[Closed] Mass suicide attempt by commuter cyclists.

STATO - Member

It doesnt encourage you, its available for you. If you want to go left you can use it, if you want to go straight move across into the correct lane.

So many people are using it wrongly that I think it asks reasonable questions about the road design. This isn't one road warrior, it's a whole lot of normal everyday cyclists all doing the same, wrong thing

Lorry drive has already seen more than one cyclist appear in front of him from the left hand side, and has taken no action to allow for the fact that there may be more coming from a known blind-spot on his vehicle - hardly qualifies as good driving and whether or not he may be theoretically "in the right" he would have contributed to a potential death scenario.

Both of them need to have a long hard think.

If you start from this assumption there is no point ever at which the driver (not limited to this video) can ever assume noone is going to be passing on the inside

You have to assume that given all the options open to the cyclist to not have an accident and the relative damage they receive vs a HGV that they are not going to try and force a HGV off the road...

It seems to me the cyclist expected the HGV to make room... and hadn't even considered the HGV may have nowhere to go or has even seen him.

That's not top say the driver didn't learn something but that's a bit like saying a train driver has to expect someone to throw themselves under their train at every station.

So many people are using it wrongly that I think it asks reasonable questions about the road design. This isn't one road warrior, it's a whole lot of normal everyday cyclists all doing the same, wrong thing

Shall we also,
Change the speed limit
Make red lights optional
Allow the use of phones for car drivers and cyclists
Etc

?

After all, if lots of people are doing it already, it must be OK.....

So many people are using it wrongly that I think it asks reasonable questions about the road design. This isn't one road warrior, it's a whole lot of normal everyday cyclists all doing the same, wrong thing

But that's not the point. There's a massive arrow saying "OI, TURN LEFT HERE" and whether they WISH it was something else is besides the point, people don't get to make up road rules to suit themselves. It's like a mate of mine who got done for speeding at 2am on a mostly empty motorway, he felt aggrieved because he wasn't causing any danger (true) and thought the usual rules should not apply (false).

If people want to have a bike line or advanced stop added, there's a mechanism to do that, you can't just make it up as you go along and expect other road users to know and respect that.

I've already said that the junction is a shit-fest but whenever I've driven or ridden there I'm VERY aware of this and behave accordingly. At no point would I put the blinders on and get my head down and go for it.

So many people are using it wrongly that I think it asks reasonable questions about the road design. This isn't one road warrior, it's a whole lot of normal everyday cyclists all doing the same, wrong thing

Indeed. I get the impression that normally cyclists congregate there and then either sprint to get ahead of the traffic or filter in with the cars. Having an HGV there only leaves the option to sprint ahead or wait to filter in behind which is what seems to be happening.

The guy who got hit seemed to think he'd done enough to be visible to the HGV. He was ahead but probably not visible.

The HGV seemed to accelerate a lot as it went through the pinch point. You can see the relative speeds change dramatically just before the collision.

The driver is not completely innocent but the main problem is the junction design which is almost inviting this kind of thing.

Lorry drive has already seen more than one cyclist appear in front of him from the left hand side, and has taken no action to allow for the fact that there may be more coming from a known blind-spot on his vehicle - hardly qualifies as good driving and whether or not he may be theoretically "in the right" he would have contributed to a potential death scenario.
Both of them need to have a long hard think.

Lorry saw many go infront of him, and saw some on his inside further back (the camera bike). He was moving slowly to the curb, trying to accelerate and change gears. He had a mirror that might have let him see the cyclist but they are tiny, only really there for when a driver is stationary, thats why he saw the cyclist when he hit him, he appeared in that mirror. (one out the front)

Like this one.
[img] [/img]

I think the HGV accelerated a lot quicker than I would normally expect. Possibly everyone expected to be half way down the road before he'd gotten above 10 mph. Certainly the cyclist who got hit looked like he thought he'd made a breakaway before he was hit from behind.

if there's one or two cyclists at the junction then playing the odds and expecting to get away sharpish is understandable, still not smart mind, but understandable. But as soon as there's half a dozen people of mixed ability at the stop line then getting away cleanly and quickly is just a lottery, I don't think you can rely on it.

My sympathies in this instance are with the truck driver, cyclists should have either been considerably in front of the truck and visible to the driver or tucked in the row of traffic behind. The only person that seemed to see there was a problem in the making was the female cyclist that appears to ease up to let the truck get away.

