Alan Parker provides an comprehensive background to discussions and media articles, that includes several years of safety concerns relating to road freight issues, commencing with the National Transport Commission SMART trucks March 7th media release.

News Release: Title: SMART trucks can reduce road trauma
Safer and more productive SMART heavy vehicles can reduce road trauma in Australian cities. A report published by Monash University’s Accident Research Centre (MUARC) concludes that using fewer, more productive trucks can lead to less road trauma in metropolitan areas. The study was undertaken to assess the safety impact of the growing freight task on passenger car occupants.

“If you ban articulated trucks from metropolitan roads, the report shows you’d need more small trucks to carry the growing freight task; and the risk of a crash between a truck and a car would rise by up to 18% by 2010,” said National Transport Commission (NTC) Safety Manager Jeff Potter.

The results support the view that an increase in truck capacity using safer vehicle designs is the best option to meet future growth in the freight task. Mr Potter said new innovation and technology is producing safer and more productive SMART2 heavy vehicles.

“The industry is developing safer SMART trucks built for specific freight tasks – such as hauling heavy containers, moving construction materials or urban pick-up-and-drops,” he said. “Compared to the traditional semi-trailer, a Super B-double – which can carry two 40 foot containers – could halve the number of truck trips.”

Transport Ministers will soon be asked to approve the Performance Based Standards (PBS) reform package for more flexible heavy vehicle design rules. PBS will improve access for SMART trucks; providing the vehicles meet stringent road safety standards governing how the trucks stop, turn and perform on the road.

The PBS reform is a key element of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) road and rail transport reform agenda, which the Productivity Commission estimates could deliver $2 billion in overall benefits. Planned rail investments are important in managing the growing freight task, but road and rail modes are mostly complementary, not substitutes, in metropolitan areas. Improved truck productivity and safety are therefore essential to further reduce crash rates.

“Safe, clean and efficient SMART trucks are a win-win for the industry and community, but it has to be part of a coordinated and integrated approach to transport policy. Further road safety reforms to address heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding trucks will also play a major role in reducing the crash rate,” Mr Potter added.

NOTE:
1 The MUARC study estimated an 18.36% increase in crashes if articulated trucks were banned from metropolitan roads, assuming a linear improvement in the crash rate (or a 1.65% increase with no improvement in crash rate).
2 Safer Management of Australian Road Transport (SMART)
You can download the report here: http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc259.html

For more information: Paul Sullivan
Manager Communications, National Transport Commission on:
(03) 9236 5027/0419 715242

*****

Alans comment: The real issue here is that the proposed movement to a Performance Based Standard (PBS) for new B-doubles and B-triples is a good thing if it follows European best practice and includes side under run panels.

Note that most new B-doubles will be one metre longer than the older models and that a Super B-double that can carry two 40 ft container (12.2 metres) or four 20 foot containers will shortly be approved by the National Transport Commission.

In the 2005 NTC annual report it states that ;-
The PBS for 26 metre B-doubles …… is conditional on safety measures including the fitment of front under run protection system (FUPS)

So the provision of side under run panels could have been included as part of PBS. I have included my file on the big truck issues below after my comment to Ian. Note that early articles of mine written in 1988 are NOT included. I recieve free copies of Australian Transport News the trucking industry journal which makes it clear that their lobbyists see the use of Super B- doubles and B- triples as the way to go because they are more efficient. There are already 1000s of km of interstate and intercity highways and freeways that they are allowed to use and one state government was pushing for B-quadruples. The industry is argueing that the amount of freight carried by Semis, B-doubles and triples , road trains to increase by 36% in the next decade.

This compares to a 20 % increase in the much shorter rigid trucks and a 16% increase in light commercial vehicles and in total 550 million tonnes of freight will be carried by 2013. The average load for all trucks (except the light commercial vehicles) will increase from 30 tonnes in 2000 to 35 tons in 2013.

Alan

*****

Yes Ian there are a number of issues raised in this discussion. Remember that I initiated this thread which has got side tracked.

“NTC Press release”
I do not like the sound of this press release or the research behind it that is crook because it ignores the safety needs of cyclists and pedestrians. They have not even got round to putting side panels on large trucks and B-Double as is the practice in the UK and Scandinavia so that peds and cyclists cant slide under most of the wheels.”

