Forum menu
What is anybody making up?
Your bias appears to be in assuming that the situation on roads is symmetrical.
...until proven otherwise, that ALL other road users are either incompetent, or homicidal maniacs...
I find that this is a perfectly valid assumption. I always make a point of rewarding considerate driving with a friendly wave and a smile. It takes the stress out of the situation too.
not at all. I'm well aware of the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians. Quite possibly somewhat more viscerally than yourself.
Your bias appears to be in assuming that the situation on roads is symmetrical.
the truck driver must have seen the cyclist
Is a made up assumption. I see evidence on the video that both supports and refutes that assertion. You, however have just (maybe subconsciously) selected the supporting evidence.
The chevrons in the centre of the road quickly disappear, leaving a single carriageway from where the cyclist/truck emerge, and there appear to be few if any sideroads that a cyclist could emerge from in a hurry to place themselves in a driver's blindspot.
Don't think any of this looks very good for the driver imo. Pure speculation of course.
Amedias, apologies, however, see my edit. I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of both of your posts.
If the truck driver didn't know he was there, he would have just accelerated over him, if the cyclist had suddenly popped out in front of the truck, then the driver would have braked and probably used his horn, he was aware and keeping pace that could only be deliberate intimidation.
Amedias, apologies, however, see my edit. I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of both of your posts.
Apology accepted, but er, what did you say that might have upset me? I must have missed it! 😀
Things like this are always emotive as generally, as a rule, cyclists have to put up with a lot of crap on the roads and our lives are put at unnecessary risk far too regularly, it's hard for anyone to remain objective and not let past experiences taint you view of the world, and it's hard not to jump to conclusions, but I always try my best to stick to the facts and give people the benefit of the doubt.
No matter what the particulars of this incident, wider media coverage of events like this is only a good thing, hopefully if even one person (truck driver/cyclist/car driver/pedestrian, whatever) gets a better understanding of how dangerous it is around vehicles like this (even exceptionally well driven ones) in an urban environment and modifies their behaviour accordingly then it's worth while in my eyes.
I do know one thing, and that's that if I were the cyclist in that video, I'd be needing new underpants.
Well this is all very civil
Well this is all very civil
Speculation! nothing but wild speculation!
look at the evidence man, we are all seething pots of internet rage underneath!
You addresed me in a post, (I think) and it was only on re-reading it that I realised. I'm apologising for not responding to your post. 🙂
Interestingly the various Joda employees who showed up in the FB comments have all gone very quiet.
I wonder if:
a) the company has told them to shut up, or
b) when they got the story from the driver they realised he was an idiot?
more likely a) I should think, pending a proper lawyer approved 'statement'
Is a made up assumption. I see evidence on the video that both supports and refutes that assertion.
Go on then, what are you seeing which suggests the driver hasn't seen the cyclist?
I wonder if:
a) the company has told them to shut up, or
b) when they got the story from the driver they realised he was an idiot?
I'm going with (a) given that one of them said he'd heard the story and everyone else was wrong (Or words to that effect.)
Yeah that Joda guy was quite vocal earlier on, and posted several times about [i]"needing the facts"[/i], and then later said [i]"I've just had the facts,all I'm gunna say is this video doesn't show all the facts!"[/i] and then went completely quiet.
So I think either those facts were not to his liking, or the company told them all to shut up, or a bit of both.
Be interesting to see how the company manages the damage limitation.
I'm still thinking the "facts" are that the cyclist did something a bit silly - or possibly even slightly aggressive - and the driver decided to "teach him a lesson". I suspect that plenty of other truck drivers would think there was nothing wrong with the driver's actions in that case.
Happy to admit that is all speculation, but still struggling to see a factual interpretation of the evidence we do have in which the truck driver is totally blameless.
It seems to be a fact that you have a very tenuous grasp of what the word 'fact' actually means, Aracer.
