A cyclist’s camera has captured the moment he was left lying in a bike lane after a lorry hit in in a supposedly protected area.
Damien McGrath, 34, was riding along a clearly marked cycle lane past a line of traffic in Watford, when a lorry pulls into the lane and knocks him flying.
He lies in the lane for almost a minute, clearly in serious pain, before a passer by comes to his aid.
The incident happened on March 6th.
“I never realised I was going to get hit. I was on a cycle lane, I had bright lights on, front and rear, I was highly visible and I was wearing a helmet,” he told the Evening Standard.
“I was in the cycle lane and then… he hit me and I lost control. The next thing I hit the curb.
“I could say I was lucky in that I was not dragged under the truck.”
Mr McGrath suffered back and hip injuries, as well as cuts to his knees.
“I don’t cycle to work anymore because it’s just too dangerous. I cycled to work to avoid sitting in rush hour traffic and the stress but then that happened,” he told the Standard.
A spokesperson from Hertfordshire Constabulary said: “Officers are aware of this incident and have been in contact with Mr McGrath since his initial report.
“We take every report of this nature very seriously and enquiries into what happened are on-going.”
51 thoughts on “VIDEO: Moment cyclist is hit by lorry entering cycle lane”
As per the article on ES site
As per the article on ES site, the chap is an urban planner. Maybe he could use his day job to try and improve this dire situation so it hopefully doesn’t happen to others?
Whilst the lorry is
Whilst the lorry is at fault, in the interests of protecting myself am unsure if I would have chosen to put myself in the cyclists road position.
Grahamd wrote:
I think the fault is as much the road design and HGV design. The cycle lane is barely more than the width of a cyclists elbows, and it appears the HGV takes up the entire normal lane, leaving no buffer between them.
HGV then naturally moves left before completing a right turn, or because the road narrows, and potentially cannot see whether the space to his left is empty.
The video starts to low to determine whether this is a failed overtake, or undertaking.
Grahamd wrote:
I’ll never go there even with a cycle lane. Shame road confidence has to play such a part in protecting ones self.
He’s an urban planner, is
He’s an urban planner, is this one of those definitions of irony…
Maybe if he does this for the council, he could go round to the person who made this an advisory route rather than the solid lined mandatory route, and perhaps slap them around a bit. Then together they can wonder why anyone in their right mind would think that a line of paint in any situation offers any form of presumed safety.
I’m not taking sides but it
I’m not taking sides but it appears to me that this is 6 of one & half a dozen of another, the cyclist was never out of the lorries blind spots and the cycle lane had ended at the point of collision. If you look there are zig zag markings where the collision occured and we don’t know whether there are traffic islands at that point forcing the lorry across. Personally I would have held back until past the zig zags. If anyone one knows where this happened I would like to see a view looking forward from the cycle lane
Have to agree wth the other
Have to agree wth the other comments.
Certainly NOT the cyclists fault, just goes to show why these sorts of cycle lanes are awful – cyclists think it’s safe to cycle up along side other vehicles, put it puts them in an awful position where they potentially aren’t visible.
The lorry driver could have easily been moving over to allow a bus/lorry enough room to get by.
Blame easily lies with the planners that think these “cycle lanes” are at all beneficial.
Makes me glad I don’t have to
Makes me glad I don’t have to cycle through town much (not that I enjoy my commute by car mind you).
The bottom line is that lorry drivers can’t see you when you are down there. Passing on the inside like that requires you to be really sure of what the lorry driver is going to do.
How can anyone say the victim
How can anyone say the victim was in the blindspot throughout? That would mean the full length of the vehicle which we know is false.
More a case of driver didnt look when pulling off and then moved into another lane without checking it was clear.
Because Isn’t the cycle ‘lane’ another lane similarly to one for motorised vehicles?
If a car was pulling along on the inside and the HGV then entered it, (because the lines would mean he the HGV driver could) and contact was made how would that be the fault of the car?
All the HGV driver had to do was maintain his line in their lane and nothing would have happened, they entered, or rather lost control and went sideways for no reason into what they knew to be a lane for vulnerable road users.
I presume no one driving a car alongside an HGV on an inside lane will do so in future if critical of the victim, just in case the HGV veers off without checking potentially killing you despite your steel shell?
It certainly is not ‘6of 1’ as one poster put it.