So why do you you choose to ignore the issue of concern to cyclists?

“Cornering is still a big problem with all trucks in urban areas and the need for side under run panels as provided in the UK and Scandinavia is still essential for the safety of all two wheeler, small cars and pedestrians . That is a detail design improvement that cyclist organizations in other countries have obtained on trucks by intelligent lobbying. There is no good reason why BV could not go hand in hand with the RACV and the motor cycle riders association to government and ask for that design improvement

The real issue here is that the proposed movement to Performance Based Standards (a good thing in principle) could increase the safety of our roads for cyclists in particular and road users in general by including side under run panels in the PBS.

Note that when I represented the BFA as Vice President for the best part of ten years the above issue of side under run panels on all trucks was raised in correspondence with the appropriate agencies and like so many detailed safety issues was not implemented. Now that the NRTC has been replaced with the NTC which has a broader perspective on transport the prospects for change are much greater. This matter still needs to be dealt with.

Alan

*****

Attack of the Road Monsters
By Alan A. Parker article from Australian Cyclist August - September 1998. Updated March 2007
Australian Ministers for Roads and the National Transport Commission (NTC), wants to issue licences for monster trucks, euphemistically called B-triples, up to 33.5 m long and weighing 77 tonnes. These would be 10 m longer than B-doubles, currently the biggest trucks on Victorian roads. Other States have similar ideas.

Alan Parker examines the implications for cyclists
A B-triple is as long as 20 bicycles end-to-end and would be difficult for motorists to pass. In cornering; the B-triples’ swept path is wider than for other vehicles (Vicroads, 1997). It the driver were distracted, cyclists could easily escape notice and be swept under the wheels. Indeed, the rear trailer could mount kerbs and wipe out pedestrians. Bicyclists have always found trucks intimidating. A B-triple truck is so large it will literally terrorise cyclists.

Blatant disregard for cyclists’ safety
Common sense tells us there has to be a limit on the size of vehicles that are part of everyday traffic on major roads. Within 100 km of Melbourne there are over a million people who ride or drive small vehicles and who have a legitimate right to feel safe on the road. Not withstanding any cost savings of B-triples, high technical standards for braking and minimising road wear, or the high standard of driver training, the only sensible place for 77 tonne loads in or near cities is on railways. Introduction of B-triples in or near cities is saying that the law of the economic rationalist jungle prevails; the biggest vehicles and those who profit from them can rule the road.

Our major cities and their regional hinterlands are very different from the almost empty outback where dire economic necessity requires road trains or B-triples. The very few people who work with and directly benefit from road trains “choose” to put up with them since they are vital to the outback economy. We all know what legalised road trains have done in the Northern Territory - tales of scared tourists trailing behind a road train for 50 km or so are legend. The B-triple may make older road trains m the NT and outback Queensland obsolete; it is a better vehicle and may make life easier for the small numbers of NT motorists. However, that is not the issue; the B-triple is still a road train. It cannot co-exist with large numbers of small vehicles, especially when they can’t get off the road and out of the way, as would happen on road near major capital and provincial cities.

Needs of the hidden majority ignored
Vehicles should not be so big that they scare other road users; psychological impact should be taken seriously. In 1998, the majority of road users are women, the young and the elderly - their needs as riders and drivers must be considered. Nearly all children have access to bicycles: they must be able to cycle safely. Unfortunately, the State government makes only token gestures towards cycle safety.

The use of B-triples will be a major deterrent to bicycle use, particularly for girls. Barry Elliot, a social psychologist who has worked with young adult cyclists, describes the attitude girls have to trucks as follows:

“..girls find bicycles a good form of transport when mum and dad can’t take you. They ride a great deal on roads. They do not feel as safe as boys, are more timid on busy or cluttered roads than boys. They positively hate buses and trucks. While feeling confident in their ,skills as as competant riders they do feel more vulnerable on the roads.” (Elliot 1985)

The only roadways all cyclists can safely use, or will perceive as being safe with B-triples, are freeways with a wide safety lane accessible to cyclists or roads with a separate bike-way.