Without getting drawn into idle speculation, the LGVs constant speed and direction apparently regardless of the cyclists presence does at least allow for the possibility that the driver has not seen the cyclist. It appears very different from the behaviour of the small membered cafe owning Aussie, who demonstrated a very aggressive and deliberate punishment pass type manoeuvre. It just looks like he's oblivious, and statistically, oblivious drivers far, far outnumber homicidal ones. The long gap between traffic could easily be explained by the much slower acceleration of the lorry, combined with the driver anticipating a potential slowing traffic down the road. You'll often see this sort of behaviour from lorry drivers in heavy traffic, no point going all the way up the box to go back down again.
Go on then, what are you seeing which suggests the driver hasn't seen the cyclist?
Of course, this is only one side, and I don't dispute the alternative point of view, but that has already been stated plenty. I have an open mind about the whole thing. It would be interesting to find out the truth of the matter.
I am not a lorry driver apologist, but there's been a distinct lack of clarity of thinking on this thread.
Meanwhile, in the US, a driver does a dangerous overtake and then slams on the brakes causing two cyclists to crash into the back of him.
He get convicted of [i]"mayhem; assault with a deadly weapon, his car; battery with serious injury; and reckless driving causing injury."[/i] and gets FIVE years.
-- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/cyclist-sentenced.html
I wonder if it would have even made court here? 😕
the LGVs constant speed and direction apparently regardless of the cyclists presence does at least allow for the possibility that the driver has not seen the cyclist.
It does - but you have to agree it also seems a [i]bit[/i] odd that he would choose to drive at a bike pace, notably slower than the other traffic, when he is in a 40 and there is a big gap ahead of him.
I think the one positive point that we can definitely take from this video is that someone in a motor vehicle (maybe even a white van?) was prepared to film and post the video, and was obviously concerned for the cyclist.
Maybe the increase in vehicle dash cams might actually help cyclists?
I wonder if it would have even made court here?
You think the US looks after its cyclists better than we do? Not in my experience!
GrahamS, It is undoubtedly a bit odd; but we can't see what the lorry driver can (and indeed can't) see. He could just be anticipating the changing conditions ahead; which would actually go some way to explaining how he could of missed something in one of his many mirrors. What I would say is that if the driver DID know the cyclist was there, he should have his licence revoked at the very least, to bring about that situation deliberately would be unforgivable.
You think the US looks after its cyclists better than we do? Not in my experience!
Depends on the state from what I have heard.
But no, I was more just surprised at an actual conviction that reflected he was using the car as a deadly weapon, rather than just treating it as "careless driving".
[quote=v8ninety ]the LGVs constant speed and direction apparently regardless of the cyclists presence does at least allow for the possibility that the driver has not seen the cyclist.
Well it seems you have a rather tenuous grasp of the meaning of "evidence that... refutes".
The long gap between traffic could easily be explained by the much slower acceleration of the lorry, combined with the driver anticipating a potential slowing traffic down the road.
I do find it interesting how those who accuse others of speculation for assuming by far the most likely explanation, when asked for an alternative explanation always seem to propose something so... well...
I do find it interesting how those who accuse others of speculation for assuming by far the most likely explanation, when asked for an alternative explanation always seem to propose something so... well...
Lol. You specially ask me to postulate, and then you criticise me for it. I'm not commenting on the relative likelyhoods of the various possibilities, but merely offering an alternative to the 'Duel'esque homicidal maniac lorry driver theory that you appear to be all too happy to subscribe to. You are a plonker, Rodders... 😉
[quote=v8ninety ]Lol. You specially ask me to postulate
No, I asked you to provide the evidence which refuted the assertion that he'd seen the cyclist.
I'm not commenting on the relative likelyhoods of the various possibilities, but merely offering an alternative
Ah, well in that case another alternative is that there was an invisible alien spaceship flying directly in front of the truck.
I wish that had been me.
I would have sprinted ahead, stopped, raised two one-finger salutes and ****** off. Possibly also mooned 😀
A remarkable number of people seem to think that it is all fake or photoshopped somehow.
