Footage of a cyclist being hit by a truck at a London junction has been uploaded to YouTube. The cyclist appeared to be pretty much unharmed in the collision, but the incident did give rise to a lengthy exchange with the truck driver who believed he should not have been on the inside of his vehicle.
The collision took place on Cheyne Walk at the junction with Beaufort Street on June 2.
Several cyclists wait in the left-hand lane at a set of traffic lights alongside a truck. When the lights change, one is hit on the far side of the junction and squeezed to the kerb.
The truck driver stops and emerges from his vehicle.
“Are you fucking kidding me?” he says. “You’ve gone in the left hand lane and come on my inside lane on an artic, when over and over again it tells you on the adverts, do not go up the fucking left hand side of an artic.”
The cyclist says that, “everyone does that.”
The driver says it is illegal and tells the cyclist that the lane he had been in was “left turn only”.
Lane arrows are only advisory unless accompanied by instructional wording.
The cyclist who has captured the incident on his helmet cam then says: “You know there are cyclists on the inside all the time in London.”
“That’s fucking well different, innit,” says the driver.
When the truck driver pulls to the side of the road to exchange details, the cyclist who was hit rides off, saying he will “let it go”.
106 thoughts on “Video: Truck driver loses it with cyclist after collision in London”
Cool, a new sport – Darwinian
Cool, a new sport – Darwinian cycling! I’m 110% with the driver on this one.
guyrwood wrote:
Yeah, not actually a sport. It’s people trying to get to work. And if natural selection worked the way you think it does you probably wouldn’t be here.
So lucky he didn’t fall under
So lucky he didn’t fall under the wheels! The riders were putting themselves in mortal danger. With the road merging into one after the lights caused the trucker to stay close to the kerb until a car passes him. There seemed to be an element of quick acceleration from the trucker as to stop the bikes getting ahead. He wouldn’t of seen them all because of the massive blind spots around the cab area.
I personally wouldn’t of done that unless I could sprint way ahead, but again I wouldn’t want a truck behind me on a busy street with so many distractions.
Madness. Even the
Madness. Even the undertaking in the first 30 seconds had me wincing.
I honestly don’t think I could ride in London traffic unless there’s a (decent) cycle lane. Life’s too short.
100% the cyclist’s fault.
100% the cyclist’s fault. Honestly, what on earth was he thinking? Why risk it?
Yup, I’m with the trucker too
Yup, I’m with the trucker too, ridiculously dangerous cycling. Get in front of the truck at the lights and give him a wave to show you’re there whilst it’s red. Although I’d sooner stay behind.
wingmanrob wrote:
Yup, I’m with the trucker too, ridiculously dangerous cycling. Get in front of the truck at the lights and give him a wave to show you’re there whilst it’s red. Although I’d sooner stay behind.
— wingmanrob
Yep. If I’m on point at a light I look back to make sure that the vehicle behind me knows I know it’s back there. As soon as we’re moving again I try to make a little room (if there’s only one lane) so it can pass. A little thank you wave doesn’t hurt either. A bar or helmet mirror might help as well. But I’m in a medium sized American Midwest city. Like London, my experiences living in Chicago were closer to your reality.
wingmanrob wrote:
Yup, I’m with the trucker too, ridiculously dangerous cycling. Get in front of the truck at the lights and give him a wave to show you’re there whilst it’s red. Although I’d sooner stay behind.
— wingmanrob
Yep. If I’m on point at a light I look back to make sure that the vehicle behind me knows I know it’s back there. As soon as we’re moving again I try to make a little room (if there’s only one lane) so it can pass. A little thank you wave doesn’t hurt either. A bar or helmet mirror might help as well. But I’m in a medium sized American Midwest city. Like London, my experiences living in Chicago were closer to your reality.
wingmanrob wrote:
Yup, I’m with the trucker too, ridiculously dangerous cycling. Get in front of the truck at the lights and give him a wave to show you’re there whilst it’s red. Although I’d sooner stay behind.
— wingmanrob
Yep. If I’m on point at a light I look back to make sure that the vehicle behind me knows I know it’s back there. As soon as we’re moving again I try to make a little room (if there’s only one lane) so it can pass. A little thank you wave doesn’t hurt either. A bar or helmet mirror might help as well. But I’m in a medium sized American Midwest city. Like London, my experiences living in Chicago were closer to your reality.
“So who is actually ‘to blame
“So who is actually ‘to blame’ here?
It’s not the individuals – it’s the system. A system that thinks it’s acceptable to mix human beings and enormous vehicles with very limited visibility, and hopes that nobody makes a minor mistake. There simply isn’t any excuse for designing roads that create situations like the one in the photograph above. Those people should be separated from that HGV entirely at this kind of junction.”
I am supporting the truck
I am supporting the truck driver here. I had to look up the point on “Lane arrows are only advisory”. Seems a waste of paint if the truck is still considered as overtaking the traffic in the left turn lane – very confusing. Anyway, whatever the law says I don’t think it is worth the risk. No point making your point from 6 foot under!
Cylist at fault. And truck
Cylist at fault. And truck design standards.
Actually, the cyclist looks
Actually, the cyclist looks ahead of the truck as it attempts to overtake.
However, personally, I’d have let the lorry get ahead after the traffic light.
But I think the onus is on the truck driver as it was he making the manouver.
ThatBritishBloke wrote:
What Maneuver?