On other roads, cyclists will need wide bikelanes, separate bike-paths or shared footwavs. Unfortunately the rate of bikeway construction is inadequate and does not keep up with rate of urban growth. Worse still, authorities choose to ignore the known intimidatory effect of B-triples and B-doubles on cyclists and other traffic. For the Minister for Roads to issue B-triple licenses that would be would be a blatant disregard of cyclists’ legal right to use the road - introducing B-doubles in the late 1980s was bad enough increasing their overall length and weight in 2007 was even worse and the prospect of B-triples on thousands of kilometres of interstate and inter city highways.

According to transport researcher Dr Jenny Morris (Morris et al 1997), women’s transport needs have changed along with their role. This increased proportion of women drivers is now the dominant element in road transport (Cyclist April-Mav 1998 p 54).This has
important implications for road safety, since males are still more likely to be involved in fatal crashes (Procko 1997), and women’s more cautious and courteous behaviour has helped to reduce the road toll.

The threat to unprotected road users
A B-double, B- triple or road train does not have to hit a cyclist to kill. Gusts and strong crosswinds can cause the slipstream to angle sideways which can suck or blow a cyclist under the wheels of a following vehlcle. or into a roadside object. The larger and faster the vehicle, the greater the risk.

The Victorian Road Transport Association knows this - it stated in a letter:

“air turbulence and wind shearing created by large vehicles moving at speeds of 100 km/h. in heavy crosswinds have been known to destabilise cyclists resulting in injury or death.” (VRTA, 1988) Many motorcyclists have been killed and some cyclists have been killed as a result.

Another safety issue is the tracking problem with B-triple trailers, which can result in cyclists being squeezed off the road or crushed under the wheels; rear wheels of trailers can cut across comers, mounting the footpath or verge and hitting pedestrians. Imagine main road roundabouts when the B-triples travel across them - the headlights will exit the roundaboul at the same time as the the tail lights enter!

Side guards on all trucks
We now have to share the roads with B-doubles; it is no longer a matter of choice. There is still a problem with cyclist going under the wheels of B-double trailers. Fortunately, there is a practical way to reduce the potential for injury and death - the fitting of side guards has been standard practice on all trucks in the UK and Scandinavia for around 35 years.

These side guards sometime called side under run panels have saved many lives and should be fitted as standard between the wheels of all trucks to prevent cyclists being swept under the wheels. The Bicycle Federation of Australia in 1988 supported a submission (Bicycle NSW, 1988) which stated:

“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 “

As usual, in 1988 the bureaucrats involved ignored this reasonable request and the Aus-tralian Design Rules were not modified to make this happen. When the National Road Transport Commission did a review of the safety issues again (in their 1996 review of vehicle mass limits) those involved did not consider the issue of sideguards.

More exasperating still is that if side panels were fitted, aerodynamic drag, fuel consumption and noise would all be reduced. Some Esso and Shell B-double trucks have already been fitted with side panels, demonstrating that some companies in Australia recognise their benefits, The need for sideguards needs to be raised again, the design rules need to be changed and the performance bsed standards introduce in 2007 need to be amended.

What is to be done?
What road monster comes next ? This has been seriously discussed - it is a 45 metre long 100, tonne B-Quadruple. One State government has already already asked the Commonwealth for extra freeway-widening funds to enable it to be used… This absurd idea must never be acted upon. The place for big loads is on the railways. Cost savings will come from making rail freight more efficient, not from destroying the rail freight marker by putting longer and heavier trucks on the roads.The capacity of rail to move the heaviest of loads is brought home by the illustration of a record-breaking Australian train pulling 8,400 tonnes of coal.

Bureaucrats dazzled by truck technology must not forget they have a legal duty of care to other road users, applying to their safety and legal rights of access.

In the NRTC’s 1996 study there is not one word regarding road trains B-doubles and B-triples being; dangerous for unprotected road users, nor is there any recognitionof the needs of women, older drivers and others who will all feel unsafe and insecure sharing the roads with these monsters. A survey of woman drivers in the NT would no doubt prove beyond doubt that this study was another example of the male sexism all too common in transport planning and research over the last 40 years. Is it really necessary to wait until the the body bags pile up before authorities do the sensible thing?