If you think they deserve therefore to die, which is what the comments regarding Darwin are saying, you are a bit of a ****, aren't you?

I didn't say he deserved to die at all.

No need to get personal.

Shall we also,
Change the speed limit
Make red lights optional
Allow the use of phones for car drivers and cyclists
Etc

?

After all, if lots of people are doing it already, it must be OK.....

but the main problem is the junction design which is almost inviting this kind of thing.

It's not. It's a left only lane. The problem is the cyclists ignoring that in a rush to get ahead.

It's not. It's a left only lane. The problem is the cyclists ignoring that in a rush to get ahead.

Cyclists generally ride on the left. It's where you naturally get drawn. Watching the video I wouldn't have noticed the arrow until I was well past the beginning of the line of cars.

Given they almost certainly do the same route every day, ignorance is no defence.

Cyclists generally ride on the left. It's where you naturally get drawn. Watching the video I wouldn't have noticed the arrow until I was well past the beginning of the line of cars.

And as above, they will all go that way every day and will be on the bike to avoid traffic, so wont join it.

Cyclists generally ride on the left. It's where you naturally get drawn. Watching the video I wouldn't have noticed the arrow until I was well past the beginning of the line of cars.

Whilst I know not everyone drives, anyone who DOES drive usually knows that empty-lane on a busy road means something is wrong (roadworks, compulsory turn etc).

Given they almost certainly do the same route every day, ignorance is no defence.

They do the same route every day and presumably do the same thing every day. Everyone's gotten so used to it (including drivers) that's it's just become the accepted way of doing it. It's only when someone who doesn't know the junction comes along that things get messy.

The fact that people's nature has taken over suggests that the design is completely wrong.

If you were driving would you try and jump a truck into a narrowing space, or would you slow and join the queue before the lights? or would you just turn left.

And as above, they will all go that way every day and will be on the bike to avoid traffic, so wont join it.

Whilst I know not everyone drives, anyone who DOES drive usually knows that empty-lane on a busy road means something is wrong (roadworks, compulsory turn etc).

Are you guys saying you never filter? If you're going to wait in line with cars then why even bother cycling, why not just drive?

That left lane doesn't look like a full width lane to me anyway. Wouldn't a better solution be have a proper left filter lane with plenty of markings leading up to it and a single lane going straight ahead?

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Given they almost certainly do the same route every day, ignorance is no defence.

Indeed. I get the impression that normally cyclists congregate there and then either sprint to get ahead of the traffic or filter in with the cars. Having an HGV there only leaves the option to sprint ahead or wait to filter in behind which is what seems to be happening.

You are missing the option TURN LEFT ....

If I'd ended up in this position in a car that is almost certainly what I'd do. At the front on a bike perhaps not... 10 people back on a bike GET OFF and stand on the pavement..

Yes it's inconvenient... yes I'll get home 5 mins later... BUT my chance of getting home at all is MUCH BETTER

what would you do,

email TfL & the Mayor and inform them of your concerns and attach the video, requesting a review of the junction / lanes / road lay out - that's the most constructive thing i can think of - but i'm not local to London, so over to you.

Looking at the video again there's no right turn on that road. So you have two lanes going into one within meters of the junction and a left filter lane which doesn't look big enough to fit a car in.

That is a ridiculous set up.

Are you guys saying you never filter? If you're going to wait in line with cars then why even bother cycling, why not just drive?

and THATS the reason some people are getting hurt. 'What i cant go faster by bike? better run some red lights then or i may as well drive...'

wrong attitude.

Yes ill filter, but if im approaching lights ill not filter all the way to the front unless i know i can get into the ASL before it changes. If i cant ill join the queue when i think it might change to green. That way im going thought the light [u]as[/u] traffic, which is exactly what an ASL is designed to let you do, get in front of a car and take the lane. Sitting on the left, with your foot on the curb as so many MAMILS do, is wrong (unless there is a marked cycle lane through the junction).

Are you guys saying you never filter? If you're going to wait in line with cars then why even bother cycling, why not just drive?

I do filter but I make sure I don't have to out-sprint a car/bus/lorry/motorbike/mobility scooter in order to avoid being knocked off. If I can't safely get in front of something that is a danger, I don't do it because I value my skin more than I value 10 seconds. If there's an advanced stop and in the unlikely occasion that a bus or driver hasn't stopped in it, I take my place providing the driver behind me knows I'm there.

