[Closed] Mass suicide attempt by commuter cyclists.

I hadn't seen your earlier post, sorry, I will have a look.

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. - 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

The ways he could have driven to eliminate potential danger? the lorry driver was driving responsibly and in the correct way. The last few posts I have read seem to be getting further and further away from reality. Who is paying for the cost of the observer? All hauliers travelling into cities now have to double the payroll? Why? just because of a few idiots on bikes?

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".

Well that's easy. cyclist was in left turning lane, he'd no business even trying to merge.

Also placing yourself in a lorry's blind spot is about as stupid as you can get.

btw that's not the issue here any how, the issue is sheep like cyclists stupidly endangering themselves.

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

I'll probably get grief for this, but in my opinion it would absolutely be his fault. Acting foolish has consequences. I once witnessed somebody putting his hands on the top of the rail on a tenter. Ripped his fingers to shreds. Machine shut down for hours and a fortune in added components. All because somebody is a ****wit. I'd have just slapped him around the head. That's a discussion for a different thread though.

Unguarded machine tools - the operator was being an idiot putting his fingers in, all his fault?

Except in this case the cyclist didn't just put his fingers in an unguarded machine, he removed the guards, unlocked the isolator, bypassed the interlock, unzipped his fly and chopped his old todger off.

Prior to the collision the cyclist made a series of poor decisions, if he'd reconsidered at any of those points then the collision wouldn't have happened.

... but if you are referring to "lift off slightly" then that could just as easily have caused another difficulty with another cyclist of whom the driver was equally unaware. Lifting off is one of the things he could have done if he was aware of the positions and speeds of all cyclists in his blind spots. But that is not possible with that design of vehicle. I am sure that, with hindsight, the driver wishes he had lifted off, guy must have had quite a fright. But that's hindsight.

The driver obviously saw the lead cyclists appear out of his blind spot, why wouldn't he assume there might be some more?

He seemed to speed up rather than show any caution which seems a bit odd when 5 cyclists have suddenly appeared out of your blind spot.

theocb has it, but there is a fuller explanation of my thoughts upthread

[quote=eb2429 ]The ways he could have driven to eliminate potential danger? the lorry driver was driving responsibly and in the correct way.

and yet he still nearly killed somebody, and there were ways to prevent that, given that he knew there were lots of cyclists on his left coming past.

Who is paying for the cost of the observer?

Who pays for guards on machine tools?

[quote=irelanst ]Except in this case the cyclist didn't just put his fingers in an unguarded machine, he removed the guards, unlocked the isolator, bypassed the interlock

Nope - there was no guard, isolator or interlock - an example of one of those would be the 2nd observer.

I may be over simplifying it here. But would the whole thing not have happened if there was a cyclist box in the 2nd lane which they could have ridden into and got ahead of the lorry. Surely that would stop this sort of thing as he would have then HAD to give way to them as he could not have entered the box.

aracer - Member

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?

OK, there's 2 ped crossings so I'm going in chronological order:

At the point he rode across the crossing (1.02 on the video) he passes across the 5th marker of the ped crossing. Take the vid back to about 0.30, look at the lane line between the "ahead" lane with the truck in it and the "left" lane with the dickheads in it. Extrapolate that line and I'd say it crosses the ped crossing at about the 6th marker. That puts the rider to the left of the "ahead" lane. Now run the video on past 1.02 - he's heading in a straight line for the buildings on the corner, then alters course slightly so that he's heading for the tree.

AFTER he exits the junction box grid he veers to the right and for the first time his tyres actually legitimately touch the "ahead" lane. Sadly, although he is technically ahead at that point there is literally inches in it AND HE IS STILL SMACK BANG IN THE TRUCKER'S BLIND SPOT. As he begins to cross the ped crossing I'd say he is no longer entirely in front.

Regardless of the minutiae, he veered from out of the lane into it, inches ahead of a massive truck and before, during and after that manoeuvre he was in the truck's blind spot. He, of course, may well have had no idea where the truck was as he didn't look - I mean, why would you, right ?

Options for the truck are almost limitless but most of the ones I suspect you want me to suggest are contingent on him being visible

Sound in theory David, but as with having lanes that are specifically for turning left, the box will just be ignored by some users.

would the whole thing not have happened if there was a cyclist box in the 2nd lane which they could have ridden into and got ahead of the lorry

There isn't. They should have joined the correct lane. This might have meant they had to wait behind the lorry, perhaps even behind a couple of cars, motorbikes and some other cyclists, but they should have joined the correct lane.

