Dunno, what [i]would[/i] he say ? (but remember, has to be consistently applicable to all such situations)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
The statement was "he had already merged" - how does the status of the lane make that statement incorrect?
the statement was 'he had already tried to undertake an extremely large vehicle that would kill him in a nanosecond whilst starting on its blindside in a lane where he should have turned left where he could not have missed seeing the lorry but decided he could outrun it on the lorrys blindside not put him completely in the wrong, and on any other day he would/could have paid this with his life the word prick springs to mind.
Blindspot enforcing chimps with water cannons?
I'll cut you in 50/50.
Best not to get to close to Alan.
I'm sure it's nonsense about arms being ripped off, very rare, but
best not to pinch his nuts.
I'm struggling here, mark - can you give me a linky to that statement?
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
But the examiner would be in the passenger seat, with a reduced blind spot and likely an extra mirror to further reduce it. Lessons to be learnt all round but the majority of cyclists in the clip seem to feel the rules for the road don't apply to them and the driver has no right to obey those applying to him.
I spend almost none of my riding time on busy roads, but whenever I do, I'm gobsmacked by the level of stupidity of a massive proportion of cyclists and drivers.
Craziness. You can't give a chimp control of a water cannon; their aim's awful, unless you count poo-throwing. An innocent bystander could be unlawfully moistened.
[quote=fatboyjon ]But the examiner would be in the passenger seat, with a reduced blind spot and likely an extra mirror to further reduce it.
QED
Rule of the road #1 - don't hit squishy things and kill them with your big lump of metal. What rules of the road are you suggesting the cyclists think the driver shouldn't obey?
No link aracer looked at clip that is what happened not saying guy deserved to be under truck but if he keeps riding like that I assume he soon will be
Personally I would hope an examiner would expect the trainee to be ultra cautious because multiple hazards have just appeared from his blind spot, where did they all come from? is there any more? be careful, be vigilant.
You are driving a very dangerous vehicle so take extra care type of thing
Not; put your foot down they're in the wrong lane so don't worry about it.
Sure. How many times do I have to say the cyclist was an idiot/cockwomble/****spanner? Just not sure of the relevance of your point to that quote of mine.
As has been proven on multiple occasions that's not a rule at all, more an aspiration. "Everybody does it"Rule of the road #1 - don't hit squishy things and kill them with your big lump of metal
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 if he had seen just one cyclist pop out of his blind spot? What are the different statistical probalities for there being a cyclist hidden from view if five pop out, three pop out, [u]or none[/u]?
As long as HGVs with such blind spots are legal to drive on the road, the primary responsibilty is on cyclists to obey the rules which will help to prevent them being injured or killed in circumstances where they are in that blind spot..
[quote=theocb ]You are driving a very dangerous vehicle so take extra care type of thing
Thanks theocb - nice to know I'm not alone in my thoughts. This is the fundamental point right here, irrespective of the stupidity/illegality of other road users.
It's an incredibly good point regarding an HGV examiner - does anybody think that incident would have happened with one in the left seat?
[quote=scaredypants ]"Everybody does it"
That isn't an aspiration, and my aspiration doesn't seem so desperately unreasonable.
[quote=slowster ]As long as HGVs with such blind spots are legal to drive on the road, the primary responsibilty is on cyclists to obey the rules which will help to prevent them being injured or killed in circumstances where they are in that blind spot..
Where is the secondary responsibility?
so should he stop and check all mirrors and not move again until no cyclists can be seen? Better include ones at red lights to his left, since they might jump the light.Personally I would hope an examiner would expect the trainee to be ultra cautious because multiple hazards have just appeared from his blind spot, where did they all come from? is there any more? be careful, be vigilant.
You are driving a very dangerous vehicle so take extra care type of thing
Or should he keep moving, but really slowly - after all, the cameranob is another 10ft back and I bet there's others behind him - oh, and the girl who slowed down to wait for him to pass, I guess she'll assume it's OK to speed up again now and undercut him...