That left lane doesn't look like a full width lane to me anyway. Wouldn't a better solution be have a proper left filter lane with plenty of markings leading up to it and a single lane going straight ahead?

It doesn't matter what a "better solution" is, we're discussing what the situation is today (or specifically a month ago). We all know that it's a terrible junction, but that makes the riders dumber, not smarter

atlaz - Member

But that's not the point. There's a massive arrow saying "OI, TURN LEFT HERE" and whether they WISH it was something else is besides the point, people don't get to make up road rules to suit themselves.

I think that's exactly the point- when you get significant numbers of normal people doing something wrong, it's not generally because they're making it up to suit themselves, it's because they've blundered into doing it wrong. That could be something as simple as the traffic tailing back to before where the split in the road's marked, so you end up in the wrong lane with solid traffic on the right.

Or it could be more complex affecting the "feel" of the road- when I first watched the vid I wasn't looking at road signs and it did feel like the truck came across.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I think that the cameraman was being a moron cycling up that lorry, let alone all the people waiting at the lights (who could have been there before the lorry got there conceivably).

They should never have been there, either through better road design or just plain hanging back.

you end up in the wrong lane with solid traffic on the right.

In a car in this situation would you:

a) race the lorry and hope you could get in front of him with room enough not to cause a crash
b) whack on the indicator and wait until it was safe

I bet b.

Only 2 points to make.

1. Cyclists in the wrong, definite "herd" mentality there.
2. ****puffin. 😆 😆 😆

either through better road design or just plain hanging back.

The former takes time, the latter is already available.

Sadly common sense isn't all that common.

In a car in this situation would you:

a) race the lorry and hope you could get in front of him with room enough not to cause a crash
b) whack on the indicator and wait until it was safe

I bet b.

Or
c) turn left anyway and find a way to turn around safely

where is this exactly?

turn left anyway

Much nicer views along the King's Road, too.

I think that's exactly the point- when you get significant numbers of normal people doing something wrong, it's not generally because they're making it up to suit themselves, it's because they've blundered into doing it wrong.

Or because of Herd mentality...

The former takes time, the latter is already available.

Sadly common sense isn't all that common.

For sure. In 7 years cycling in London I've definitely done a few stupid things in the heat of the moment. I just don't get how they don't have a sense of self preservation though. That lorry is huge and would definitely make me think twice, and I'd like to think that I'm rapid enough to accelerate out of sticky situations.

They cycled up it so calmly though. So much time to think 'maaaaybe this isn't the brightest idea'.

They cycled up it so calmly though. So much time to think 'maaaaybe this isn't the brightest idea'.

And they'll do it all again the next day regardless. Sadly.

Are you guys saying you never filter? If you're going to wait in line with cars then why even bother cycling, why not just drive?

I don't cycle to work because it's quicker than taking the car, I do it for many reasons, speed of journey isn't one of them.

But of course I filter, but only when it's safe and appropriate to do so. If for example there's a queue of 3 cars then I just take the lane and join the queue - what's the point in moving to the asl in that situation.

I see people on my commute who are conditioned to move up the side of traffic to get to the asl then wobble off at a snails pace or get caught out as the traffic moves off.

In longer queues I'll filter either to the front or slot into s space, but I know the sequence of the traffic lights on my regular commuting route so know when it's safe to filter and when it's not.

At no point would I sit alongside an HGV or any other vehicle for that matter - I take the lane either in the queue or at the ASL.

At no point would I sit alongside an HGV or any other vehicle for that matter

I don't even do that in a car. The same goes for roundabouts ... I see both drivers and cyclists trying to save a few seconds when its obvious the bus/HGV will need the space and end up then pulling back for when they finally realise they don't have room and hit the brakes.

I'm not sure if it's possible to do a balanced comment which those entrenched on either side won't disagree with, but I'm going to try...

Yes the cyclist was wrong to do that and an idiot - for a start going straight on from a left turn lane is almost certainly breaking the law (on the "careless cycling" level at least). At some point self-preservation needs to kick in. Yes as a soft squidgy object you do have responsibility for your own safety and doing what you can to ensure that.

