. On a big truck it might be impossible to avoid some-blind spot with normal mirrors, however the reason the blind spot is so big in the video is because about 80% of the mirror is facing the truck! I agree with NeoTheFatCat here, more mirrors, properly adjusted would likely work better than cameras.
Scott #10
9 cyclists is a large proportion of the total number of cycle fatalities in Australia each year (29 in 2009). It’s likely the number of serious injury incidents would be considerably larger. It’s also a significant number relative to the kms of on-road cycling.
The positive incentive for cycling if firm, well-publicised action were taken to improve the situational awareness of LGV drivers should be taken into account. Drivers of small vehicles would also benefit from such improvements.
IkaInk #11
Alright, that’s just one video. I suggest you have a look at this page on Transport for London’s web site and in particular the video at the bottom. TfL clearly thinks blind spots are a key issue for cyclists even when LGVs have multiple mirrors. Whether it’s cameras or something else, ways of improving the situational awareness of LGV drivers is very important for the future of cycling as a means of transport.
While you’re at it, have a look at these depressing stats on cycling fatalities and serious injuries in London.
Parker Alan,
Hi Alan
Truck rear vision mirrors problem is an accident risk that is increased because Australian trucks are not compelled to have side under run panels that forces cyclists and pedestrian under the rear wheels. We now have to share the roads with longer B-doubles with no under run panels because the safety bureaucrats do not recognise the need to prevent cyclists , pedestrian, scooter and motor cyclists going under the wheels of all trucks and their trailers. You say 29 cyclists are killed in truck accidents each year. What about the 100 or so more pedestrian, scooter and motor cyclists going under the rear wheels and unknown number in small cars.
Hi Alan,
Did you check the results, if any, of EU Directive 2007/38/EC?
One of the products complying with this directive was developed by a father who lost his son in a bike-truck accident. See http://www.dobli.info/en4/home.html
FYI, Audi are going the whole hog, getting rid of mirrors in one of their production vehicles: http://www.gizmag.com/audi-digital-rear-view-mirror-production/23681/
Wilful: Thanks. It suggests those who argue cameras “can’t do it”, or offer no advantage over mirrors, are on the wrong track. AD
Our regular run between Robinvale and Mildura (The Sturt interstate) illustrates the safety problem with trucks. Trucks don’t cause the dangers, except that they are on the road in such numbers, and mixed with an ever growing commuter traffic at 100kph plus. They need to be very good drivers as commuters must observe time schedules and tend to overtake, where a truck won’t. The B dubs are too long anyway and the opportunities to overtake on the Sturt here are rather few. The easy fix, if money were no object, would be to divide the highway. So we go on having more head-ons, more cyclists playing with death, and I don’t accept ANY death as statistically unimportant. Trucks and cars have overwhelmed the safety limits and the driver skill limits. The mirrors can’t be expected to save the lives. Victoria’s highways are now quite dangerous. Most of us now avoid them where possible. The trucks can’t unless we reactivate a rail program to remove some of the traffic as has been done on the trans-Nullabor. I agree that cameras need to be mandatory on long and obscured vision new vehicles . That includes people movers doesn’t it?
Side cameras are used on all Class A RV’s which are 42 foot long, ask a RV owner if he would drive one without the cameras and he will tell you know. Every mirror has blindspots along the side of a vehicle, the cameras eliminate 100 percent of he lined spots. I have been working with CUTR here in the States and they have proved that cameras will reduce accidents. Truck mirrors in their current design for the most part are 40 year old technology and have limited visibility in comparison to other vehicles. The cameras integrated into the mirrors are a small investment to reduce accidents
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.