No, it's your rule#1 that's an aspiration (at best - probably more an impediment in reality; as many hundred road deaths per year will attest, it appears to be "a price worth paying"That isn't an aspiration
in one post, what exactly is your point? Probably better off explaining it all in one go rather than fighting with 15 people.aracer - Member
Problem is the cyclist always invariably takes second prize in any collision with another road user therefore anyone with half a brain would ride defensively and not try to barge past a 40 tonne moving obstacle that is in the right lane to go straight on. Cyclist prick
Cyclist has been a bit of a cockwomble/****puffin. Yes, I would agree with that but still classified a vulnerable road user. The other side is the HGV driver. I know diddly-squat about HGV driver training but I am sure that somewhere in that training they are taught to make an allowance for the fact that their 40 tonne vehicle has a massive blind spot which could be occupied by inexperienced and vulnerable road users. As he heads across the junction I don't see him making any such allowance even when he knew perfectly well there were cyclists in his vicinity - his wheels actually touch the double red-line at one point. Major error of judgement by the truck driver.
scaredypants - Member
Craziness. You can't give a chimp control of a water cannon; their aim's awful, unless you count poo-throwing. An innocent bystander could be unlawfully moistened.
Look, it was you who came up with this showerhead thing in the first place.
If you're not taking this seriously, the deal's off.
Where is the secondary responsibility?
Both the cyclists and the HGV driver have a primary responsibility to obey the Highway Code. Both have a secondary responsibility to be prepared to react to the errors of other road users which might otherwise cause an accident.
The cyclists failed to comply with their primary responsibility.
As this thread shows, the extent to which people believe the HGV driver failed to comply with his secondary responsibility is in the eye of the beholder, e.g. he should assume that that there are cyclists in his blind spot:
a. all the time
b. whenever he sees x number of cyclists pop out in front
c. in London
d. in any built up area
e. during rush hour
f. whenever there is a cyclist in his blind spot (because somehow he should know, even if it's a blind spot).
[quote=seosamh77 ]aracer - Member in one post, what exactly is your point? Probably better off explaining it all in one go rather than fighting with 15 people.
Pretty much what nparker just wrote - the cyclist being an idiot doesn't remove responsibility from the driver of a truck which can kill in the blink of an eye and has blindspots such that the driver can't see what he is driving into. The driver could have done something different (without coming to a complete stop) which would have improved the safety of the cyclists around him, but he chose not to. All he actually had to do was accelerate slower from the lights - I'm assuming his reason for flooring it is to avoid that critical extra car from overtaking him, I doubt it has anything to do with consideration for the cyclists.
[quote=slowster ]The cyclists failed to comply with their primary responsibility.
As this thread shows, the extent to which people believe the HGV driver failed to comply with his secondary responsibility is in the eye of the beholder, e.g. he should assume that that there are cyclists in his blind spot:
Point 1, agreed, I'm not sure everybody does agree that the trucker has any secondary responsibility.
so your point is, it's the drivers fault?aracer - Member
seosamh77 » aracer - Member in one post, what exactly is your point? Probably better off explaining it all in one go rather than fighting with 15 people.
Pretty much what nparker just wrote - the cyclist being an idiot doesn't remove responsibility from the driver of a truck which can kill in the blink of an eye and has blindspots such that the driver can't see what he is driving into. The driver could have done something different (without coming to a complete stop) which would have improved the safety of the cyclists around him, but he chose not to. All he actually had to do was accelerate slower from the lights - I'm assuming his reason for flooring it is to avoid that critical extra car from overtaking him, I doubt it has anything to do with consideration for the cyclists.
Wow, did you even read that?
Yip. A lot of nonsense focusing on the driver. We'll agree to disagree, I don't see he did anything wrong. Neither do I see him flooring it. He's going no faster than he normally would have, the speed is emphasised by the camera guy breaking and realising he'd entered a fight he couldn't win.
actually watching it again, you can see the driver isn't actually going full pelt when he first takes off he see's the cyclists and only starts to accelerate a bit when he thinks they are all in front of him. Clearly unknown to him there's a cockwomble in his blind spot with a deathwish.
