Forum menu
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.
WAIT - That's another potential benefit of my showerhead idea !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
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.