BUT:

as the driver of a huge, fast moving, heavy object you also have responsibility for avoiding hitting the soft squidgy objects you're sharing the road with even if they've done something wrong. The penalty for the mistake the cyclist makes shouldn't be death. Ultimately it's the drivers of the big, heavy, fast moving objects which are introducing the danger to the roads - without them then almost everything cyclists do would be safe. The cyclist was in front of the truck and the truck drove into him. Given all the other cyclists the truck driver must have seen, it should have been obvious to the driver that there might be more - and for those who've thrown out this strawman, no, he didn't need to reverse or stop for an infinite amount of time, because despite the blind spot he has mirrors which enable him to see cyclists coming past, all he had to do was slow down enough to let them all go which he can see using his mirrors. It's been mentioned that the cyclists had plenty of time to ponder the situation whilst at the lights - well so did the driver, he should have been well aware there were cyclists there. So whilst I don't agree with Edu, I also don't agree that the driver was blameless - as the operator of a lethal weapon he does have a higher level responsibility to avoid mowing down even those soft squidgy objects who have done something wrong (the collision rules at sea got mentioned earlier - fundamentally if a collision occurs then both parties are at fault under those).

Ultimately though, if the problem is the blind spot on the lorry (which seems to be a fundamental issue), then the most significant problem which needs addressing is that. On a higher level what needs addressing is the attitude that it's OK to have vehicles on roads driving into spaces the drivers can't see.

The rider with the camera goes up the inside of the HGV and sits there in it's blind spot, IN LONDON. How ****ing stupid do you need to be to do that. They are 'smart' enough to use a camera but not smart enough to not want to die. It's difficult to imagine something where you don't know exactly what you are meant to not do and they go and do it. If only there was a way of keeping stupid off the streets but clearly there isn't 🙁

edit: and I largely agree with you aracer except that the cycling wasn't really in front of the truck. He sat in exactly the worst possible spot from the driver's point of view. The cyclist had a 100% chance of avoiding that accident. The driver had a reasonable chance if he had been able to see him but at that spot it wasn't clear that he had. The junction could have been better designed to prevent the cyclist(s) making what was clearly a dangerous move

Absolutely barmy. Feel bad for the driver, who's getting out of his cab not knowing whether he's just killed someone. Hopefully the rider will have the chance to reflect on his actions once he's got his shorts into the wash.

I know that junction pretty well, though, and IIRC it's hairy enough in a car sometimes.

The dangerous cycling by the riders in that video is the result of the same sort of attitudes and behaviours as car drivers using mobile phones while driving. The problem is that once some people start doing it and 'getting away with it', others see it and copy them and it becomes normalised.

It's probably difficult to go against the herd when cycling regularly in somewhere like London and be the odd guy out who sticks to the Highway Code and stays behind that truck when every other cyclist is riding up to the junction in the filter lane.

Again as with mobile phone using, once that sort of dangerous behaviour has acquired sufficient critical mass to become commonplace, it's a lot harder to reverse things and stop it happening. It would probably take a lot of police resources now to influence this, i.e. police regularly stopping groups of cyclists doing that and getting it through their thick skulls that they must not do it, whether by explanation or by giving them the sort of bollocking that will discourage them from doing it again.

Just how bad things are, is shown by the number of cyclists who think the rider was in the right and that it was the truck driver's fault: they've all become so habituated to their crap roadcraft that many are probably incapable of realising when they have made a mistake and correcting their behaviour.

Put simply, these people do not know how to ride their bikes safely, and they live in their own little bubbles whether commuting in London or riding in a sportive.

Are you guys saying you never filter? If you're going to wait in line with cars then why even bother cycling, why not just drive?

Honest answer, yes but never ever do it to HGV's and buses or any other vehicle of that size. My self preservation instinct is very strong.

Agree with aracers comment above, but the situation could also have been avoided by the cyclists not wilfully using the wrong lane.

[i]You are missing the option TURN LEFT ....[/i]

Yeah! What if, you're a cyclist, you've gone into the left turn lane to turn left and the lights change... you can't turn cos of all the nincompoops (sorry ****puffins) going straight on! Carnage! Although, to be fair, not death.

Much nicer views along the King's Road, too.