He was driving straight ahead in the correct lane to do so.
Idiot on bike was sat in the left had turn lane (in his blind spot) then went for the undertake and tried to barge a truck out of the way. total dick move and he’s incredibly lucky he wasn’t killed.
If I’m in my car going straight ahead there and some moron comes up the left had turn lane and crashes into me, I’m absolutely not accepting any responsibility for that.
Cat with no tail wrote:
Technically, the cyclist got away from the red light before the lorry driver (albeit behind the other cyclists). The lorry driver struck the cyclist when he attempted to “overtake”. If I was the driver I would have definitely “held back” and not overtaken at end of the junction.
That said, if I was the cyclist I would have also “held back” and let the lorry driver through.
IMHO this is not a case of one individual being “right” or “wrong” – both were somewhat foolish and contributed to the dangerous situation. What is wrong here (as someone else has pointed out) is the infrastructure that assumes that lorries and cyclists should be mixing in that way. At the very least there should be an advanced stop line for cyclists with a different light phasing.
Ramz wrote:
Putting aside the fact the cyclist shouldn’t have been going straight ahead from the left hand turn lane to begin with (so the driver would have had no reason to expect him there in the first place). The cyclist was in his blindspot the whole length of the junction. Either just in front of, or directly at the side of the cab. As far as the driver will have been concerned, he won’t have been “overtaking” anything, because he wont have known anything was there. We could argue that’s bad truck design, but it’s much worse cyclecraft. You can’t yeild to something that you don’t know is there and shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Completely disagree that both were somewhat foolish. Truck driver did NOTHING wrong there.
As has already been pointed out, if the situation was reversed and the truck had come down that left hand lane, got a head start on the cyclists, then barged them out of the way, everyone would be (quite rightly) incensed and demanding he had his license taken away from him for ever.
I agree there *should* be an ASL there, but there isn’t. So the cyclist shouldn’t have been there. What if there was an ASL, but it was full? He’d have still been in the same situation and still been an idiot.
Using excuses like “everyone else was doing it”, “This is London”, and “It’s poor road design” isn’t going to help anyone when he’s parked on your face. There is no reason cyclists and trucks can’t mix on roads like this, it just requires everyone to pay attention to what they’re doing and not drive/ride like complete bellends.
I’m sorry but I just can’t understand how anyone who has ever stepped on a bike or driven on the road could suggest this is anything other than the group of cyclists being 100% at fault. Hopefully the guy who nearly got flattened learned his lesson. The gobshite with the camera almost certainly didn’t though.
Cat with no tail wrote:
I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption given the cyclists the driver could see. It may well have been the assumption that he did make however.
There is no advanced warning of ASLs. Queues of traffic in London can go back for the entire block (and indeed further). You are not going to know if the section of road you are on has an ASL at the time you commit to passing the traffic.
This is a deficiency in road design but it is what it is and people make the most of it.
I’m struggling to understand how people think you can reasonably cycle in London if the plan is to just join the car queue. Maybe the plan is to go up the left but when it turns out to be a left turn lane with no ASL you block the lane (any following cars won’t mind and certianly won’t try to push through the crowd of cyclists) and then you wait for peak hour to be over (about 9pm I seem to recall) so that there is no one on your right and you can quickly switch lanes.
Maybe you should only cycle in zone 3 and further out.
Cat with no tail wrote:
You are probably aware that by law you can’t simply say “I have right of way” and crash into someone. Each party is obliged to do what they can to avoid a collision whether they are in the “right” or in the “wrong”. I have already ‘criticised’ both driver and cyclist: I would not have done what either did. I was just questioning why the driver (who was *clearly* aware that there was a bunch of cyclists on his left/just ahead of him) decided to ‘barge’ through the junction regardless. His attitude afterwards, asserting that he was in the right and had priority (while it may be technically true) actually does not absolve him of his part of the responsibility for a collision. I know there is a tendency for us to try and “blame” one party, and you are correct that if the cyclist hadn’t positioned himself there, and behaved in the way that he did, the whole thing could be avoided. My point is about afterwards: if you see someone cycling like a dick, does that give you the right to drive over them?
Ramz wrote:
Presumably you have watched the video. Now without cheating and looking again,
How many cyclists were at the lights?
Which ones actually turned left?
Which ones could the driver possibly have accounted for and kept track of, especially those he could not see?
What other traffic and obstacles was the driver also dealing with?
You ask the impossible of a human operator.
Ramz wrote:
We know the cyclist uses the wrong lane and puts themself in danger. We dont know whether the lorry driver acts deliberately or is unaware. You seem to suggest the driver knows the cyclist is there and deliberately hits him to enforce his priority.
My starting position is not to assme the driver is a sociopath prepared to kill someone to make a point. He is probably already incredulous about the couple who have appeared out of his blind spot as he pulls away, and honestly doesn’t expect anyone to be crazy enough to continue into the pinch point in his blind spot.
It’s possible there .at be some degree of premeditation but very unlikely in my opinion.
Ramz wrote:
This is my thinking on this, along with a few others who seem able to see the bigger picture.
It’s not a binary blame situation. But most people just don’t get it, and they won’t, because all they see is the cyclist making a mistake, they ignore everything after that. My friends and girlfriend keep blaming the cyclist and ignore my questions of whose fault is it if the driver cannot see them (his vehicle, his eyeballs!) and is it ok to drive a truck at people on bikes? I can’t get them to give me a straight answer, just respond with “but the cyclist made a mistake!”. Pointless arguing if they won’t listen.