Anything else is whataboutery. Yes, there could, and probably should, be an ASL at that junction, but as of now, there isn't.

Double post glitchy.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Well that's easy. cyclist was in left turning lane, he'd no business even trying to merge.

Not when the lorry hit him he wasn't - he had already merged. I'm not suggesting merging was sensible, simply that given he'd already managed that without colliding with the lorry and was fully in front of the lorry, it was then the lorry which ran into him.

and yes I also accept that there was no point at which the driver saw him, but you didn't need to be a rocket surgeon to expect there to be more cyclists there, and when you're driving a vehicle capable of killing people into a space you can't see there is some responsibility on you to adjust your behaviour.

he had already merged

Going straight on from a left only lane.

****puffinery of the highest order, I'm afraid.

That's not an issue which is being argued, CFH

There isn't. They should have joined the correct lane. This might have meant they had to wait behind the lorry, perhaps even behind a couple of cars, motorbikes and some other cyclists, but they should have joined the correct lane.

Anything else is whataboutery. Yes, there could, and probably should, be an ASL at that junction, but as of now, there isn't.

[img] [/img]

From a London cyclists POV you have two options while approaching that lorry:

1) Sit behind it
2) Try and get in front like he did

Option 2 would be my preference. Why I hear you screaming?

Because 95% of those who filter to the front and beyond the line at traffic lights are TERRIBLE cyclists/ really slow and it's highly probable you've just had to overtake them 30 secs ago. Which means that you get stuck behind the vehicle that's trying to get past them.
Where I would have differed from him however, is I would have checked over my shoulder to ensure there's enough gap. If not I would hit the brakes and just filtered in behind it.

Thing you need to remember is traffic in London, particularly the centre 5 miles, is going NOWHERE but the next red light 100m up the road (if you're lucky). You can however get somewhere on a bicycle, hence why 1million journeys are done this way a day.

For those not familiar with a London commute, here's an example of mine. It's grim! https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=QoYQH4L4ZsI

[quote=scaredypants ]Options for the truck are almost limitless but most of the ones I suspect you want me to suggest are contingent on him being visible

There's actually an incredibly easy option for the driver - back off and let all the cockwombles on bikes go in front. What he actually did was an "everybody does it", which is so "everybody does it" that people are struggling to see an issue with it.

Cyclists fault he should have been a bit quicker off the mark.

There's actually an incredibly easy option for the driver - back off and let all the cockwombles on bikes go in front.

How does he know when they've all gone passed? What's happening on his right where other traffic is trying to legally merge with the lane he's in?

There's actually an incredibly easy option for the driver - back off and let all the [b]invisible[/b] cockwombles [i](who you haven't actually counted and anyway might legitimately have expected to be turning left)[/i] on bikes go in front.

He'd seen them coming past by that point, and he doesn't need to count, just check in his mirrors for more coming and wait a little bit after those are clear. What's happening on his right is irrelevant to him at that point, as he's not reached the lane merge point.

I mean FFS, he could just crawl off the line very slowly and wait until the cyclists stop coming.

I mean FFS, he could just crawl off the line very slowly and wait until the cyclists stop coming.

Cyclist being thoughtless.

If that had been a car driver trying to nip through from the LH lane, it would be unquestionably the car driver's fault.

However, I would almost certainly have done the same thing, especially seeing all the other cyclists heading off in front of me.

Road layout could be improved a lot.

Yes, but I was suggesting something which would have minimal to zero impact on his actual journey time, there's no need for the strawman.

I was suggesting something which would have minimal to zero impact on his actual journey time

And I am suggesting something that would have minimal to zero impact on the journey time of the cyclists, and as an added bonus, wouldn't have them under the wheels of a large lorry.

With the road layout as it is, which of the two is better right now?

irelanst » Except in this case the cyclist didn't just put his fingers in an unguarded machine, he removed the guards, unlocked the isolator, bypassed the interlock
Nope - there was no guard, isolator or interlock - an example of one of those would be the 2nd observer.

There was, the cyclist made a number of deliberate decisions which put him into danger, filtering up the left turn only lane, sitting in the lorries blind spot at the lights, staying in the lorries blind spot as it pulled away, failure to indicate his intention to join the lorries lane and then attempting to force his way in front of a lorry. Whataboutery about glass
cabs and second observers are tantamount to victim blaming.