This whole thing is a replay of the life-threatening bullbar issue. that has yet to be resolved. Although Australian road ministers and the National Transport Commission may compel us to share the roads with B-triple road trains, very few people would choose to do so of their own free will. Unfortunately, most motorists will just endure this menace in silence and cyclists may choose to drive instead ride. Now is the time for the bicycle movement, motorcyclist and motorist associations to say we won’t tolerate road trains or B triples in or near cities.

References
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.
Elliot, B., 1985. “An Exploratory Study of High School Students’ Reactions to Bicycle Helmets”. VRTA, MelbourneApril, 1986. Pages 5 and 19.
Morris, et al., 1997, “The emerging needs of the majority-women young and the elderly”. Transport Research Centre RMIT, Melbourne,
NRTC 1996,” Mass Limits Review: study of the feasibility and net benefits of increasing mass limns for vehicles with road friendly suspension systems”, Nat. Road T’sport Commission
Procko, 1997, “Estimating Vehicle Crash Rates by Demographic Groups”, Transport Research Centre, RMIT, Melb.
Vicroads, 1997, “B-triple trial information bulletin”. VRTA, 1988, Letter by Phillip Lovel, Executive Director Victorian Road Transport Association 21/9/88.

*****

The Age: A heavy load bound for the long haul
By Royce Millar and Stephen Moynihan (January 27, 2007)
Zoe McCallum is moving out. After just 10 months in her detached weatherboard in Melbourne’s west, the Royal Children’s Hospital pediatrician says the health risks to her twin baby boys from cancerous diesel fumes are too great. Dr McCallum lives in Somerville Road,Kingsville, where, in her short stay, she has fought hard to put an end to the steady stream of trucks on their way to and from Australia’s busiest port nearby.

In many ways she typifies the changing nature of Melbourne’s industrial heartland. “The trucks are the only thing stopping the west from being as green and lovely as the wealthier, quieter and more salubrious eastern suburbs,” says Dr McCallum, a member of the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group (MTAG). And that attitude equals headache for a Labor State Government, even one led by a Williamstown resident.

For decades the working-class west was taken for granted as the engine room of Melbourne’s economy. In the past 20 years sizeable, cheap — because they’re in the smelly west — period homes have drawn the educated middle class in droves to Yarraville, Footscray, Kingsville and Seddon. But professionals and pollution are an explosive mix. The upshot? Resident action over amenity, and trucks in particular.

Though left-leaning in its membership, MTAG actively campaigned against Labor at the November state election. The west remains safe, of course, but there are clear signs of change. Greens are doing well on the local council and they now have a local in the state upper house. Again Dr McCallum, from a Labor family, is typical. “I’ve voted Labor all my life. My grandfather would turn in his grave if he knew I hadn’t voted Labor this time. But this situation would not be allowed elsewhere. Labor thinks it’s a safe seat, they will get the workers’ votes so they don’t have to do anything here.”

Local MPs have hit back, criticising the anti-truck campaigners as Johnny-come-lately yuppies concerned less with jobs than their own amenity. Yet the Government’s own policies and forecasts suggest that Dr McCallum has cause for her concerns. The Port of Melbourne — Australia’s busiest — generates 1.2 million truck visits a year. More than 20,000 trucks pass through the City of Maribyrnong alone each day.

Channel deepening and the arrival of more, ever larger container ships point to an exponential growth in this freight traffic. Most containers are transported by truck to industrial hubs in Melbourne’s north, west and south-east. Combined with a likely big increase in private traffic courtesy of an extra 1 million residents between now and 2030, Melbourne faces a very large transport challenge. The answer for freight? A return to rail and the more efficient use of roads, says the Government.

Both the Federal and State governments say they want to increase the rail’s share of container freight. Labor in Victoria is proposing to lift the current 18 per cent to 30 per cent by 2010 and beyond, through major redevelopment of port rail yards to give trains better access, and a network of inland ports connected to the main port by rail.