Yes, a bunch of cyclists ride like dicks in this video, one of them squeezes in front of the cab. That’s a given. But driving like a dick with such a lethal weapon and using “I was technically in the right” is sociopathic. Loads of people will disagree, but you won’t convince them because they
ChrisB200SX wrote:
How can the driver be to blame for something that he is basically unaware of? He absolutely didn’t “drive his truck at someone” based on the video evidence. He drove in an entirely predictable and sensible way: that is the way you would drive if you didn’t know those people were trying to overtake you on the inside (which is absolutely what the cyclists were doing.)
I agree, the fault isn’t binary. There is more the truck driver could have done, but as we don’t know when or where any or all of the cyclists appeared, it is very difficult to apportion any real blame to the driver.
Our ability, as a soicety, to use the roading system relies on people acting in a predictable manner. We have rules to try to assist with that. When people act outside of those rules it makes it far far more difficult to predict their behaviour, and may impact seriously on other road users ability to conduct themselves with any degree of safety.
Something to consider is that by law you have to be able to stop in the clear distance of road ahead. That means that when travelling on the motorway you have to allow 100m distance between you and the vehicle in front at 60 mph. No-one does. We rely on the other road users acting in a predictable manner. When this does go awry, it tends to go awry very badly. In effect, by attributing causative blame to the truck driver you are suggesting the car driver ahead of you should slow down to the speed where your following distance does represent a clear stopping distance. Clearly this is impractical, hence the onus is on each of us individually to be responsible for our own actions, rather than trying to be repsonsible for the actions of those around us.
The truck driver isn’t blameless, but his share of the blame for the situation the red guy found himself in is microscopic.
Cat with no tail wrote:
Blind spot. So there is a place down the side of the vehicle that the driver cannot see if he uses his mirrors properly?
Cat with no tail wrote:
.
crazy riding.
crazy riding.
but it dont really matter who is right, as a squashed cyclist is always wrong.
i do love the other cyclist “yeh i got it on camera mate. i saw everything” yeh i nearly saw you get squashed because you shouldnt be riding on the road is what i think he meant
Driver 1 – 0 Twat on bike
Driver 1 – 0 Twat on bike
I’m not sure of the exact
I’m not sure of the exact legal situation. But sometimes it’s better not to use your rights to the full extend and apply some common sense to situations. The cyclist that was hit, in fact most of the cyclists in the left hand lane put themselves in a very risky situation. Why is he overtaking the truck on the left side anyway while it’s waiting at the traffic lights? Just to gain a few seconds? Better wait behind the truck…
The wider question here is also why there are no separate traffic lights for cyclists that allow them to get a head start combined with a bike zone in front of the cars?
baeing wrote:
Another one is why there isn’t an advance box for cyclists just there. Again – crap thought / design.
Also with the truck driver. I
Also with the truck driver. I was already wincing at how close the cyclists were stacked next to the truck (in the turn left lane) while waiting for the lights. If the cyclist had been in a car and done the same thing there would have been no argument.
Truck driver is probably aware of his blind spot and the fact that there were cyclists around, but not sure what he could do about it. Maybe accelerated more slowly ?
With the rider on this one.
With the rider on this one. The driver could see all the cyclists ahead of him, all the cyclists were in the wrong lane so he knew there were cyclists about. He then chose to ignore this.
Driver 100% at fault.
You adapt your driving to the situation.
To then come out with this bollocks is just the most stupid and as for those fucking sticker these drivers have that they hope can shift the blame…
Adverts tell me that Cherios are healthy breakfast! I think that that is bullshit.
Artics should be banned from cities anyway.
For all those saying the rider should have shown more discretion, surely the driver should have, given he was driving a much larger vehicle and could see cyclists. How was the rider to know the driver was a muppet?
Cyclists all sat in the left
Cyclists all sat in the left turn lane in a lorry’s blind spot – cyclist goes straight on and acts surprised when the lorry doesn’t see him. Cyclist is lucky to be alive. Why isn’ there a bike box painted on the road?
I don’t think the cyclist even when slightly in front of the lorry at one point was ‘out’ of his blind spot. Perhaps the driver could have accelerated slower, but I don’t see he had many/any manuverability options.
Fanning the flames of daily mail comment boxes.
I think context is important
I think context is important here. As they say in the video – it’s London. I don’t live there anymore but, for better or worse, cyclists cycle on the left. Sometimes its because thats where the paint is and sometimes its because its where the cyclists were when the paint just ends. Sometimes it’s because if you try and merge into the traffic when you find your self in a turn only lane there is no room even for a bike to squeeze in and the end of the queue is a long way back. The cars won’t make room for you (because they think you should be on the left) and you will get a lot of agression from drivers if you try. Sometimes its because if you cycle in the right hand lane cars will come around you on your left and slowly push you across the centre line.
Whatever the reasons, this is the environment in which the truck driver is operating his vehicle. I assume he has driven in large cities before so this is not going to be news to him.
Even regardless of the environemnt, given the driver must have been able to see, if not the cyclist he hit, at least the ones a bit further forward and, via mirrors, the ones a bit further back it does seem reckless to drive into a space that he can only hope, against all reasonable odds, has no other road users in it. If the only defence is his vehicle doesn’t allow him to do more than hope there is no one he’s about to kill then we should be having a hard look at the type of vehicles we allow to drive in those conditions (i.e. London).