The absolute root cause of this incident was the behaviour of the cyclist, I have zero doubt about that (although I'm sure you'd blame the lorry driver for the guy riding along the pavement as well).

I'm sorry, but I can't see the lorry driver did anything wrong.

The road junction, the lorry design etc etc are all things that weren't going to change in that moment. The lorry driver pulled away properly and safely.

The only actions that could be changed, and the only people making a bad choice, were the cyclists. They ignored road markings and risked their lives to get ahead of another vehicle. The kind of arrogant impatience that we despise in drivers when they do it to us.

The cyclists kicking off in the video, and those on here trying to justify their actions and putting blame on the driver, are selfish entitled idiots with no common sense or sense of personal responsibility.

Yes, but I was suggesting something which would have minimal to zero impact on his actual journey time

there's no need for the strawman

But. The ****puffin in question, and the other ****puffins around him, went into a left hand turn only to try and get the jump on the other traffic. Why the onus to stay safe, when you chose to do that, should be with anyone other than yourself, is absolutely beyond me. Sure, improvements could be made to the junction, but they're not even really safety improvements, they're improvement to help traffic flow (cycles in this case) so they wouldn't have to use the left turn lane.

[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]And I am suggesting something that would have minimal to zero impact on the journey time of the cyclists, and as an added bonus, wouldn't have them under the wheels of a large lorry.

Fine, nobody is disagreeing with that, just discussing ways of avoiding killing cockwombles.

[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]The only actions that could be changed, and the only people making a bad choice, were the cyclists.

Nope. It's quite clear the lorry driver could have made different decisions, and the only response to such suggestions seems to be "but the cyclists were the ones who did things wrong", which isn't in dispute.

The cyclists kicking off in the video, and those on here trying to justify their actions

Would you care to point out which posters are doing that?

There's actually an incredibly easy option for the driver - back off and let all the cockwombles on bikes go in front.

The roads are probably one of the most complex safety systems in existence. Because of the huge number of variables in the system, and the fact that almost every adult and many children form part of that system, rules are essential (and so is monitoring and enforcing the rules to minimise non-compliance).

You are effectively suggesting that cyclists be given automatic right of way in traffic regardless of the Highway Code. That's just not workable.

Similarly an observer in the cab is not a cure for the problem. It would make the roads safer, but the underlying problems of bad/dangerous cycling and poor road design still need to be fixed. It will take a lot of time and money to improve road design, so in the meantime cyclist behaviour has to be the priority.

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » Well that's easy. cyclist was in left turning lane, he'd no business even trying to merge.
Not when the lorry hit him he wasn't - he had already merged

I'm guess you're just out for an argument anyhow, as you are defending the indefensible.

Aye there's questions about road layouts and separating cyclists from road traffic, which I entirely support. But out in the current real world a sense of self preservation needs to kick in before (an entirely wrong) sense of self entitlement.

The cyclist is an idiot tbh. Honestly, who the hell picks a fight with an HGV?

killing

Emotive choice of words.

Had the cyclist died as a result of his actions, I assume you would say he had been killed by the lorry/driver, rather than died as a result of his actions.

It's not killing if you step in front of the bullet.

[quote=irelanst ]Whataboutery about glass cabs and second observers are tantamount to victim blaming.

😯 I think you need to work out who the victim is.

The absolute root cause of this incident was the behaviour of the cyclist, I have zero doubt about that (although I'm sure you'd blame the lorry driver for the guy riding along the pavement as well).

The first part isn't in dispute, I've no idea where you get the impression for the second part - it gives me the impression you haven't understood my argument at all.

Hmmm, the cyclist merged (in the sense of pulling ahead of the lorry) but did not pull far enough ahead for the driver to see him, that was the problem. Not sure what the significance of him having "merged" is there. The cyclist may have thought he was in the clear at that point, but this was based on a mis-judgment of how far he was ahead, or alternatively a mis-understanding of lorry blind spots. Looking at it again, I think the driver was aware of the white jersey cyclist who was pulling ahead in front of red jersey, and of some of those farther behind who were in his mirrors, and decided to accelerate up to white jersey to avoid squishing the latter group.