Not a comment on any of the arguments so far but I wonder why they don't fit cameras to larger vehicles [ like the reversing camera on my car ] to ensure that the driver can see what is going on on each side of their vehicles. There is a massive safety issue with vehicles that size effectively not knowing where other road users around them.

[quote=leffeboy ]edit: and I largely agree with you aracer except that the cycling wasn't really in front of the truck.

1:07 to 1:08 in the video - there is no overlap as the front of the truck crosses the end of the yellow box and the first side of the ped crossing. Overlap occurs somewhere in the middle of the ped crossing. Sure the cyclist never gets far enough in front to be clearly visible, but he is still in front and the truck still runs into him (it's side on contact as there is overlap before the collision). It's nitpicking a bit, but from a strict legal perspective the cyclist was in the lane on the road at that point and the truck behind him before the collision occurred - effectively the only reason people are excusing the driver here is the blind spot.

I'm not sure if this has been done, but I almost wonder if the camera bike was the most irresponsible - the guy in orange has the excuse of thinking he was clear in front, but for the guy with the camera it's obvious he's still alongside and that the gap is narrowing - was he going to pull on the anchors or jump onto the pavement a second or two after the collision happened if the other cyclist hadn't been there?

effectively the only reason people are excusing the driver here is the blind spot.

I think the driver is being excused because it's very very clear that the cyclist did an incredibly stupid maneuver.

Did the camera guy not slowly move off so he could slot in behind the hgv?

Although Pucci pizza long since gone.

but regardless if you don't turn left then you just end up on the roundabout which I discovered 20 yrs ago is a death trap for bikes and instead used to cycle up the kings road.

That video - and many of the responses on this thread - make a fairly compelling case for compulsory training for cyclists.

[quote=Gary_M ]I think the driver is being excused because it's very very clear that the cyclist did an incredibly stupid maneuver.

Which I agree with - but as I pointed out, given collision rules of the sea both parties are at fault and I still can't see why the operator of the vehicle which is introducing the danger isn't required to be careful because somebody else has one something wrong.

Just for a moment let's imagine the driver was in something like this:
[img] [/img]

Would he then be excused for running into the cyclist he could clearly see, because the cyclist was being an idiot?

Yeah! What if, you're a cyclist, you've gone into the left turn lane to turn left and the lights change... you can't turn cos of all the nincompoops (sorry ****puffins) going straight on! Carnage! Although, to be fair, not death.

Yep I agree.... which is why I'm saying this is a herd mentality.

The answer here though is to pull up by the kerb and put a foot down ... (I know it will cost 30 seconds 🙁 )

I'm not sure if this has been done, but I almost wonder if the camera bike was the most irresponsible - the guy in orange has the excuse of thinking he was clear in front, but for the guy with the camera it's obvious he's still alongside and that the gap is narrowing - was he going to pull on the anchors or jump onto the pavement a second or two after the collision happened if the other cyclist hadn't been there?

Well quite ...
this is herd mentality though. From the first to leave through to the camera... though perhaps he did initially slow down and filter behind the HGV

But the point really is ... the HGV driver is watching for lots of squidgies... even cars are squidgies to him... hes watching the other side of the road for anything crossing the white line etc.
Having sat in truck cabs... regardless of mirrors its very easy to not see a cyclist...

On the other hand... it's freakin impossible as a cyclist not to notice the F*ing HUGE HGV .... but what the cyclist is relying on (IMHO) is the HGV has to seen him and will make room somehow regardless...

scotroutes - Member
That video - and many of the responses on this thread - make a fairly compelling case for compulsory training for cyclists.

There's 1 rule on the road, self preservation, everything else is secondary.

I still can't see why the operator of the vehicle which is introducing the danger isn't required to be careful because somebody else has one something wrong.

Just for a moment let's imagine the driver was in something like this:

Would he then be excused for running into the cyclist he could clearly see, because the cyclist was being an idiot?

But he couldn't clearly see in a glass cab or not.
The LGV driver has to watch at least 2 cars in the RH lane...
(before reading on can you name the cars)
Point being the cyclist would not likely even be aware... they are oblivious to a huge HGV.... let alone what's on the other side of the HGV...

At no point does the cyclist in red even look backwards... not before starting off nor before swerving into the lane...

The red renault rather sensibly doesn't even try and pull alongside the HGV the silver micra is already there and who knows what else.

The LGV driver is watching the other side of the road for oncoming traffic as well.. not to mention pedestrians and the cars in the lane to his right.