Quote:
I assume, and it’s a big assumption here, but the driver didn’t just appear at this point. I assume that he had already driven for a while and was totally aware that there are cyclists up and down London High Street. He then drove up to the kerb . The potty mouthed twat then tries to blame the cyclist! For fuck’s sake! What a wanker!
don simon wrote:
Where else would he drive?
With a vehicle that size he doesn’t have much space to the right – he needs the full width of the lane and he had priority in it. The lorry was where it was meant to be; the cyclist – coming from a lane intended for left turning and possibly in the lorry’s blind spot the whole time – wasn’t.
The cyclist gambled stupidly and was lucky not to lose everything.
How about a headline that
How about a headline that actually reflects it’s the cyclist’s fault?
cyclist’s fault.
cyclist’s fault.
Say he did kill this cyclist
Say he did kill this cyclist – then the argument in court would talk about the lane turning left – it would see the truck in the “correct” lane and he would likely be comended for coping with such a difficult emotional situation and be awarded councelling or some such shite – it would be almost imposible even with the footage to prove that he was racing the cyclists to a pinch point because he saw it as his and the cyclists as imposters – or he was wishing not to be held up by the cyclists too much till the next time he would be held up by the general traffic – say for about 500m – none of that would be provable – the prejudice against the opportunistic cyclists is too great and the objective facts against them – they were in the left lane – he was in the right lane – its his attitude that is the lethal thing here – no court would see that enought to convict him even if it made it that far… personally the lesson here is at the lights like this – stop right in front of the truck – be in the correct lane with conviction and head off with your wits about you – keep out in the lane for your own safety and take it on the chin if you are sworn and beeped at by the entitled masses in their cars – the reality is that you will leave them all behind you in say – 550m time…. 🙂 take care out there everyone.
Quote:
Bizarre concept, but he could have tried the bit of the road where there were no cyclists. This was not a lone cyclist who crept up and surprised the driver. If the truck is too big for the road, it shouldn’t be there and certainly doesn’t need help with being excused for being there.
I’ve ridden in a capital city were we were protected from artics- they were banned from the city. Overtaking, undertaking and filtering were all part of the daily grind and the drivers just got on with it.
Simples
don simon wrote:
Bizarre concept, but he could have tried the bit of the road where there were no cyclists.
How about the cyclist trying the bit of the road not aready occupied by a large lorry with blind spots? The cyclist was the one trying the risky manouevre, voluntarily putting himself in great danger.
Duncann wrote:
1. The cyclist has a right to be on the road.
2. I do believe the cyclist was ahead of the truck before the truck drove into him.
I’m not one to blindly defend all cyclists as there are some pretty stupid dudes that ride bikes, but in this case it’s pretty difficult, and probably stupid, to defend the driver.
Duncann wrote:
Double post.
don simon wrote:
This. I think some people are misreading the argument of the voice on the video as “everyone else is doing it”. The point is more that if the driver is not aware that there are cyclists about and that they often filter up on the inside then he needs to wake up before he squashes someone. And yes, the cyclist will be culpable to some extent, but the only bit the driver can control is his own actions. If I fire off a pistol in the direction of someone who has wilfully ignored a sign that says “Keep Out: live round firing range” then sure… they were thick-as-fuck…. but I still could not have pulled the trigger.
Filtering through traffic
Filtering through traffic less than 5mph isn’t illegal.
The truck driver is right
Glad no one got hurt.
Glad no one got hurt. Hopefully the lorry driver has learned that other people will break the rules on the road… all the time. Hopefully the cyclist(s) have learned something too.
I was surprised at the speed of the artic moving off from the light. He must have been shifting rapidly through the gears.
” Everyone else is doing it”?
” Everyone else is doing it”? What an inane statement. So that means you can cycle like a complete twat and expect to win an argument against an arctic? Well if that’s the case, then nearly everyone else is going to end up on the slab sooner or later then.
That could have come out a lot worse.
I see this all the time. Just hold back and let them go, it’s not a race. 10 seconds of your life incovenienced for the sake of your family seeing you come back home that day.
On a lighter note. Impressive track stand by the chap at the lights in the Mapei shirt. Plus right near the end of the vid…the message in the bus shelter ‘ Love is all you need’. Oh the irony !
The cemeteries in London are full of the impatient…
Gnarrgh. The apologists for
Gnarrgh. The apologists for the cyclists make me so mad, and the apologism in this article about turn markings being advisory has wound me up too. I can only assume it’s tribalism siding with a fellow cyclist.
I have cycled, walked and driven in Paris and Rome. I have driven and walked in London. I have also argued with self-righteous know-it-alls that, sometimes, cyclists jumping red lights isn’t the worst thing in the world. Yes, in Rome especially, I sometimes jump red lights if there were clearly no other cars around. I was even laughed at by some Carabinieri for stopping at a red but empty pedestrian crossing because I’d seen them standing there. Jumping lights is of course a risk, but I’m the vulnerable one so it’s (mostly) my risk. There are more dangerous things you can do.
What these cyclists did was one of them, by a long way. It’s about as stupid as anything I’ve seen in the craziness that is Rome and Paris, and probably more dangerous. Seriously – more dangerous than the most stupid things I’ve seen Italians do in Rome, and I’ve seen some properly crazy stuff. The “it’s London” excuse is pathetic – we’re humans, not sheep.