Fellow cyclists …. NEVER
Fellow cyclists …. NEVER EVER GO DOWN THE SIDE OF A BIG LORRY LIKE THAT, CYCLE LANE OR NOT. That is the way you get yourself killed.
And what a load of dumb ass/inexperienced cyclist comments. This was a broken-line cycle lane, allowing vehicles to legally use it if necessary, like if some geezer is driving a giant lorry along what is quite a narrow road.
Phew.
Valbrona wrote:
Totally agree…you owe it to yourself not to head up the inside of a lorry (cycle lane or not)…lorries do not see you at all….You can be morally right all you like but you’re still risking your life.
Always assume every driver cant see you, doesnt care or is just a crap driver and ride defensively.
Valbrona wrote:
Agreed with most of what you say but:
Any driver of any vehicle should know that although you may cross a dotted white line when it is safe to do so you must always exercise caution when doing so. Being unable to see what might be beside you but continuing and moving cannot be said to be exercising any sort of caution – merely the hope that it will be OK. For that reason, although the cyclist was foolish to take a chance on the lorry driver holding his line, the lorry driver was singly at fault.
shay cycles wrote:
Exactly. If you followed Valbrona’s logic, no-one would ever have to look before changing lanes ever.
Not his fault, but personally
Not his fault, but personally I would never have put myself there in the first place, cycle lane or no cycle lane.
It couldn’t have been his
It couldn’t have been his fault – he was wearing a ……t
“Whilst the lorry is at fault
“Whilst the lorry is at fault …..” made me reach for my pedants hat, yet again, the lorry did nothing, the driver steered it into the bike lane.
They can see you there, if
They can see you there, if they look. Where they can’t see you is if you’re in the middle of a bus or other second lane to their left.
CS7 in particular has many points where buses and lorries can’t fit past traffic islands without encroaching on the cycle lane. Seeing as the bus hides the island from the cyclist and the bus driver is usually looking at the island rather than his mirrors (as in this case probably) it all makes it regretably exciting and relies on local knowledge to foresee what’s going to happen next
You’re on the motorway
You’re on the motorway overtaking an HGV which is in the inside lane, do you a) overtake in your lane because you are certain they won’t move into your lane because they aren’t indicating nor have reason to do so (despite them being able to given it’s not a solid line) or b) never overtake on the offchance that that 40 tons of mass at 60 mph might move into your lane randomly. ..which we know happens and kills/maims people even on the ‘safe’ motorway.
Is the risk differential any different to cyling past in a lane, if so, where is the evidence? How many people who ride bikes have being killed cycles ng on the inside on a straight on lane compared to motorists killed by HGV s moving out their lanes into other vehicles. I’d hazard a guess the latter is a higher number.
Again I ask, why would you pass an HGV in adjacent lane if you blame the victim in this case?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
of course the risk is different. On a motorway I will like get my car written off, in the cycle lane consequences are more severe.
when the green man comes on at the crossing, do you go straight out, or do you check the cars actually are stopping? yes the driver is at fault but you can take action to reduce risk.
wycombewheeler wrote:
will likely, are you sure that’s more or less likely than a person riding a bike being killed whilst cycling in a forward direction and the HGV also going in a forward direction (not turning left)?
C’mon, how many cycling deaths or serious injuries were there last year that involved an HGV moving out of the lane into a cycle lane whilst moving straight ahead? I’m not talking about pulling alongside an HGV at a junction but going straight ahead as per this incident.
How many motorists where killed or seriously injured due to an HGV moving out of its lane unexpectedly/unlawfully?
checking through bez’s list of cyclists killed in 2016 I can’t see a single death caused by an HGV having deviated from its lane into a cycle lane going in a straight on direction. There is one where a road narrows and a cycle lane ends abruptly (& the collision happens after the lane ends) and that is the nearest but the lane here does not end, the road does not narrow and thus the fault is entirely that of the HGV driver and the risk comparatively doesn’t hold water to not cycle on the inside lane when both vehicles are travelling in the same direction.
Now, going up the inside at a junction, different matter but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it?
In hindsight this looks like
In hindsight this looks like a stupid undertake. The evidence leads us towards this conclusion because of what happened, but I think there are always times when gaining on traffic that you perhaps put yourself in this position willingly or otherwise.
I agree with the other poster who talked about motorway traffic. I don’t ever like being in the shadow of an articulated lorry for any length of time. The stories about drivers having heart attacks, falling asleep or not seeing cars in other lanes convinces me that I’m better off that I move quickly passed. The same thought process applies on the bike: treat the space around them with caution.
