[Closed] Mass suicide attempt by commuter cyclists.

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.

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.