AND THE TRUCK DRIVER PROBABLY COULD NOT SEE A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CYCLISTS EVEN AT THE JUNCTION. Who beat who off the line for the first metre really doesn’t matter.
Seriously. This needs hammering into every cyclist. Take a look at this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU
This arrogant attitude combined with ridiculous risk taking and refusal to accept fault is why so many drivers hate cyclists. It results in good cyclists getting abuse from drivers who’ve had bad experiences with other cyclists. It is only going to escalate the conflict between cyclists and drivers and won’t do anyone favours.
If cyclists want to have a better time on the roads we need to drop this attitude, and stop defending it. All of us.
Feanor wrote:
Nonsense on stilts. Do you take the same collective-responsibility attitude to every other group, or is it just people who use bikes?
If we want everyone to have a better time on the roads we need to push for better infrastructure and for the state to stop putting the private car and the private motorist at the centre of transport.
PS didn’t watch the video, it’s irrelevant to the wrongness of your statement.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
If cyclists want to have a better time on the roads we need to drop this attitude, and stop defending it. All of us.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Nonsense on stilts. Do you take the same collective-responsibility attitude to every other group, or is it just people who use bikes? If we want everyone to have a better time on the roads we need to push for better infrastructure and for the state to stop putting the private car and the private motorist at the centre of transport. PS didn’t watch the video, it’s irrelevant to the wrongness of your statement.— Feanor
You seem to have read a different thing to what I wrote. Nothing about it suggests collective responsibility because if you don’t have this attitude, and if you don’t defend those that do behave like this, then it doesn’t apply to you.
Also, dropping a bad attitude isn’t mutually exclusive from infrastructure – but if my comment is collective responsibility, then yours is total denial of responsibility. We have some of the best infrastructure in the world and the social engineering that goes into our roads to encourage good behaviour is some of the best I’ve come across, even if there are a few cities which are a bit better when it comes to bicycles. People who do stupid dangerous things need to own responsibility for their actions, not blame their behaviour on the state. How can you even comment on infrastructure being an issue when you haven’t even watched the video?!
Feanor wrote:
It’s hard to argue with someone who posts something, even quotes it, and then denies they said what they said. Your comment is _entirely_ about collective responsibility. Perhaps you should read it back to yourself?
You refer to ‘cyclists’ as a group, then say ‘we ‘ (who is this ‘we’ of which you speak? Is there a club with membership cards and everything?), and, absurdly, try to claim that people have a hard time riding bikes on the road not because of crap infrastructure or bad driving, but because of the attitude of this completely mythical ‘we’. As I said, your comment was completely nonsensical.
As for ‘we have some of the best infrastructure in the world’ – are you on crack?
Edit – seriously, that’s the daftest statement I’ve seen on such arguments for a long time. You think UK cycle infrastructure is ‘some of the best in the world’? How come so few people dare cycle then?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The denial is your interpretation of what I wrote, not what I wrote.
Moreso, it’s your constant attempts to make things mutually exclusive. Of course better infrastructure would help. Of course bad driving is a major factor in cyclists getting killed.
But honestly, cyclists’ attitudes are also a huge factor. Yes, cyclists are a group – a group like any other, with huge diversity and many who don’t conform at all to the rest of the group. We’re on a friggin’ cyclists’ website debating on a cyclists’ forum. The attitudes being shown here by a vocal minority are absolutely symptomatic of why so many non-cyclists tar us all with the same brush. Of course lumping a disparate group like cyclists together is wrong – but that’s what people do, like it or not.
As for infrastructure, have you been to any other countries, except for a few cycle havens like the Netherlands and parts of Germany?! I wasn’t referring specifically to cycle infrastructure, where I think we’re fairly middle of the road (but still not “crap”), but when it comes to the design of our roads more generally yes, we are amongst the best. This is borne out by our roads also being amongst the safest per km/mile driven. Our infrastructure still needs improving – my point is simply that blaming infrastructure on why a cyclist cut up a lorry and then blamed the driver is utterly pathetic.
Feanor wrote:
The denial is your interpretation of what I wrote, not what I wrote.
Moreso, it’s your constant attempts to make things mutually exclusive. Of course better infrastructure would help. Of course bad driving is a major factor in cyclists getting killed.
But honestly, cyclists’ attitudes are also a huge factor. Yes, cyclists are a group – a group like any other, with huge diversity and many who don’t conform at all to the rest of the group. We’re on a friggin’ cyclists’ website debating on a cyclists’ forum. The attitudes being shown here by a vocal minority are absolutely symptomatic of why so many non-cyclists tar us all with the same brush. Of course lumping a disparate group like cyclists together is wrong – but that’s what people do, like it or not.
As for infrastructure, have you been to any other countries, except for a few cycle havens like the Netherlands and parts of Germany?! I wasn’t referring specifically to cycle infrastructure, where I think we’re fairly middle of the road (but still not “crap”), but when it comes to the design of our roads more generally yes, we are amongst the best. This is borne out by our roads also being amongst the safest per km/mile driven. Our infrastructure still needs improving – my point is simply that blaming infrastructure on why a cyclist cut up a lorry and then blamed the driver is utterly pathetic.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
What you wrote was perfectly clear, but you seem unable to understand your own words.