The driver could have done something different (without coming to a complete stop) which would have improved the safety of the cyclists around him, but he chose not to. All he actually had to do was accelerate slower from the lights
How much more slowly? For all he would know there could potentially be a cyclist who would match that slower speed. He could drive at 5 mph, which would ensure the fast boys and girls would have ridden ahead, but the accident would still have occurred if a 5 mph cyclist was equally stupid and decided to try to squeeze in the gap.
Well clearly he could have driven at 1mph and there might have been a 1mph cyclist squeezing through the gap, so maybe 0.1mph, but what about the 0.1mph cyclist? In the real world, 10mph would be fine, would allow all the cyclists past and would make no difference to his journey time.
[quote=seosamh77 ]Yip. A lot of nonsense focusing on the driver. We'll agree to disagree, I don't see he did anything wrong.
It's an incredibly good point regarding an HGV examiner - does anybody think that incident would have happened with one in the left seat?
you're a maniac! 😆 good luck in your next fight with an HGV!
you going fork out the 20k a year per HGV on the road? 😆aracer - Member
seosamh77 » Yip. A lot of nonsense focusing on the driver. We'll agree to disagree, I don't see he did anything wrong.
It's an incredibly good point regarding an HGV examiner - does anybody think that incident would have happened with one in the left seat?
Or cyclists could just stop being so daft and thinking they have right of way when they clearly don't.
As I've said, if you've not got the acceleration it's a game you shouldn't even contemplate playing.
I'm actually not against cyclists being mental on the road, crack on, I'm as daft as they come. Just don't go crying when it doesn't pay off! 😆
I don't fight HGVs, Joe
[b]I'm not defending the cyclist
I'm not defending the cyclist
I'm not defending the cyclist
I'm not defending the cyclist
I'm not defending the cyclist[/b]
and I sure as **** wouldn't ride like that one.
I still don't see why it's so hard to separate the concept that the trucker could have done something differently from the idea that means I'm defending the cyclist.
[quote=seosamh77 ]you going fork out the 20k a year per HGV on the road?
So do you think the driver would have done something differently with an examiner in the left seat?
aye but you are trying to pick holes where there aren't any. simple fact is, while cars and cyclist use the same roads, you are going to get issues.
Answer. separate them. But while that happens over the next 50 years put self preservation as your number 1 priority, we ain't going to live in a perfect world any time soon.
Most likely aye, but it's an irrelevant point, as it's not going to happen. same with glass cabs.aracer - Member
seosamh77 » you going fork out the 20k a year per HGV on the road?
So do you think the driver would have done something differently with an examiner in the left seat?
[quote=seosamh77 ]put self preservation as you number 1 priority
I do, not 100% of the time maybe, but close to that when around trucks.
Which still doesn't mean there aren't other ways to improve things, which includes the way truckers drive.
[quote=seosamh77 ]Most likely aye, but it's an irrelevant point, as it's not going to happen. same with glass cabs.
Why not, to both points? Why is the expectation that a trucker will drive as if he has an examiner in the left seat too high? If he's not driving to that standard is it really true that he's doing nothing wrong?
In the real world, 10mph would be fine, would allow all the cyclists past and would make no difference to his journey time.
There are plenty of unfit, infirm and elderly and other cyclists who ride at 10mph.
Financial. You'll just not get support on it. Plus the money would be better spent creating traffic free cycle routes.
They're not busy squeezing through gaps next to trucks, and at a steady 10mph there is plenty of time for them to realise. The issue isn't actually the speed so much as the acceleration into the pinch point.
[quote=seosamh77 ]Financial. You'll just not get support on it. Plus the money would be better spent creating traffic free cycle route.