But with container levels forecast to grow five-fold to 8 million TEUs (20-foot equivalents units; most containers are longer now) by 2035, the 30 per cent share would still leave a mammoth freight load on trucks. Even then, the Government seems to be struggling to realise its vision. In an embarrassing development this week the CRT Group announced that a rail shuttle service it runs from Altona to the port — a State-backed project — would close due to a lack of trade, and lack of Government support.

In a statement the company said it had worked hard to alleviate road traffic congestion on metropolitan roads through use of rail — unsuccessfully. The shuttle took an hour to travel the 22 kilometres to Altona. Experts across the transport industry agree that the currently prohibitive cost of moving freight by rail remains a major obstacle for the Government’s 30 per cent freight-on-rail target.

But more controversial are plans for bigger trucks, and more roads. Monster trucks are set to get even more monstrous with the Government and freight industry preparing to trial Super B doubles — five metres longer than their predecessor, the B-double, and able to carry two 40-foot containers each. The Federal Government is also clearing the way for B-triples, with capacity to carry three containers. Trucking industry lobby the Victorian Transport Association is backing the mega trucks, with deputy chief executive Neil Chambers this week arguing they would cut emissions because fewer trips would be needed and would be quieter because of improved brake systems.

But larger and heavier vehicles place more stress on existing infrastructure and, if not strictly controlled, on residents. Then there is the even bigger question of the roads themselves. Despite its stated high hopes for rail freight, Government road planning indicates it is expecting a big increase in truck traffic, especially to city’s south-east.

The single largest and most urgent of projects announced in last year’s transport and liveability statement was the widening of the Monash and Westgate freeways. Freight was an important factor. And on the Government’s behalf, former British Airways chief Sir Rod Eddington is now conducting an inquiry into improvements to east-west transport flows across the city, including a possible $10 billion tunnel linking the Eastern Freeway with the west.

Not surprisingly, the Government is determined to maintain Melbourne as the No. 1 port in Australia. In Melbourne’s inner west, however, residents such as Zoe McCallum are demanding the health costs of such economic ambitions are counted. Dr McCallum says she has studied relevant literature and says there is no doubt that exposure to diesel— such as living on a truck-laden street — can cause cancer, heart and lung disease.

Children are especially at risk, she says. “In the old west they may have been too bloody busy surviving to fight over environmental issues. If the newcomers can fight on behalf of the whole community, then they are obliged to do so.”

*****

Fatal truck crashes on the rise
By Andrew Heasley Transport Reporter (Tuesday 4 September 2001)

Fatal road crashes involving heavy trucks have risen for the third year in succession, according to government figures released yesterday. Semi-trailers, B-doubles and road-trains caused 208 deaths in 165 crashes last year, Australian Transport Safety Bureau figures show. In 1997 there were 171 deaths in 146 crashes.

The rise was partly due to an economic boom in New South Wales in which more freight was carried by road, said John Hendy, head of the bureau’s statistical analysis unit. But Australian Trucking Association deputy chief executive Michael Apps said the rise might have more to do with the GST, economic pressures, worsening roads and an increase in the number of trucks on the road.

“The transition to the GST and (higher) fuel prices has seen cost effects put pressure on some companies to break the law to break even. Commercial pressure drives poor on-road behavior,” he said. Last year, nearly three-quarters of fatal crashes involving heavy trucks were multiple vehicle crashes, but the bureau found the truck driver was not at fault in 79 per cent of these accidents. Of the remaining fatal crashes, 15 per cent were single-vehicle accidents and 11 per cent involved pedestrians.

*****

At 02:45 15/09/00 -0700, Bruce Robinson wrote:

>IMHO, bicycle groups should put in a submission asking the NRTC to consider the risks of wind-sheer causing cyclists to be sucked under the wheels of big trucks, especially in cross-winds.
>
>Narrow bikelanes on medium-high-speed urban arterials, big trucks and windshear pose real risks, as well as trucks on rural highways.

I think you may be looking at the problem the wrong way. And bicycles aren’t the only ones effected, I used to drive a little minivan. There are several issues related to air disturbance by trucks:

1. Leading edge compression (bow wave), independent of vehicle length, dependent on cross-section (volume of air to be displaced), nose shape(direction of air displacement), and vehicle speed. The bow wave would tendto push bicycles away from the truck, possibly onto rough ground. Measures that could reasonably be taken are limited vehicle speed (I wont go into detail) and nose shape. The worst nose shape is the flat fronted “cab-over” style where a high proportion of air is displaced laterally. Tapered nose designs can direct a higher proportion upwards or at a higher diagonal, leaving a smaller displacement towards smaller adjacent vehicles. Thelatter also improves handling and fuel consumption. Tapered nose design can be encouraged by limiting trailer length rather than vehicle length.