I suppose it is reassuring in a way that they can't believe what they are seeing.
Another Joda guy has shown up in the road.cc Facebook comments. He says he has talked to the driver and:
A couple of things need to be clarified. The cyclist undertook the truck effectively putting himself in the position you see here. Just in front of the truck is a set of traffic lights which are just changing to red so that is where his concentration is at this precise moment. Irrespective of how many mirrors are fitted to a truck due to the human field of vision it is impossible to view them all and maintain a view of the road simultaneously.
So the cyclist has put himself in a very dangerous situation.
All Joda vehicles have cyclist stay back warnings on the rear of the trailer to avoid this very situation.
Did he mention anything about homicidal maniac drivers? Or truck driver organised vendettas against cyclists? No? Totally implausible explanation then. Not worth the bandwidth it was written on.
No real explanation for the truck's low speed though.
The lights may well be red, but the long gap in the traffic suggests the truck has been crawling for a while. And it doesn't account for the eyewitness saying the driver was "looking down at cyclist grinning".
At the moment I'm with aracer's theory on this: the cyclist undertook the truck (which everyone will agree is an idiotic thing to do) and the driver decided to teach him a lesson.
But yeah, the driver may well have been completely oblivious because he was watching the lights rather than his mirrors.
I think the main lesson to be learnt is NEVER UNDERTAKE HGVs, which hopefully most people here already know.
[i]The cyclist undertook the truck effectively putting himself in the position you see here[/i]
Of course they'd say that! I call CYA bullshit
[i]All Joda vehicles have cyclist stay back warnings on the rear of the trailer to avoid this very situation.[/i]
Of course they do.
Anyway, at the time of the video, the cyclist had got in front, so he's passed safely. [more!] The [i]danger[/i] has come from the lorry driver being pissed off that a cyclist has safely got in front and "punishing" him for it.
so the driver admits he knew the cyclist was there then and was deliberately driving like a ****!
Hmm, something in that story doesn't quite add up. Mainly I'm curious if the driver hasn't seen the cyclist, how he knows the cyclist undertook him... and indeed how he subsequently could come up with that amount of detail about an incident he was completely unaware of. That and if the lights are just changing, the truck would have made it through if there wasn't a ~15s gap between the car in front and the truck, which makes hanging back such a long way extremely strange behaviour, and not at all typical of what I see trucks doing (time gap taken from video, from where truck first appears to lights is ~5s at normal speeds approximating from camera car driving past lights, hence if lights are just starting to change truck would already have been well through lights at that point if keeping up).
I acknowledged quite a while ago that it was most likely the cyclist had done something stupid.
"looking down at cyclist grinning".
How could he be, when he can't actually see the cyclist; we've established that the cyclist is well within the front n/s blind spot of that big Volvo FH. And if he can't see him, how is he allegedly matching speed with him? (Which incidentally, he isn't; he's slowly overhauling him, despite the cyclists efforts to pull clear. If it IS a punishment pass, it is the least aggressive one I've ever seen; there's no horn, no sudden changes of course, no revving of engines, nothing. Just a lorry maintaining a steady course and speed towards the next road hazard. What does occur to me is if you watch the video again, but imagine that the cyclist wasn't there, the lorry drivers behaviour does not look in the least bit odd. You'll often see lorries letting large gaps open up in stop start traffic; there's no point getting 38 tonnes up to 30-40mph just to stop again, when you can pootle at a constant 15mph and achieve the same progress without stopping. Less hard work, and less diesel burnt. Also, if you look at the start of the longer vehicle, you can see the Joda wagon in the distance, either stationary or moving very slowly, which fits with the undertake story. This lends credence to the Joda employee offered explanation, IMO.
As I said before; I don't fully subscribe to either possible scenario. There's not enough info to be sure. It just seems right to offer alternative explanations, rather than join in with lynchmobtrackworld... 🙂
I don't think the driver has admitted that he knew he was there. I suspect that the first he knew about the cyclist was an uncomfortable meeting in the bosses office...