OK, we have an interesting point of discussion - I've not done a full cost analysis but I disgree, I doubt you'd get anywhere near a decent level of infrastructure for the cost (though I'd argue the money should come from the hauliers - and yes I know they pass the costs on, but it's still not the same thing)
So much arguing about the symptoms of the problem and not the cause..
As I see it the cause is a road user not sticking to the rules. I don't like rules particularly, I don't like authority either. But when we're responsible for controlling a road vehicle we all have to abide by the same rules so that we know what we and everyone else [i]should[/i] be doing.
Yes driving/riding etc. is give and take but making your own lane when one doesn't exist is selfish and dangerous. Expecting some to make allowances so that others can do as they wish is completely at odds with the rules which, if abided by, keep things safe and in order. I bet those people who remonstrated with the lorry driver would use those same rules they had just flagrantly ignored PDQ to defend themselves if it suited.
[quote=lazlowoodbine ]So much arguing about the symptoms of the problem and not the cause..
If by "cause" you mean the cyclist doing something wrong, then there's no arguing because we all agree. I'm not quite sure what the "symptoms" are you think everybody is arguing about though.
aracer can you not see the driver did nothing wrong in this situation? As far as he could tell there was no cyclist in that blindspot. All the sensible cyclist commuters got into his field of vision by sprinting up off the road or holding back like the girl - who on Earth would imagine that some lemming would deliberately sit in his blindspot for 50+metres without making some kind of positive/defensive manoeuvre to get out of it?
Maybe every driver should be fitted with some kind of ESP system where they can sense muppets with no common? Back in the real world it's Darwinism captured on video.
100% the cyclist's deathwish and hopefully he'll take it on board and learn from his mistake. (though I doubt it as there seem to be a lot of blinkered supporters (not on here) who can't see this objectively)
seosamh77 - Memberyou going fork out the 20k a year per HGV on the road?
In cities, sure. Why not. Do your drops outside of peak hours, or with smaller vehicles, or have to have a "pilot". Establish prescribed routes/no go areas- already done in some places. You don't really need to change anything for long hauls, it's where large vehicles come into contention due to unsuitable road infrastructure or high road demand.
Cyclist =/= HGV
Cyclist 0 : 1 HGV
HGV exoskeleton strong. Cyclist no exoskeleton weak.
🙄
In this case id have to side with the trucker. Wtf cyclist? 😯
[quote=Speeder ]aracer can you not see the driver did nothing wrong in this situation?
Do you think that incident would have happened with an HGV examiner in the left seat?
Another surprising thing I've noticed on this thread is the prevalence of the word [i]****puffin[/i], especially after my little transgression was mysteriously altered the other day.
's weird but I guess the mods don't read everything. Apparently...
I'm very confused. Is a ****puffin a puffin over reliant on self gratification or is it a small black and white bird used by desperate men when a warmed up melon is not available? Also, is it not just a slippery slope to a ****penguin?
Uh oh convert. The mods will have sensed your ****penguin. Shit, now I'm getting banned too 🙁
****puffins
Do you think that incident would have happened with an HGV examiner in the left seat?
The simple answer is yes, the lorry driver is correct in everything he does, why is that hard to understand?
Lets flip this and assume the left hand lane was taken up by a convertible Porsche, that tried to go straight on from the left hand lane. They crash at the same spot.
A: The insurance company would side with the lorry driver.
b: Everyone would be calling the Porsche driver a "C" for trying it on.
But because its a cyclist for some reason we want the lorries on the road to do something to prevent this in future. the logistics of trying to downsize freight into smaller vans or use an additional person in the cab is cost preventative not just for the hauliers but for us as we will be paying more for everything that gets delivered.
b: Everyone would be calling the Porsche driver a "C" for trying it on.
Probably call him a ****puffin to be fair
Other than that 100% agree
aracer - Member
Do you think that incident would have happened with an HGV examiner in the left seat?