And, no, cyclists are not a ‘group’. Cycling is a mode of travel. And no, the ‘attitudes shown here’ are not ‘why so many non-cyclists tar us all with the same brush’. That’s your non-evidence-based assertion. And there is no ‘us’.
Most of all, only a small number of people cycle on the roads anyway Do you really think the ‘attitudes’ of that very small minority are the most important factor in whether the majority will consider cycling? I don’t really care that much about the small number who currently cycle, that’s not the main issue.
And as for ‘that’s what people do’ – yes, people think all sorts of silly things. Doesn’t mean you have to adopt their views as your own.
OK, it wasn’t clear I meant specifically cycle infrastructure, too accustomed to that being taken as a given. But in that regard we are clearly in the ‘crap’ category, which is why cycling has such a low share of travel.
As for the safety of our roads – you are ignoring the large number of deaths due to inactivity and pollution, which also are a consequence of our approach to transport policy and road design. Our roads are safe because everyone stays in armoured metal boxes – which has other negative concequences.
And I didn’t blame infrastructure for the details of this incident, as I haven’t watched it and don’t really care who’s to blame (though I very much doubt it would have happened if the lorry and cyclists weren’t on the same road, so actually, yes, even without watching it I can suspect infrastructure is the fundamental issue). I disagreed with your specific collective-responsibility comment.
Feanor wrote:
Seriously? Have you seen how far out in fron the first cyclists are? Or how far behind some of the cyclists must be. If he is that blind he should not be driving or the vehicle should not be on the road. That’s not even normal blind spots.
cqexbesd wrote:
The get out clause is the use of PROBABLY, but BECAUSE CAPITALS ARE USED, I GET THE FEELING THAT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THE STATEMENT AS BEING TRUE!!!!
So, pray tell dear Faenor, where the fuck did all these cyclists suddenly fucking appear from for the driver NOT to be aware that there were cyclists on the fucking road?
Have either of you watched
Have either of you watched that TFL video I posted?
Feanor wrote:
Have you ever made eye contact with the driver of an artic just to see what they can actually see. These videos are usually misleading and use badly aligned mirrors to prove a point. Have you ever seen an artic reversing without a banksman and avoid everything that’s in the supposed blindspot. Sorry Faenor you video proves not one thing except some drivers are too lazy to use their mirrors properly. After all they are legally covered if they carry the new get out of jail free card,
or similar stickers, aren’t they?
don simon wrote:
Are you seriously accusing TFL of making/posting a misleading video?
Feanor wrote:
Did it show the cyclists in perfect view of the mirrors as they rolled up to the waiting truck at the stop sign?
Did it show the waiting cyclists at the stop line as the truck drew to a halt?
I guess I am calling it misleading as the cyclists don’t suddenly appear as that video shows.
Do you blindly believe everything that’s presented to you that carries an official stamp?
don simon wrote:
1. No, it shows that the cyclists could see the mirrors. It doesn’t show that they can see the driver, ie that the driver could see them.
2. No, because it doesn’t show the truck drawing to a halt. The truck is already stationary when the cyclist with the helmet cam arrives. No way of knowing what happened beforehand.
3. Cyclists can suddenly appear, it depends when they arrive from.
4. No, but when it’s corroberated by multiple sources I do.
But OK, let’s keep doing dangerous things, keep upsetting drivers, keep whining about infrastructure and that drivers are out to get us, and keep defending idiot cyclists. It’ll be us cyclists who keep dying as a result.
Feanor wrote:
In the face of you agreeing that there are some rather important element missing, we can agree that it’s misleading. Cyclists do not appear out of nowhere, they are either in front of the truck as it rolls to the stop line or come from behind (and there’s a good chance that the truck has recently overtaken them and thusly aware of their presence). The only way they can suddenly appear is if the driver is not focused on driving. but this is London and there would appear to be so many cyclists that it becomes difficult to NOT be aware that there are cyclists around. Since when has having the nearside wheels on the double red lines been a natural driving line?
As for your last statement, I thought you worked for the TFL, but it looks like you’re too young to have a job. Extreme much?
don simon wrote:
Too young to have a job? I have worked and commuted in Paris, Rome, Berlin and across the Middle East and North Africa. I speak fluent German and passable French and Italian. Try again.
Feanor wrote:
Which, if it shows anything, shows that these things shouldn’t be on the road at all.
The blame is somewhat
The blame is somewhat irrelevent, the cyclist is the one who’ll be dead.
What manoeuvre was the truck
What manoeuvre was the truck making? Going forwards?
Absolutely shocking cycling
Absolutely shocking cycling from every cyclist who was in the left hand lane and went straight on. I wonder why some people think we are twats.
I’d put the blame partly on
I’d put the blame partly on infrastructure (no ASL) and partly on the cyclist.
I can see myself taking that kind of risk to get in front of a stationary lorry, but I’d definitely want to be in front of it (and visible to the driver) before the lights change. It’s not usually difficult to out-accelerate a lorry and make sure that you’re well in front, but it’s only worth doing that if you think you’re going to end up being quicker than the lorry. (Not much point pissing off the driver if it’s a long road before the next junction).
If you’re going to race against a vehicle, make sure they can see you.
The cyclist also should have either hit the brakes or mounted the pavement (risky, though) when the truck was pulling alongside him.
Yep, I don’t blame the driver for this.
Lot of first time posters on
Lot of first time posters on this one.