On your other point aracer, what you are suggesting is that in such situations drivers should always wait until they are sure there is no cyclist in their blind spot before proceeding. I think that is impractical. I hasten to say in general I take the view that good driving means driving on the basis that other road users might do silly things, but there are limits, there comes a point where you have to make assumptions about the behavour of others and assume they will look after themselves. I would say this is an example of that point. You obviously disagree.

falkirk-mark - Member
Cyclists fault he should have been a bit quicker off the mark

This is ultimately it, if you are going to play with the traffic, you need to have a bit of acceleration about ye. And a sense of when it's right to give way, regardless of what the highway code says. It's a sport I quite enjoy! 😆

It's a sport I quite enjoy!

Commuting by bike isn't a sport. It's a mode of transport.

CaptainFlashheart - Member
It's a sport I quite enjoy!
Commuting by bike isn't a sport. It's a mode of transport.

Playing with the traffic is though! 😆

[quote=slowster ]You are effectively suggesting that cyclists be given automatic right of way in traffic regardless of the Highway Code. That's just not workable.

Not in general no, in some very specific circumstances where it vastly improves safety, yes. Explain to me what is unworkable about that?

Similarly an observer in the cab is not a cure for the problem.

It's an excellent cure for the problem of blind spots on lorries, which is a pretty ****ing big underlying problem.

[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]

killing

If you fire your rifle in the street and somebody who has seen you with your gun steps into the path of the bullet are you totally blameless?

Fundamentally it is still the lorries with big blind spots (which [s]kill[/s] lots of cyclists die following interaction with) introducing the danger to the roads. This seems to be the fundamental "everybody does it" point being missed.

Fundamentally it is still the lorries with big blind spots

Radical suggestion - Keep out of those blind spots.

I think you need to work out who the victim is.

I think you need to accept that the cyclist isn't always the victim in these incidents - for sure they will pretty much always suffer the worst injuries, but that doesn't mean they are always the victim (in a legal sense).

it gives me the impression you haven't understood my argument at all.

I understand your argument completely - I just don't agree with you.

This seems to be the fundamental "everybody does it" point being missed.

In your scenario, would the HGV drivers can be prosecuted because now they have no blind spots if someone goes up a left turn only lane and goes straight on? Even if they don't see them, just because they could? Why can't we simply enforce what we have and say "Hey ****puffins, stop using left turn only lanes to undercut lorries". Is there some reason that can't possibly work?

*I've no idea, but it clearly serves my position to assume that lots of them are killed doing daft things like this video, and this video is the current discussion.

Fundamentally it is still the lorries with big blind spots (which kill lots of cyclists die following interaction with) introducing the danger to the roads. This seems to be the fundamental "everybody does it" point being missed.

You can waffle on about fantasies that are never going to happen, like observers or glass cabs all you like and ignore the everyday reality. Don't place you self under the wheels of a lorry.

It's pretty basic stuff.

[quote=seosamh77 ]I'm guess you're just out for an argument anyhow, as you are defending the indefensible.

I'm not defending the cyclist if that's what you're thinking. Maybe I should start every post stating that, as there have been a few posts recently seemingly making that assumption. In the case of your specific point, the cyclist was in front, the lorry hit him from behind, however they got there that was still something which there were ways of avoiding once they were there (2nd observer, glass cab). The driver got in the cab that morning knowing he couldn't see the bit of road he was driving into...

[quote=greyspoke ]I think the driver was aware of the white jersey cyclist who was pulling ahead in front of red jersey, and of some of those farther behind who were in his mirrors, and decided to accelerate up to white jersey to avoid squishing the latter group.

Making a pretty big assumption that there was a gap between in his blind spot. If that was his thinking then it was a bad decision, when it would have been just as easy to back off and let the cyclists he could see in his mirrors past - if he was indeed aware of those in his mirrors then it would have been straightforward to leave a gap until they were all visible in front of him, but accelerating rather than backing off is something "everybody does".

On your other point aracer, what you are suggesting is that in such situations drivers should always wait until they are sure there is no cyclist in their blind spot before proceeding. I think that is impractical.

You've just explained how practical it was in this situation.

Hmm.
Blind spot indication system?
Holographic real time representations of blindspots projected onto the road.
Or laser beams.
Or trained, savant chimps with torches, possibly sticks if we can get it past the lawyers.

Can we have something working by say, Monday week?

In the case of your specific point, the cyclist was in front, the lorry hit him from behind

Can we have something working by say, Monday week?

If we can't, how about this - [b]STOP PUTTING YOURSELF IN HARM'S WAY YOU MORONIC COMMUTER RACING ****PUFFINS! [/b]

Now Ive not every page and this may be in there already.