Only because the driver would have had an extra set of eyes so the blindspots would have been significantly reduced.
Are you suggesting that any HGV in town should have a co-driver?
Probably call him a ****puffin to be fair
Quite
Everyone would be calling the Porsche driver a "C" for trying it on.
And again; quite.
****puffin in Porsche. What the hell is this world coming to...
The driver accelerated into a pinch point. There was a significant increase in speed as the road went to a single lane. Not something you would do in the presence of an examiner, especially with a gaggle of cyclists just ahead of you.
He should have maintained a constant speed until he was in the single lane.
[b]But again, still the cyclists fault[/b]
Being a good road user is not about anticipating the expected but anticipating the unexpected. HGV drivers should be exceptionally good road users.
Remember, we are only seeing the footage from the left. We have no idea what is going on in the right hand lane.
Those people saying he should have anticipated more cyclists, that might be tricky because the right hand lane merges into his, and it is a knocking bet some goon is probably trying to cut him up and occupying his attention.
So he's got merging traffic on the right, some cyclists on the left, who for some reason have come from a left hand turn lane, he has blind spots left and right, the lights have changed and the road is narrowing.
I believe they call this task saturation.
What we have is a Yam Yam driving a 32 tonne rig, through London, with a right hand lane merging into his and a very narrow road within which to drive it.
All the cyclist has to contend with is hanging back bit, farting and then carrying on after the wagon.
beautifully summed up!chewkw - Member
Cyclist =/= HGVCyclist 0 : 1 HGV
HGV exoskeleton strong. Cyclist no exoskeleton weak
BruceWee - Member
The driver accelerated into a pinch point. There was a significant increase in speed as the road went to a single lane. Not something you would do in the presence of an examiner, especially with a gaggle of cyclists just ahead of you.He should have maintained a constant speed until he was in the single lane.
The driver was pulling off from a standstill, if he had maintained a constant speed, he'd still be there.
[b]But again, still the cyclists fault[/b]
Exactly.
What is this "if there was an examiner" b****x?
I believe they call this task saturation.
Which is why I think that accelerating into the pinch point was completely the wrong thing to do. No doubt not illegal but simply not doing things which are illegal, while it's a good place to start, is not the standard we should hold people to on the road.
The driver was pulling off from a standstill, if he had maintained a constant speed, he'd still be there.
Watch the video again. There was a significant increase in speed as he reached the pinch point. Maintaining the speed he had been doing as he moved across the junction would have been the safest move.
You do realise that accidents are almost never 100% a single person's fault?
Love the fact no one is defending the cyclist in the YouTube comments when I bet they were expecting uproar against the lorry driver.
Hope the ****puffin cyclist who uploaded it realises how much of a cock womble he is for uploading it.
teasel - Member
Another surprising thing I've noticed on this thread is the prevalence of the word ****puffin, especially after my little transgression was mysteriously altered the other day.'s weird but I guess the mods don't read everything. Apparently...
****puffin is OK, but spelling it with @ instead of a isn't. HTH.
I know.
Weirdness prevails...
Watch the video again. There was a significant increase in speed as he reached the pinch point. Maintaining the speed he had been doing as he moved across the junction would have been the safest move
I don't think there was a significant speed increase, it's just that the cyclist with the camera slowed down so it gives the perspective of the truck accelerating rapidly.
I've only driven 7.5 tonners, but when it comes to acceleration, there can often be quite a gap between gears.
The driver IMHO set off in his low gear (didn't sound like his crawler) and then there was a pause as he shifted up.
One of the lads in my roadie club is a HGV driver - I'll get his take on it.
BruceWee - Member
Watch the video again. There was a significant increase in speed as he reached the pinch point. Maintaining the speed he had been doing as he moved across the junction would have been the safest move.
Ok granted, he does increase his speed at the pinch point - more than likely because the sensible cyclists he can see have all sprinted off in front and he thought it safe to get on with it.