2. Trailing edge decompression (slipstream), independent of vehicle length,dependent on cross-section, tail shape, and vehicle speed. The slipsteamwould tend to pull a bicycle towards the truck after it has past, butpotentially into the path of a following vehicle. Measures that could reasonably be taken are limited vehicle speed and tail shape. The worst tail shape is the predominant flat back style. Streamlining is becomming more common on tankers. The practicality of adding a streamlining tail to other trailer depends on the loading system, for side and top load there is no problem, for rear load the tail would need to be removable. Tailstreamlining also produces significant fuel savings, and can be further encouraged by not counting add-on streamlining in length and mass limits.

3. Horizontal axis eddys, generated by the wheels, dependent on wheel speed and wheel spacing. Closely spaced wheels tend to result in adjacent eddys reducing the intensity of each other, however this takes some time and distance. The effect on bicycles is unpredictable and rapidly changing air currents, capable of causing loss of control.

Measures that could reasonable be taken are fixed covers over the wheels or more preferably full length skirts. Both produce significant fuel savings, as well as reducing road spray. Covers/skirts should be required by law.

4. Crosswind disturbance, independent of vehicle length, dependent on vehicle height, dependent on crosswind speed. The effect on bicycles depends on crosswind direction. The only thing that can be done is to reduce the number of large vehicles on the road, one way is longer vehicles, though this has other problems. A better solution is getting freight off the road and onto the rails, which provides many additional benefits to all other road users and the wider community.

Unfortunately there is significant powerful opposition to this, oil industry, road freight transport industry, truck manufacturing/maintenance, etc. Rail is inherently more effecient for long haul freight when *all* costs are considered, even with the current massive subsidy of road freight rail freight can still compete. Rail freight can be made even more competitive through electrification, with most of Australia’s locomotive fleet able to be trivially converted (add pick ups and control unit) to run from external electric while still able to run from diesel, allowing a progressive expansion of electric infrastructure. Road freight users need
to pay the full cost.

>From personal experience locally (Hobart) I find the smaller trucks to be more of a problem than the bigger ones, and beleive this can be attributed to the relative competence and professionalism of the drivers, and some companies are worse than others. I’d rather be passed by ten B-doubles than a single furniture van from Price’s Removals.

Alan Hughes

*****

Letter to The Advertiser: First Letter to the Editor - Fear of more tragedies (Fri 18 Dec 1998)
I am the mother of a Japanese touring cyclist who was killed on Eyre Highway on Feb 5 this year by a semi-trailer. I was shocked and saddened to learn once again that a similar accident occurred recently, killing a Belgian visitor. I believe these young tourists, who dare to cycle despite the harsh conditions, love and adore the unique Australian nature.

My family and I visited Australia for the first time following my son’s death and were greatly impressed by the kind and thoughtful arrangements made by the authorities. We travelled to the accident site, near Nundroo, and noticed the road was not as wide as we had expected. I felt stunned to realise that the road shoulders were mostly unsealed, which probably made my son ride on or inside the white line. When a semi-trailer approached him from behind at nearly 100kmh, he would have not have had any chance to dodge to the side.

I am afraid more accidents of this kind will be repeated as long as the same roads are shared by huge semi-trailers and small bicycles. I am aware it is almost impossible for road shoulders to get completely sealed in a vast country like Australia. Are cyclists expected to understand severe road conditions, pay utmost attention and ride with the thought of a possible death?

The road we saw was open and straight with nothing to block anyone’s view. I would like to ask drivers to watch ahead more carefully and if anything, even a small animal, is noticed on the way, reduce speed immediately and keep tooting to warn of the danger. I now feel strongly that both motorists and cyclists need to be truly careful to minimise tragedies on the road.

Kazuko Yoshida, Saitama, Japan.