But if I was to use a turn left lane to try and overtake a lorry going straight ahead and I got it wrong resulting in a crash I'd get little sympathy and much abuse.

Not when the lorry hit him he wasn't - he had already merged

RACING

[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]Radical suggestion - Keep out of those blind spots.

Even more radical suggestion - get rid of those blind spots

[quote=irelanst ]I understand your argument completely

😯 so where does "although I'm sure you'd blame the lorry driver for the guy riding along the pavement as well" come from?

[quote=orangespyderman ]But of those killed how many were doing something they weren't supposed to anyway?

A significant proportion from m understanding, it's just that we officially abolished the death penalty for doing something you're not supposed to in 1965.

In your scenario, would the HGV drivers can be prosecuted because now they have no blind spots if someone goes up a left turn only lane and goes straight on?

I'm not even suggesting prosecutions for those lorry drivers, let alone this one.

Why can't we simply enforce what we have and say "Hey ****puffins, stop using left turn only lanes to undercut lorries". Is there some reason that can't possibly work?

The evidence of this video suggests it can't - I doubt there's a single one of those cyclists who thought they were following the road correctly, and how do you suggest enforcing it?

Sorry to do the ifs, buts and maybes.. just for a second imagine there was no left hand lane, the lorry's lane was just a wee bit bigger and the many many cyclists had just been filtering like they were, would the driver still have no responsibility because of his blind spot?

Even more radical suggestion - get rid of those blind spots

Good suggestion, but until we do that, what would you say was the correct course of action?

[quote=seosamh77 ]On the flip side, you seem to be missing the fundamental point that cyclists shouldn't be putting themselves in the position to get killed by a Lorry.

I'm fairly sure I've never missed that one since my first post on this thread (it's about page 7 if you want to check).

[quote=seosamh77 ]

Not when the lorry hit him he wasn't - he had already merged

It certainly wasn't intended to be - I specifically said in that post or one thereabouts that the cyclist merging like that was a stupid thing to do. Not that it is incorrect - remove the lorry from the picture and tell me that the cyclist hadn't merged with the straight on lane when riding across the pedestrian crossing, where there was no other possible route forwards.

Looks like the vast majority of the posters here have got it right. I'll usually stick up for the cyclist in most situations, especially potentially 50/50 incidents, but this is clear cut, those riders were all mad being up the inside of that lorry.

If that had been someone in a small sports car, or a motorbike who had done the same there'd be no question. Sure, the driver could of hung back, on the suspicion there might be someone there, but then you'd never get anywhere. And if there was a never ending stream of cyclist doing that then the whole place would grind to a halt.

You've got to cycle a certain way to stay alive unfortunately, often that means cycling assertively or maybe even doing some things you shouldnt. In this case though, theres no argument about it, stupid stupid stupid and very lucky not to be dead.

The evidence of this video suggests it can't

I believe there are cases where people are prosecuted for evidence of dangerous driving being posted on YouTube. What would stop that happening here?

[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]Good suggestion, but until we do that, what would you suggest?

I already have several times!!!!!

1) cyclists stop being cockwombles
2) lorry drivers with big blind spots take extra care, for example by accelerating slowly away from junctions when there are cyclists alongside

Nobody seems to have explained why the lorry shouldn't have accelerated away slower*, simply responded that the cyclist was in the wrong.

*I know why and it's an "everybody does it"

Not that it is incorrect - remove the lorry from the picture and tell me that the cyclist hadn't merged with the straight on lane when riding across the pedestrian crossing, where there was no other possible route forwards.

1) cyclists stop being cockwombles
2) lorry drivers with big blind spots take extra care, for example by accelerating slowly away from junctions when there are cyclists alongside

2 sounds a lot like someone trying to pin blame on another group of road users. You could have stopped at point 1.

Nobody seems to have explained why the lorry shouldn't have accelerated away slower

Slower than what? A cyclist desperate to undertake?

The lorry just moved away. The cyclists were in the wrong.

[b]I'm not defending the cyclist[/b]

[quote=whatnobeer ]Sure, the driver could of hung back, on the suspicion there might be someone there, but then you'd never get anywhere. And if there was a never ending stream of cyclist doing that then the whole place would grind to a halt.

Right here is where one of the issues is with that argument, because there wasn't an endless stream of cyclists, and hanging back until he'd seen all the cyclists in his mirrors go past wouldn't prevent him getting anywhere.

hanging back until he'd seen all the cyclists in his mirrors go past wouldn't prevent him getting anywhere.