The rider was in the wrong gear to make any progress and resolutely sat in the truck's blindspot without any regards for the 40 tonne vehicle immediately on his right.
It's a mistake that nearly cost him his life and he's damn lucky to have gotten away with it but it was no-one's fault but his own - his raging sense of entitlement is not going to protect him from getting squashed.
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...
It doesn't matter if you have a glass cab, 360 degree cameras and sensors etc. ultimately you can't actually prevent an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian determined to have an accident that is also disregarding the rules of the road.
About a month ago I cycled back from school with my kid and as we pulled up at the top of a hill behind a car I warned by kid to stop.
A cyclist then jumped off the pavement directly in front of the now moving car in front who hit his brakes. The only reason we didn't run into the car is I thought the youth on the bike looked like someone "determined to have an accident" and to an extent my better visibility on my bike and quite possibly having been a dick myself when I was younger.
About a year ago a kid on a BMX with no brakes hit a car....
He went down a one way street (quite a steep hill) the wrong way... at the T junction at the bottom he crossed (having exhausted braking with his shoes) and hit a stationary or near stationary car...that was queued in traffic.
What are drivers supposed to do? Yes we expect the unexpected but if someone is determined to show no regard whatsoever for basic rules or their own safety you can't stop everything.
This cyclist didn't look back once... he was in a lane with a compulsory left turn he chose to ignore so he should have been EXTRA vigilant. (I'm not condoning or otherwise the left lane specifically... but like the idiot on the BMX if you are going down a steep hill in a one way the wrong way with no brakes ... a little EXTRA caution should be expected)
To put this into a 100% cycling only analogy.... I dropped my sunglasses on a one way trail and ended up pedalling the wrong way to go and find them...
When doing so I was extra vigilant and apologetic to anyone going the correct way and pulled off completely as soon as I saw anyone.. I didn't expect them to pull off to let me cycle the wrong way.
[b]What this appears like to me is the cyclist chose to break the rules and then expected EVERYONE else to accommodate him including the cars on the other side of the HGV that can't see him.[/b] My point is more if you do break the rules then you need to be extra careful not even so much as sticking to the rules.
The idea the HGV can just stop..pull into the other lane etc. are irrelevant as it is obvious from the video the cyclist had no idea what was behind him, to the other side of the HGV etc. or even where the HGV was.
BruceWee - Member
Watch the video again. There was a significant increase in speed as he reached the pinch point. Maintaining the speed he had been doing as he moved across the junction would have been the safest move.
We don't know what was happening on his right side. Another idiot in a car might have been causing him issues on that side.
BruceWee - Member
Watch the video again. There was a significant increase in speed as he reached the pinch point. Maintaining the speed he had been doing as he moved across the junction would have been the safest move.
Really? If the lorry had waited until he was against the curb to do that last accelerate the riders back wheel would have been 2" of the truck bumper, and the rider would still have been invisible to the driver, so instead of almost going under the side, he would have went straight under the front.
If the driver had gone slower and the cyclist had also accelerated a little slower he would have been in the same location relative to the truck and the same incident would have happened.
If the driver had gone even slower again the camera bike would have been alongside the cab trying to squeeze in (because as we saw he is also an idiot).
The only safe way for the driver to progress would be to check his blind spot, drive 4 ft into it. Stop, check his blind spot, drive 4 ft into it. Stop, check his blind spot, drive 4 ft into it. Until the curb is alongside him. Now he can move forward without stopping, unless of course one of those cyclists being held up hasnt gone on the path and jumped back on the road directly into the blind spot as he pulls away.
Basically, you cant see everywhere around any vehicle all the time, there will always be a place you are not looking. In this case it was a tiny spot where the cyclist placed himself
[i]We don't know what was happening on his right side[/i]
Most likely...
[img] 
[/img]
😉
Do you think that incident would have happened with an HGV examiner in the left seat?