I’m not a big fan of cycle lanes because they can promote a false sense of security. As a driver, pedestrian and cyclist I never take for granted that other road users are prone to mishaps and so you should always be alive to the dangers around you.
overtaking, like a motorcycle is better than undertaking as you won’t get pinned to the kerbside.
Driver, a trained
Driver, a trained professional, driving a large and notoriously dangerous vehicle in an urban environment drives into a cycle lane without knowing it’s clear and people here blame the cyclist? Yes he’s an urban planner, so we all know they are not the sharpest pencils in the box. But that is a cycle lane, and it could just as easily be used by a child.
Drivers of HGVs should take much more care when moving off. They don’t, and that’s how people die.
szegerely wrote:
I don’t think people blamed the cyclist for the collision. People merely said he could have protected himself much better. Drivers do stupid illegal dangerous stuff all the time. We know. But instead of just knowing that and carrying on regardless, the sensible cyclist takes that into account and rides accordingly. There is no way I would be in that bike lane up the inside of a lorry because I realise that what I am doing is relying on a lorry driver I don’t know not to kill me. I have no idea if he’s drunk, tired, stupid, or what he is dealing with on the driver side. So I am not going to trust him.
If the traffic is moving along at a sensible speed I can maintain then I am going to be in the lane positioned so I can avoid rear ending the lorry. If I need to overtake it will be on the outside and then back in the lane. If the traffic speeds up then I will take an appropriate position in either primary or secondary. But I am never going to overtake traffic let alone a lorry I could end up being dragged under on the inside. And I don’t care that there is a bike lane.
This is not victim blaming. This is trying to make people aware that they can do things to reduce the risk of being a victim.
oozaveared wrote:
I don’t particularly care about individual cyclists’ opinions on the best defensive strategy (although I have my own preferences for road positioning and traffic management) – after all, the cyclist could have avoided any chance of being hit by the lorry by being in a bus, using the pavement or staying at home.
However, the cyclist decided to cycle on a public road and was doing so both legally and competently when he got hit by a lorry that was not driving in a safe fashion and thus not following the Highway Code. To then make comments about how the cyclist should never go on the inside of lorries/trucks is simply victim blaming (and I personally find it quite abhorrent).
hawkinspeter wrote:
If the cyclist is riding in the cycle lane and the lorry passes on that position, is that overtake safe? no, it is too close. But apparently ok the other way round? Its true the cyclist presents no danger to thd HGV, but the danger to the cyclist of being in such close proximity to the HGV is no different. sometimes the road is not wide enough to overtake.
cycle lanes like this give the impression it is OK to overtake but this road is too narrow. They need to be banned.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I don’t particularly care about individual cyclists’ opinions on the best defensive strategy (although I have my own preferences for road positioning and traffic management) – after all, the cyclist could have avoided any chance of being hit by the lorry by being in a bus, using the pavement or staying at home.
However, the cyclist decided to cycle on a public road and was doing so both legally and competently when he got hit by a lorry that was not driving in a safe fashion and thus not following the Highway Code. To then make comments about how the cyclist should never go on the inside of lorries/trucks is simply victim blaming (and I personally find it quite abhorrent).
— hawkinspeter If the cyclist is riding in the cycle lane and the lorry passes on that position, is that overtake safe? no, it is too close. But apparently ok the other way round? Its true the cyclist presents no danger to thd HGV, but the danger to the cyclist of being in such close proximity to the HGV is no different. sometimes the road is not wide enough to overtake. cycle lanes like this give the impression it is OK to overtake but this road is too narrow. They need to be banned.— oozaveared
WTF are you talking about? When filtering you don’t need to give the same space as a motor vehicle does when it is overtaking you. To do so would mean you’d never filter.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Then you are very silly. I’ve been cycling in a club since 1973. “not following the Highway Code” is irrelevant to me. I can see dozens and dozens of breaches of the highway code on my ride to work everyday. If you cycle in a fashion that assumes all drivers at all times will follow the Highway code then you are just not payng attention to what must be happening all around you.
My point was that I wouldn’t cycle down the inside of a lorry because I didn’t trust the lorry driver. Why? Cos I have been watching various lorry drivers doing all sorts of dangerous stuff for 4 decades now. Why should I trust any of them? Because they “should” obey the Highway Code.? It’s not a magic book that will keep you safe so long as you know what people “should” be doing.