All the cyclist has to notice is a freakin huge HGV....

Many decades ago I was in the car with my Dad and brother waiting to turn right and a HGV hit us at 2-3 mph... it was totally the HGV's fault, they admitted it and apologised etc.

However .. and the point... the car was written off. My brother and I had to be taken out through the rear window .. the back half of the car was barely recognisable.

The driver didn't excuse himself but apologised as he just hadn't seen us...
It's pretty easy when they are right behind you and much higher up and watching the road ahead.

I'd be terrified to drive a HGV through London... but someone has to or the supermarkets would have no food, the bikeshops no bikes... etc.

I've driven a Cat C through outer London and that is scary enough... you have 10x as much to watch out for as driving a car...

The cyclists at the front knew that they had to pull away quickly to get in front of the HGV. The cyclist who got hit was too slow to do that manouvre. More importantly, the cyclist who was hit had no wherewithal, when you are undertaking and cutting into a lane which you know is occupied by a huge artic then it's common sense that you look and check you still have space!

The HGV was not taking an unreasonable position on the road, he could not pull further out because he had another lane of vehicles going ahead on his offside. Artic drivers have no way of seeing something directly in front of them or just to the side and in front of their wing mirrors (unless vehicle is fitted with cameras). This time I think it really is a case of cyclist not engaging brain when performing a risky manoeuvre against an obviously hazardous whopping HGV.

There are compelling reasons for HGVs to be fitted with blind spot cameras/warning sensors though.

It's nitpicking a bit, but from a strict legal perspective the cyclist was in the lane on the road at that point and the truck behind him before the collision occurred

You can see him swing out to get "round" the kerb at the corner when the lorry is again level with him - that's where he joins the forward lane

There are compelling reasons for HGVs to be fitted with blind spot cameras/warning sensors though.

I'm not convinced either way.... I think it needs testing.

I know just reverse parking my car is 10x harder with sensors in some situations...I can't turn mine off and its very distracting...

Its a constant beep beep... OH's has a reversing camera and seperate warnings at least on 4 corners and its an absolute nightmare. I can reverse park perfectly well without them and get into a 6" gap... with them its a sensory overload. First thing I do when I get in her car is turn off the sensors and reverse parking camera. 90% of the time I take her car its going to the local supermarket which involves parking in a space where the sensors would be going crazy...

I'd worry that sticking the number of sensors and cameras that would be needed on an artic (several times more than a car) would just end up with a pretty much constant sensory overload.

scotroutes - Member
That video - and many of the responses on this thread - make a fairly compelling case for compulsory training for cyclists.

Personally?

The cyclist was in the wrong. I don't see it any other way.

Right or wrong it's the sort of riding that might get you killed anyway.

scaredypants - Member
It's nitpicking a bit, but from a strict legal perspective the cyclist was in the lane on the road at that point and the truck behind him before the collision occurred
Disagree: From a strict factual perspective I think you can say he was ahead but I'd say he had in fact NOT in any meaningful way "joined" the lane going straight ahead (proof of this being that he actually survived the incident)

aye to be considered infront and in the lane ahead of an HGV you need to be 20 feet in front of it, with knowledge that the driver knows you are there, that involves looking back and making eye contact.

The guy is nowhere near in command of the lane.

The cyclist was in a left-turn-only lane. He then cut across a junction while undertaking the lorry and then tried to cut into the lane in which that lorry was already established without even looking. That cyclist was in the wrong the moment he chose the left-turn-only lane at the lights whilst intending to go straight on.

I really can't see how any one rational could say that the lorry driver acted incorrectly. Yes if he'd seen the cyclist and realised that there was imminent danger then it would only be right that he took avoiding action regardless of who had broken what rules, but I don't believe he did see him and that's not his fault.

In the aftermath the cyclists wanted to be cut some slack because other people do it. Well as a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian I would rather that lorry drivers were concentrating on driving properly rather than having to make allowances for self centred fools who think it's their god given right to do as they please and break the rules with impunity.

Completely cyclists fault, cutting from left turn lane into straight on lane into hgv blind spot.
At the lights he should have been in front of the hgv or behind it - primary position commanding his own space. Not in the gutter hoping there would be room left for him.

I'd don't get it. Cyclist knew he was in the wrong , was too slow cut up the lorry and then complains.