I reckon that bus jumped the
I reckon that bus jumped the lights.
It’s a tough one and really
It’s a tough one and really makes me appreciate context, I ride this section of road several times a week.. comments based on rush hour traffic..
Firstly the approach to the junction is always congested and you will be passing stationary traffic. Cyclists always pass on the left of traffic to the point it becomes three lanes from one. To pass on the right you get mixed up into the other two lanes and face the oncoming traffic in the other direction it’s fairly narrow.
Secondy the only place to wait if you’re going left or straight on is that left hand lane. Most vehicles would notice that unless they didn’t drive there recently or had unfortunately arrived there with no cyclist around which is pretty unlikely. Also if you carry on waiting there the cars behind looking to turn left will no doubt get a bit p*ssed off.
Thirdly the lane on the other side of the lights is wide. There’s absolutely no need for the driver to move that close to the kerb.
So.. the cyclist was in a bad position, but there are reasons why he was there, the driver didn’t need to drive in the way he did and could be more aware.
LJS wrote:
Now that is a fair comment. Thank you.
Selfish/impatient MGIFs push
Selfish/impatient MGIFs push to front of queue and then force their way in front of another road user from the incorrect lane.
anything else is pony.
I don’t cycle in the UK or
I don’t cycle in the UK or know all the nuances of your traffic laws, but from my perspective after watching the video, I believe the cyclist is in the wrong.
We drive on the opposite side in the States, but I would never come up on the insde of ANY vehicle – car, truck, bus, or semi (lorry) if the lane across the intersection was narrow and I could not make eye contact with the driver of the vehicle right next to me at the light.
Where I ride there are less cyclists and generally more space, and it appears we have a better infrastructure, so I won’t pretend to know or understand all the factors involved here. I will tell you that as an outsider looking in and an unaplogetic cycling fanatic, the ‘lads in lycra’ seem to be not only techinically in the wrong here, but their attitudes and arguments certainly won’t help endear them to anyone who is undecided on the issue.
I’ve tried to teach my children at around age three against arguing ‘everyone else is doing it’ to excuse poor behavior. It looks to me someone skipped this lesson.
Jeffree wrote:
And you ensure that by:
a) using a crystal ball before you set out so you know which intersections will narrow and not have an ASL and have a large vehicle waiting when you get there
or
b) getting to the intersection, realising your mistake, turning around and cycling against the flow of traffic to the previous intersection and hope there is room to join the end of the queue in the other lane once you are there
or
c) holding back at the intersection when you find yourself in that position, blocking any turning cars, until such a time as the right hand lane clears and you can proceed with no one next to you
or
d) getting off your bike and dashing for the footpath whenever the cars seem to need the road more than you
Or maybe cyclists should just go at the same speed as the motorised traffic and never pass, no matter what. It’s probably going faster than the drivers that makes them so angry in the first place.
These streets are narrow and crowded. They have to be shared. If you drive something unweildy that has to stop every 50m then just let the nimbler vehicles through. Driving slowly and carefully won’t damage your ego that much – even if you don’t much like some of the cyclists.
cqexbesd wrote:
Or
You do not use a lane clearly marked for left turn only when you want to go straight ahead unless you know there is an ASL. I do not accept that all 10 cyclists were unfamiliar with the junction and surprised to find there was not an ASL when they reached the lights.
OR
When you set off you let the truck pull ahead and merge into the traffic behind
OR
You proceed across the junction, stop before the pinch point and join the back of the queue when the lights change which my will not be blocking anyone turning left.
This is simply MGIF the only reason it is not as bad as when drivers do it Is the person trying to force their way through is gambling with his own life and not someone else’s. Truck driver has no chance here, cyclist enters and never leaves the trucks blind spot. Yes other cyclists have got in front but he has no way of knowing there are more those saying he should assume there are, effectively argue the lorry should stop mid junction until the lights change.
Until the laws prohibit these vehicles from city streets, cyclists have to acknowledge the drivers can’t see them there and ride accordingly.
Might as well blame the iceberg for sinking the titanic.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Lots of cyclists in front that could be seen. Lots of cyclists behind that could be seen. Why would you assume there is none in the middle? You can’t _know_ of course but assuming there isn’t seems a wild leap of faith.
He could go slow enough so he knows that any that might be in his blind spot will either have emerged in front or be going so slowly he can pass them before moving over them. He could also watch his mirrors to know new ones haven’t entered the blind spot whilst he does it. It won’t even slow his journey down – he’ll just have slightly less time in the next queue in front – and it may even save fuel.
But, if he had to stop rather than hit someone – well yeah I think he should have. The other day I got abused by a car driver for stopping for pedestrians crossing against the lights. I did wonder what would have happened if I hadn’t been in front of him. Maybe he would have just driven slow enough that the pedestrians could run.
cqexbesd wrote:
I ensure that by being familiar with the routes I ride when possible. I ensure that by being observant and aware at all times, keeping my attention on conditions, vehicles, and drivers around me. I ensure that by being cautious if there is a question of safety involved, using proper hand signals, not wearing earbuds, staying off my phone, and making eye contact with drivers when possible. I ensure that by following the traffic laws that govern both vehicles and riders. I ensure that by learning from my mistakes and listening to others with more experience than I have.
While I agree that driving slowly and carefully won’t damage the ego of a motorist, I believe that holds true for cyclists as well, regardless of who you do or don’t like.