Why not just assume that around half of drivers are below average drivers. Half are below average intelligence. Keep in mind that a few may be drunk or on medication, that some will be new to driving, that some may be on their phone, distracted by the kids, have poor eyesight (as it is self certificated). Some may already be banned, or not ever have had a licence. And some will just be arrogant aggressive and deliberately dangerous drivers.
Hoping that they all drive in accordance with the highway code is not safe assumption.
It is not victim blaming to tell people the truth. Hoping and trusting that drivers will at all times follow the highway code so you safely ride up the inside of lorries is just plain dumb.
Hope is not a good safety strategy in any walk of life.
Lorry driver at fault, awful
Lorry driver at fault, awful driving. Didn’t look that bad, I’ve had worse and walked away even if the bike was broken. Man up or plan better.
Lucky to be alive and a huge
Lucky to be alive and a huge misjudgement on the cyclists part, thankfully he lives to ride again.
50kcommute wrote:
You mean huge misjudgement/loss of control 9to veer left for no reason) and not looking, ergo dangerous driving by the driver right?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You mean huge misjudgement/loss of control 9to veer left for no reason) and not looking, ergo dangerous driving by the driver right?— 50kcommute
No, I mean a misjudgement by the cyclist …would you ride up the side of the lorry like that?
The lorry driver shouldn’t have veered to the kerb (and was most likely at fault IMO), but the cyclist should have been more defensive in his riding.
50kcommute wrote:
What is this with the victim blaming nonsense? It was the lorry driver that made a manoeuvre without checking that it was safe to do so and thus caused an incident.
Maybe you think it’s a misjudgement to cycle on the same road as another vehicle just in case they swerve into you? It’s complete nonsense to criticise the cyclist just because you may have chosen a different part of the road to cycle along.
50kcommute wrote:
Me personally in that situation, possibly I would have, there’s no left turn, there’s no apparent narrowing or ending of the cycle lane and as i said, there’s no evidence in terms of cycling deaths that support the not going straight on past HGVs (or cars) if both are travelling in their lanes in a straight on direction because it’s ‘dangerous’.
Having seen numerous road incidents on the motorways over the years ending in death due to vehicles moving into anothers lane and indeed even the carnage in towns and cities between motorised vehicles when I was a serial car commuter into london/South East region, the numbers don’t stack up in the scenario we are talking about.
Of course one has to judge things and seeing the lorry pull away I might have held back, I might have sprinted on as this person has, afterall there is an amount of space is exactly the same if the lorry is passing the cyclist from behind or any other large vehicle whilst he would be in that lane.
If a vehicle veers into your lane/path for no reason at all how can you possibly know that that won’t happen when any vehicle is passing you (& it does frequently as we know) are we supposed to just not cycle on the road at all (which would delight motorists/government et al immensely) just in case any given vehicle veers in to the left into the cycle lane at any given moment?
As a commuter/utility rider for over 30 years I’ve seen it all, yes some scenarios you avoid but to put blame on the person here for this situation is way off the mark.
No ones fault really, if you
No ones fault really, if you have HGV using that road, it isn’t suitable for an on road cyclelane (just not wide enough), their obviously isn’t any room.
The cyclist thinks he is safe, as he is in a marked cycle lane, problem here, is the markings, they are not solid, which means traffic can cross them.
So the cyclist thinks he is safe, the lorry cant see him no matter how bright he is, the only thing to blame here is the infrastructure! and never pass on the inside, if you must get in front, filter around outside.
KINGHORN wrote:
My reservation about this point is that its hard to avoid ‘passing on the inside’ in situations where there’s a lot of traffic in the adjoining lane, and its moving slower than your normal cycling speed. What exactly are you supposed to do then? Wobble along at an awkwardly slow speed so as not to overtake anything? Or stay on the outside indefinitely?
Or its moving at variable speed, so you are making steady progress in your lane and the lorry in the adjoining lane slows down a bit and you suddenly find yourself passing it.
Agree that the infrastructure doesn’t really make sense when combined with vehicles that mean the driver can’t see what is beside them.
KINGHORN wrote:
highway code specifically states the following:
Rule 140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line [b]unless it is unavoidable[/b]. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
my bold…
If there were no cycle lane
If there were no cycle lane markings, according to the police close-pass mat, there should be 1.5m between cyclist & lorry.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the painted lines can magically make it equivalently safe.