I feel sorry for the lorry driver

[quote=stevextc ]But he couldn't clearly see in a glass cab or not.

You reckon if he'd been in the lorry pictured he'd have been unable to see the cyclist at any point after they pulled away from the lights (let alone unable to see the cyclist for the entire time between pulling away and the collision)? 😯 Seriously?

Sure there might be a lot of things to concentrate on - but then if he can't cover all of that then he shouldn't be driving a machine which routinely kills other road users. We come back to the responsibility required to operate something safely - not being able to do the job properly isn't an excuse, and continuously making sure there isn't anything in the space you're driving into is a fairly fundamental thing.

I note once again that I'm not suggesting the cyclist did nothing wrong - clearly he was mainly at fault. I'm simply questioning the complete innocence of the lorry driver.

So let's try again - if the driver had been in a cab where he could see the cyclist clearly for the whole time after pulling away from the lights, does the cyclist riding like an idiot allow him to [b]choose to[/b] run into the cyclist when he could have just lifted off a bit?

clearly he was mainly at fault.

[quote=scaredypants ]Disagree: From a strict factual perspective I think you can say he was ahead but I'd say he had in fact NOT in any meaningful way "joined" the lane going straight ahead (proof of this being that he actually survived the incident)

So at the point he rode across the pedestrian crossing (at the start of which he was entirely in front of the lorry), what options were there for a vehicle travelling on that bit of road? What direction did the "lane" he was in go?

[quote=seosamh77 ]aye to be considered infront and in the lane ahead of an HGV you need to be 20 feet in front of it, with knowledge that the driver knows you are there, that involves looking back and making eye contact.
The guy is nowhere near in command of the lane.

cite

the issue here is whether the lorry ran into the cyclist which was in front of him on the road, not whether the cyclist was "in command of the lane".

[quote=leffeboy ]The driver might possibly have been able to prevent it happening but the fault lies completely with the cyclist

oxymoron

the driver is still the one in charge of the lethal weapon - in a situation where he can avoid killing somebody he's not at all at fault for not doing so?

I hope you never have to use anything delivered by a

lethal weapon

😐

I've just watched it again and slowed it down. There is little chance that the driver saw him. The cyclist is outside his range of vision at all times. He's too close for the driver to see. Unless the driver was looking in his left mirror and counting the number of cyclists approaching from way back, I see no way that he could have known he was there.

I agree that, had he been in one of those cabs with thec full length extended windows, he would have seen him. Unfortunately he wasn't, so we are back to the whole group of cyclists taking a calculated risk and one of them almost paying with his life. There were plenty of places to filter in to the correct place on approach too.

The guy filming also undertook two vehicles that were indicating left. Another stupendously idiotic thing to do, but it's London, so he gets a free pass 🙄

to take the extreme example if someone jumps off of a motorway bridge in front of my car I bear no responsibility for hitting them even though it would have been possible to avoid doing so by driving at 10mph rather than behaving in the way the rest of the traffic expects me to. Yes, it's a stupid extreme example but the point is that the person doing the jumping is fully responsibly for putting themselves in that place even though there are ways to avoid the result being fatal

A clear concise summary of the problems at that junction. It's the design stupid.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/who-is-to-blame/

Orange boy

I'd don't get it. Cyclist knew he was in the wrong , was too slow cut up the lorry and then complains.

I feel sorry for the lorry driver

Me too, perhaps the cyclist had a shock and reacted but the others were jumping on the band wagon in the video. The lorry driver did right to get out and say your a **** idiot pal, its a left hand lane and you tried to cut a lorry up!

Just because everyone does it was a ridiculous statement to throw back at the lorry driver.

[quote=funkmasterp ]I've just watched it again and slowed it down. There is little chance that the driver saw him.

I should be very surprised if he did, I'm not disputing that at all - my point is more subtle.

I agree that, had he been in one of those cabs with thec full length extended windows, he would have seen him.

Good, so if he had been in one of those would it have been reasonable to run into the cyclist in the way he did?

we are back to the whole group of cyclists taking a calculated risk and one of them almost paying with his life.

Another issue I'm not disputing - at no point have I defended the cyclist's actions (and I suspect the guy with the camera may be even more of an idiot). But there is more to it than that.

twisty - Member

There are compelling reasons for HGVs to be fitted with blind spot cameras/warning sensors though.