That's mental! If he [i]didn't know he was there[/i] he would've driven straight over him!
How could he be, when he can't actually see the cyclist; we've established that the cyclist is well within the front n/s blind spot of that big Volvo FH
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=v8ninety ]You'll often see lorries letting large gaps open up in stop start traffic; there's no point getting 38 tonnes up to 30-40mph just to stop again, when you can pootle at a constant 15mph and achieve the same progress without stopping.
Yet his own explanation has him needing to stop for the lights which he wouldn't have had to do if he'd kept up with the traffic in front, which seems to be flowing steadily.
I don't think the driver has admitted that he knew he was there. I suspect that the first he knew about the cyclist was an uncomfortable meeting in the bosses office...
where he was able to offer a surprising level of detail about an incident he knew nothing about which was a tiny part of his trip a couple of days earlier
That's mental! If he didn't know he was there he would've driven straight over him!
He didn't change his course or speed AT ALL. Not many YouTube 'punishment pass' videos are so relaxed. The nature of them is that the driver feels 'wronged' they usually express this with revving, horns, swerves... None of that in evidence here. It's the most casual aggression I've ever seen, if that's what's happened. His colleague says it's because he was rolling up to the next traffic jam. I appreciate it seems a little unusual, but I've seen it happen, certainly more often than I've witnessed road rage type behaviour (which as I've stated, this is atypical for anyway).
Re blind spot mirrors; yep, they're well known for being effective. Not.
to offer a surprising level of detail about an incident he knew nothing about which was a tiny part of his trip a couple of days earlier
Are we back to filling up gaps in facts with made up stuff again, aracer? 😉
Yet his own explanation has him needing to stop for the lights which he wouldn't have had to do if he'd kept up with the traffic in front, which seems to be flowing steadily.
None of the preceding traffic is accelerating markedly; it could be that they are joining the back of another queue too. We just don't know, which is kind of my over riding point.
I hope you lot are never selected for jury service! 😆
Mainly I'm curious if the driver hasn't seen the cyclist, how he knows the cyclist undertook him...
To be fair at the end of the video the cyclist is shouting to the driver. That [i][b]may[/b][/i] have been the first time the driver was aware of him and from that he knows that the cyclist undertook because he wasn't in the traffic ahead.
[i]He didn't change his course or speed AT ALL. Not many YouTube 'punishment pass' videos are so relaxed.[/i]
Exactly. He was tracking the cyclist's speed to scare him. There was no room to "punishment pass".
[i]Casual aggression[/i] - that's hilarious! Driving a massive truck cm from someone on a bike. Wow, how casual.
We obviously don't live on the same planet so I'll avoid your posts from now, you should do the same to mine 😆
[quote=v8ninety ]Are we back to filling up gaps in facts with made up stuff again, aracer?
What do you think I'm making up?
He was tracking the cyclist's speed to scare him.
This is classic made up/fill in the gaps stuff.
What we know; the cyclist and trucks speeds were very similar. (But not the same; the truck gains on and overhauls the cyclist, it seems)
What we don't know; whether this was intentional, or coincidental. Whether the driver of the truck was matching the cyclist, or whether the cyclist was pedalling like crazy to try to get clear of the truck. Either is plausible. Suggesting a motive for an action that is not even proven as deliberate is just emotive guff.
There was no room to "punishment pass".
But there was. There was also enough room to pass sensibly.
I'm not going to avoid you, I find your posts interesting and challenging and amusing.
But there was. There was also enough room to pass sensibly.
There wasn't actually - if you [url= https://goo.gl/maps/BZHKS ]look at the road in Street View[/url] there are indeed lights not far ahead and those hatchings quickly turn into a right-turn-only lane.
Aracer, I incorrectly attributed bails' post to you in my mind whilst reading through several new posts. Apologies.
the truck gains on and overhauls the cyclist, it seems
Filling in gaps with made up stuff? 😆