For people blaming the
For people blaming the cyclists – what are you talking about? Yes, don’t pass on the inside near a junction, but on a straight road why would the lorry swerve at you? And why is passing on the right better? Surely a lorry is just as likely to swerve right as left. He came up the whole length of the lorry – the blind spot does not cover that. The driver should have been checking to his left before swerving.
I can only second the
I can only second the comments asking you to consider that you are vicitim blaming talking about what the cyclist could or should have done.
At the end of the day we are all responsible for our vehicle and safety has to be the primary concern. The lorry driver has to explain why he failed to proceeed without collision. If the lorry driver had checked well before that there was nothing in the cycle lane or likely to be on his left then he would have an excuse – clearly didn’t do that. We make excuses for ‘accidents’ when they are nothing of the sort and you who hits another are at fault unless you can clearly show there was no way you could avoid it.
The lack of decent mirrors or proximiy detectors on lorries in this country, the attitude of teh authorities to dangerous and careless driving adn the leniency towards causing death with vehicles is a tragedy and scary.
Our society is bonkers imho.
And yes maybe cycling past a lorry on a narrow road would need thinking carefully about, that does not in anyway reduce the obligation on the driver having responsibilty to avoid contact with other road users.
yep, victim blaming – the
yep, victim blaming – the cyclist is by default the victim and therefore incapable of taking responsibility for his own safety.
When a cycle lane is not a
When a cycle lane is not a cycle lane.
rming the overtake, his fault
rming the overtake, his fault.
Idiotic manoeuvre. Who knows why the HGV moved left, perhaps the road narrows and there is an another road user he can actually see to his right.
Dont pass on the inside of a moving vehicle, certainly not a long one, definitely not near a junction, we know they cant see you and that is nt going to change in the short term.
Sometimes victims are to blame, in this case I think they are, but the main issue is the waste of paint of a cycle lane that drew the bike up there in the first place, its far too narrow
I was a cyclist before I was a driver, but I still find it astonishing that many riders seem to think everything revolves around them, most drivers are incompetent, so dont expect them to play by the rules just because you’re on a bike, expect the worst, ride in a position that forces vehicles round you and dont undertake vehicles with blind spots. Checking inside mirrors on a standard road is not part of any driving tests (it is in one way systems, dual carriageways and motorways) its an advanced driving technique. Though he shouldn’t enter the cycle lane at all.
Flying Scot wrote:
If you expect the worst then you’d just never go out on the roads.
Those defending the lorry
Those defending the lorry driver – either he (or she) or his (or her) – thanks Jess Varnish – vehicle is unsuitable to be on that road. Lifetime ban.
alansmurphy wrote:
But they won’t get a lifetime ban will they? Not even if they kill you.
So.
You can either ride around being very cross at all the bad, dangerous driving but wierdly carry on trusting drivers to keep to the rules and keep you safe. Or, you can can look at what is happening in front of you everyday, start to recognise dangerous situations before you are in them and then adapt your riding to keep yourself safe.
oozaveared wrote:
Or not cycle. Which seems to be a far more popular choice than your suggestions. Which won’t, of course, ‘keep you safe’ anyway.
oozaveared wrote:
As if it’s that binary.
I make myself safe AND spend a lot of my time commuting fucking furious!
I’m fairly sure the highway
I’m fairly sure the highway code advises you not to go up the inside of a moving vehicle
I’m also fairly sure that laying sprawled on the pavement is not a mark of cycling competence
beezus fufoon wrote:
So you always follow that rule? Always? When cycling in a cycle lane alongside a queue of stop-start traffic, you constantly stop and start and speed up and slow down every minute, so as to never risk passing any given vehicle?
I don’t believe you.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m fairly sure the highway code advises you not to go up the inside of a moving vehicle
— FluffyKittenofTindalos So you always follow that rule? Always? When cycling in a cycle lane alongside a queue of stop-start traffic, you constantly stop and start and speed up and slow down every minute, so as to never risk passing any given vehicle? I don’t believe you.— beezus fufoon
no, I go up the offside.
The lorry driver is at fault
The lorry driver is at fault here. If the lorry had been driven correctly then the collision would not have happened.
Until all drivers are safe and competent it is common sense to assume that none are and ride accordingly.
I’d rather not end up the victim of some terrible driving so cycle defensively.
Suggesting that others do the same is no more victim blaming than suggesting people lock their doors at night.
It is simply an acknowledgement of the world we live in.