*****

Cyclist killed on highway

A Belgian tourist was killed yesterday when his bicycle was hit by a triple-trailer road train on the Stuart Highway, 71km north of Pt Augusta. The accident occurred at 1.45pm as both cyclist and truck travelled south towards Pt Augusta. Police said the victim was in his late 20s.

Comments since the crash.

*****

From: jon ivar skullerud
Subject: cyclist killed on highway
Date: Tuesday, 17 November 1998 17:37

I think Terry made some very good points. I think the following needs emphasising:

Terry Leach writes:
The Road Transport Association spokesperson apparently stated that truck drivers had difficulty seeing cyclists. I pointed out that we are as big as motor cyclists and usually wearing conspicuous clothing, and that they should be driving at a speed and with due care and attention so as not to endanger other legitimate road users. I also pointed out that this made a nonsense of Graham Gunn’s call for increased speed limits in remote areas.

My first reaction when reading this was “what measures will be taken against the driver?” Will he be allowed to continue as if nothing had happened? Will he lose his licence? Will he have to go through mandatory retraining? Will he go to jail? And also, will the transport company pay compensation to the relatives of the cyclist?

The RTA’s attitude is despicable. Truck drivers have a big responsibility and should not be allowed on the road unless they are able to shoulder that responsibility. There is no excuse for “not seeing” something or someone on the road. That is part of their job and should be part of their training. Transport companies should be held legally responsible for what their drivers do, and this kind of victim blaming is to me a sign of the utmost irresponsibility and lawlessness.

jon ivar

*****

Date: Tuesday, 17 November 1998 15:40

I received a phone call from Nikki, morning presenter on 5CK, an SA regional ABC radio program, about this accident, seeking comments. She informed me that it appears that the cyclist was sucked under the wheels by the slip stream. She gave me about 7 minutes, which is very generous compared to metropolitan radio.

I was able to make the following points: That this problem can be largely overcome by fitting skirts to heavy vehicles. These skirts also prevent other road users, including car drivers from going under the wheels, which is usually fatal. These skirts also reduce road noise and reduce fuel consumption, and there appears to be a case on economic, safety and environmental grounds for making these skirts compulsory on at least new vehicles.

That sealing shoulders would improve cyclist safety and also motorist safety, reducing rollovers from over correcting when motorists drift onto gravel shoulders (you would need some sort of rumble strip divider to wake the motorist before they hit the cyclist!).

The Road Transport Association spokesperson apparently stated that truck drivers had difficulty seeing cyclists. I pointed out that we are as big as motor cyclists and usually wearing conspicuous clothing, and that they should be driving at a speed and with due care and attention so as not to endanger other legitimate road users.

I also pointed out that this made a nonsense of Graham Gunn’s call for increased speed limits in remote areas. Asked whether we would advise our members not to ride major highways, I replied no, that cycling was a great way to see Australia, and that I had spoken to many trans Nullabor riders, who advise that it is beautiful, and not the barren wasteland that it appears at 110kmh. However, we would advise members of the hazards, and particularly to fit and use a rear view mirror, and be prepared to ride on the shoulder when these behemoths come past.

Following on from the conversation, I spoke to an engineer with Shell, a company that I have noticed that fit skirts to their tankers. They do so for safety reasons, particularly as a car going under a tanker can result in catastrophe, not just for the car driver but anyone in the vincinity if a fire develops. They do not have any studies to show that they are more fuel efficient for the skirts, as other improvements to new tankers fitted with skirts affect the results. Skirts that cover the wheels reduce tyre and brake efficiency due to overheating and are no longer fitted. However, the skirts are still effective at preventing other road users going under from the side of the vehicle.

The Australian Institute of Petroleum (an industry group!) argue that skirts should be mandatory for all heavy vehicles, but the forum to which they have input has no mandate outside of petrochemical transport. I will follow up with the relevant government departments as to whether there are moves afoot to make them compulsory, and if not, start lobbying to get them to be made compulsory. And if I do get on the Board of the RAA, I’ll lobby from that side as well (I find out the results of the RAA election tomorrow).

Sorry for the long message, thanks for hanging in there.
Regards, Terry Leach

Sphere: Related Content