Thing is, you'd soon just end up with information overload- lots of cameras that nobody checks because realistically, a 17 metre long vehicle with a hinge in the middle has so much perimeter, and a city's such a crowded environment, that you can't really monitor it all. No criticism of drivers, it's just impractical to police that much space while driving.

This is a problem. Forget about this one example- they're like that all the time, not just when a cyclist's doing something stupid. If you invented the artic today, you'd not get permission to drive one through London.

The thing that always really strikes a dischord for me is site rules for trucks. We had a lot of building work on campus last year and lots of contention with tippers. On one side of the barrier, they had a 5mph limit, banksmen, areas of road they weren't allowed in, prescribed routes, 2nd observers in the cab, everyone else around them was trained how to be safe with them and wearing hiviz. And if there was an accident, someone's going to be in deep shit.

As soon as they left the building site and go out among civilians, all that stops, and they're just another vehicle, and if they drive over a pensioner or a cyclist that's just a shame because they have big blind spots.

It's essentially that on site, you can make rules that make them safe, and control the environment, and you're required to. Off site, you can't, so we go "oh well never mind"

[quote=leffeboy ]Yes, it's a stupid extreme example

Indeed it is - the reality of this situation is somewhat different, the lorry driver only had to lift off slightly to avoid this particular collision. So let's try a similar but better one:

Somebody jumps off a motorway bridge in front of you, but a few seconds before you get there. The other lanes are clear and you have time to safely swerve into the next lane. (assuming they survive the fall) do you bear any responsibility if you don't swerve despite the stupidity of their actions?

I completely see your point aracer, but I think we are viewing the footage differently. I just see the wagon driving, I don't see him run in to the cyclist, I just see him driving. This is because I don't think he knew the cyclist was there at any point.

I think I see the footage the same as you, it's just that I'm thinking about what ifs beyond that. Apart from the issue of the infrastructure described in the blog, I see another couple of issues:

The use of such HGVs on the road, as neatly summarised by NW just above. That there are some quite simple steps to improve things which would potentially avoid such incidents - the two which spring to mind are mandating cabs as pictured above where the driver would see the cyclist, or mandating an observer in the cab when operating in such environments. Fundamentally I'm after something approaching the same level of safety as required on site rather than "oh well never mind".

That irrespective of the lack of visibility it's still not unreasonable for the driver to expect there to be other cyclists there, and there are ways he could have driven which would have eliminated most of the potential danger.

The point we come back to here is quite an interesting one. Because essentially the defence of the driver's actions rests on "everybody does it"!

Taking an industrial safety perspective:
Was the risk foreseeable and avoidable?
Are the consequences of a collision serious or life threatening?
Is the probability of an incident high?

If the answer to those is yes, then you'd have the full weight of the HSE down on you in the event of an accident and you'd be issued with a prohibition notice and likely prosecution.
WTF we tolerate this on a daily basis is astounding. Large trucks don't need to be on city streets during peak hours - they only create pollution and congestion.

Legislation to introduce transparent cabs (or whatever they are called) on all new vehicles and having a second observer on board would be where I would start for HGV's.

God knows what I'd do about cyclists in the left only lane though 😕

Edit - wee in their shoes.

Quite. Unguarded machine tools - the operator was being an idiot putting his fingers in, all his fault? Unguarded HGVs - the cyclist was being an idiot putting himself in, all his fault?

aracer you say:

"there are ways he could have driven which would have eliminated most of the potential danger"

If we assume the driver was unaware of that particular cyclcist and the danger he was in (I am not sure if you agree with this, but most posting on here appear to), what are those actions? And if you are talking about people driving in a way to minimise danger where they are unaware of any particular person at risk, then you have to consider all risks and ask if the driving was the most risk-limiting overall. And somehow you have to factor into that the need to get from A to B - the most risk-limiting form of motoring is to not go at all (unless you choose to stop in the outside lane of a motorway, when it isn't a good idea at all).

How should the lorry driver have driven in that situation?

Try not snipping too much, the full quote was:

[quote=aracer ]it's still not unreasonable for the driver to expect there to be other cyclists there, and there are ways he could have driven which would have eliminated most of the potential danger.

...and I gave a very full explanation in an earlier post, along with a very brief one in the post immediately above.