Yes, for two reasons:
The cyclist never indicates his intention to join another lane, are the driver and observer meant to be mind readers? recklessly joining moving traffic wasn't the cyclists only option so how could driver or observer predict that and also the other handful of things the cyclist could have done?
If you are joining another lane of traffic, you should at least look to see if it is safe to do, how could the driver or the observer predict someone would join a moving lane of traffic without looking at all!!!
[i]What are drivers supposed to do?[/i]
Ahh, poor innocent little perfect caring drivers everywhere boo bloody hoo.
Cyclist at fault.Ignored left turn only lane then expected an HGV whose driver possibly couldn't see him to brake/swerve and give way to him.
I'm no angel when riding in traffic but if I choose to ride up a one way street the wrong way, ignore a red light, or ignore any other road sign or marking then I take responsibility for making sure it's safe.
In that scenario. I'd either have waited in the middle of the lane behind the HGV or got past the stop line well in front even if it meant bunny hopping the kerb to get by the suicide cyclists waiting alongside the cab.
If I'd known about the merge ahead and I knew the light sequence well enough that I knew there would not be a chance to jump the red for a headstart I'd wait behind the HGV.
There was lots going on for that driver to watch at once. The cyclist chose to break the rules, put himself in danger then whine "poor me".
I'm going to sum up what I think because this thread is becoming a serious time sink for me and I'm unsuccessfully trying to make the same point over and over again so here I go with the lessons that can be learned from this:
1. Cyclists shouldn't try to outsprint HGVs, especially from a left only lane. In fact, cyclists should never be on the inside of an HGV full stop.
2. Drivers in general but especially HGV drivers shouldn't accelerate into pinch points. Someone above pointed out it could be because of the gearing but assuming he has some control over how he accelerates he should maintain a constant speed until the road has come to a single lane.
3. The infrastructure is the main problem and it seems like an easy fix. Instead of having two straight ahead lanes and a filter lane which is not much bigger than a cycle path it should be a single straight ahead lane and a full size filter lane that starts separating the traffic well before the junction. There should also possibly be an ASL. If that many cyclists end up in the wrong place and assuming it happens every day then that's an infrastructure problem.
Accidents are almost never caused by a single factor and blame can almost never be 100% attributed to one person. The only accident I've ever been in happened when I was stopped at a set of traffic lights and I was hit from behind. It was almost 100% not my fault but according to the advanced driving course I once took I should have been waiting with the car in gear with an escape route planned checking my mirrors in case someone came up too fast behind me so I have to also accept a small percentage of the blame.
There are a lot of lessons that can be learned if you take a step back and look at the whole picture rather than the Daily Mail reaction which is cyclists are ****s.
DezB - Member
We don't know what was happening on his right sideMost likely...
My AV just flagged that image up as dodgy btw.
Dez - please stop being a militant cyclist for a minute and consider the evidence. There's nothing to suggest the driver was on the phone. It's the cyclist that's put himself in danger here not the other way around.
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.4820516,-0.173657,3a,75y,13.38h,96.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQaBvGdCsleIqqpNxf0TKzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en]
HERE[/url]'s a link to the location so it's 3 lanes - 2 x straight ahead and left, there is a filter line as the road narrows and the truck is on the LHS filtering right and as such should have an expectation that there's no-one to his left or if they are there illegally, they have the sense to have gotten out of the way.
As everyone is sat at the lights, rucksack guy is against the door of the cab, under the driver's mirrors and as such CANNOT BE SEEN and he doesn't do much to change this situation in the next 100m until he gets squeezed by the truck. There's no defending that behavior no matter how inexperienced he is and I'm assuming from his riding that he's not done this much.
cyclists should never be on the inside of an HGV full stop.
Wouldn't Darwin's argument be that this is merely helping to conduct essential maintenance to the gene pool?
There are a lot of lessons that can be learned if you take a step back and look at the whole picture rather than the Daily Mail reaction which is cyclists are ****.
Bruce - we're all cyclists here and that generally we're siding with the big bad truck driver should tell you something.