And the cyclists joining the correct lane and rolling along with that wouldn't have prevented them from getting anywhere.

The lorry driver did nothing wrong. The cyclists did.

Nobody seems to have explained why the lorry shouldn't have accelerated away slower*, simply responded that the cyclist was in the wrong.

or would they be idiots to try a stunt like that ?

[b]I'm not defending the cyclist[/b]

[quote=orangespyderman ]From a left turn only lane? How is that not incorrect even with no other road users involved?

The statement was "he had already merged" - how does the status of the lane make that statement incorrect?

whatnobeer - Member
Looks like the vast majority of the posters here have got it right.

So that's a 'no' to the chimps then?

The statement was "he had already merged" - how does the status of the lane make that statement incorrect?

EDIT : The point of my comment still stands: traffic or no traffic he was wrong. It was just more dangerous with traffic.

Right here is where one of the issues is with that argument, because there wasn't an endless stream of cyclists

because there wasn't an endless stream of cyclists, and hanging back until he'd seen all the cyclists in his mirrors go past wouldn't prevent him getting anywhere.

Thats assuming he can see them at all (I have no idea how big his blind spot is, but I'd wager its large) and that he's actively looking for them giving he's probably assumed, like most people would, that they're turning left.

Like I said, if it was anything other than a person on a bike making that move there would be no argument about fault.

[quote=orangespyderman ]My bad.
EDIT : The point of my comment still stands: traffic or no traffic he was wrong. It was just more dangerous with traffic.

No worries 🙂 It's a good point - I'm wondering who you can find to disagree with it 😉

It's a good point - I'm wondering who you can find to disagree with it

actually, I've a cheap and easy solution. Fit trucks with nice high pressure shower attachments to their kerbside and have these turn on when the truck accelerates up to 5mph

****puffins don't, as their name might suggest, like that sort of thing

So your basic argument appears to be that lorry drivers should alter their behavior to account for illegal activities taking place around them? Blind spot or not the cyclist should not have been where he was. He and he alone put himself in that position. No outside forces were at play. He ran the risk and got caught out. I'm just glad he survived for his sake and the drivers.

[quote=scaredypants ]

there wasn't an endless stream of cyclists

From observation of the rest of the video - particularly from 1:20 on, when there are two pairs of cyclists in the next minute.

[quote=whatnobeer ]giving he's probably assumed, like most people would, that they're turning left.

Having already seen lots of cyclists go straight on from the left turn lane (it's also clear from his words that he's aware)?

[quote=orangespyderman ]I'm confident someone will be along soon

[img] [/img]

[quote=funkmasterp ]So your basic argument appears to be that lorry drivers should alter their behavior to account for illegal activities taking place around them?

Yes, in the same way other operators of dangerous machinery are expected to account for people doing stupid things, and as NW pointed out earlier, in the same way they would be expected to if they were on site. Especially if the operator is already aware of said illegal activity.

Let's try this one again - if he was in the glass cab and could see the cyclist, should he alter his behaviour, or just run over the cyclist because the cyclist had done something illegal?

From observation of the rest of the video - particularly from 1:20 on, when there are two pairs of cyclists in the next minute.

One of the surprising things about this incident is that at least one of the guys or gals isn't a regular on this forum.

Thread : [i]Mutha Trucka tried to kill me for no reason[/i]

They're really clean.

slowster » You are effectively suggesting that cyclists be given automatic right of way in traffic regardless of the Highway Code. That's just not workable.

Not in general no, in some very specific circumstances where it vastly improves safety, yes. Explain to me what is unworkable about that?

Because having conflicting rules in a safety critical situation will invariably cause accidents. If you want to give cyclists right of way in such situations you would have to rewrite the Highway Code, and I don't think it would be possible to do so and restrict it to such specific circumstances. It would only create more uncertainty for all road users and lead to more unpredictable and dangerous behaviour.

Rusty Spanner - Member
They're really clean

So your basic argument appears to be that lorry drivers should alter their behavior to account for illegal activities taking place around them?

I would hope that a big part of getting an HGV licence is looking out for random unexpected hazards because the consequences can be monumental.

This professional driver in a very dangerous bit of machinery has just seen 5 cyclists at differing speeds pop out of his blind spot unexpectedly and he just carried on regardless nearly killing someone.

What would an HGV examiner have expected the driver to do in that situation?
He isn't going to say crack on chap, they are in the wrong lane so don't worry if ya kill one