As far as your bullet point suppositions involving ‘crystal balls’, cycling against the flow of traffic, dashing to the footpaths, etc… That just makes you look like a twit. I freely admitted I didn’t understand all of the nuances involved while cycling in your country, but rather than helping me understand better through your experience, you just attack me. Great job mate, and you wonder why there is so much contention between motorists and cyclists who both have a right to the roads and should learn to understand each other and get along.
Jeffree wrote:
It’s a common argument people make, not just about cycling. “If I was there I would have never made that mistake…”, “If I was attacked I would have fought him off with…”, “If I was born to a single parent on a council estate…”. Reasons given range from the sublime to the ridiculous.
I know its mostly just peoples mental defence mechanisms, explaining why the horrible thing couldn’t happen to them and maybe tied up with some just world hypothesis that they can’t articulate – but it’s annoying, repetitive, usually reactionary and it hurts any attempt at actually looking at why things happen. It is a way of shutting down any further thought.
So, if you were there, cycling along, taking the same route as the other cyclists and as you approached the stop line you noted it became a left turn lane and the lights were red and there was a truck next to you and a long queue of vehicles behind that – what would you have done? Just wait for a while to see if the queue of traffic on your right finishes? Or try to merge like the others, if not in front of the truck maybe in front of the vehicle behind? That’s just rhetorical – think about it or not, as you will.
I don’t wonder at all why there is contention. It’s a pretty standard setup with people doing something dangerous but doing it every day so it seems normal, the people with the power not being the ones that take the consequences, people having to concentrate on something that is boring but occasionally critical, a culture that suggests one group has more rights than another, a stressful environment and resources (i.e. road space, time) being scarce. The outcome we get I think is entirely predictable.
You are right though – we should all learn to understand each other and get along and that is why I think you should put yourself forward to negotiate peace in the middle east.
I’m with the lorry driver.
I’m with the lorry driver. That was a blind spot you don’t want to be in and it’s not like the lorry came out of no where. Both the cyclist are classic self entitled prat common place in London, probably sociopaths working in the finance sector. They ought to take a couple of cycle training courses and check their privileges..
The one think that gets me
The one think that gets me with these trucks is, that if the cyclist has to be 5 or 10m in front of the cab before the driver can see the cyclist. How come the twats can drive a couple of metres of my rear bumber in congested traffic AND see my brake lights?
Are the cyclists the MGIFs or the truck driver trying to overtake before stopping at the next set of lights. I need more info.
don simon wrote:
you’re just too slow, rule 5, harden the fk up
He damaged his paint work and
He damaged his paint work and then buggered off, what a prat.
So many dumb ways to die
So many dumb ways to die
Alan, put the beer or the
Alan, put the beer or the Internet down. It won’t end well.
davel wrote:
I think you’re right, haha, sorry
Much as I am sympathetic to
Much as I am sympathetic to the cyclist, I think he was in the wrong here; apparently the campaigns
about the dangers of going up the left of lorries has not reached everyone. Campaigns such as the recent:
http://road.cc/content/news/225372-campaigners-launch-insert-loved-one-here-photo-tool-highlight-inadequate
There would be some justice if the cyclist was the beardy guy from the “If you’re afraid you should n’t be on the f*cking road” video, he was enthusiastic about going up the left.
Blah blah blah…my first
Blah blah blah…my first emotive response was against the truck driver. Then I went back and realised they were all in the ‘left only’ lane and I realised what a mook the cyclist was
Sure ignore the lane markings but dont get in position where you get squished like a ripe avocado.
Your fault 100% mate…and congrats you just further emphasised the drivers view that cyclists (in London) are fuckwits
Cyclist idiot giving us all a
Cyclist idiot giving us all a bad name. He was clearly in a LH turn lane only and tried to cut in front. And as for the protests from the camera man, along the lines of:
“This is London, everyone cycles on the inside”
Perhaps if the London cyclists actually thought about their actions rather than thinking they are a) invincible, b) always right, there might be a few less deaths on the roads
Is it true that a left turn
Is it true that a left turn lane is advisory unless with accompanying wording? Does that wording get written on the road or on signs?
I think anyone who cannot
I think anyone who cannot understand just how profoundly in the wrong the cyclist in this video is needs to spend some time in the cab of a HGV being driven in an urban environment.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Which would also be evidence for how badly designed HGVs are, and how profoundly wrong it is to compel humans to share roads with them.
oldstrath wrote:
Which would also be evidence for how badly designed HGVs are, and how profoundly wrong it is to compel humans to share roads with them.— Mungecrundle
Changing the design of truck cabs to improve direct visibility and introducing technologies that can warn a driver of nearside objects such as cyclists can be done with time and money but rely on governments creating the necessary regulations, manufacturers implementing those and fleet operators upgrading their vehicles.
Obeying the rules of the road, being in the correct fricking lane and not being a dickhead are things within the control of the road user and can be implemented with no cost at all right now.
oldstrath wrote:
Which would also be evidence for how badly designed HGVs are, and how profoundly wrong it is to compel humans to share roads with them.— Mungecrundle
Ok, how else are you going stock every shop in the town centre if not with lorries? Say we move to massive trams, someone will still try an idiot move and get splatted by one. Then what? These things need to get to where they are going, if they stop for every cyclist that’s chancing their hand then nothing will get anywhere.
It’s 2017 not 1917.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Thats a hard one. If only there were some other large cities who also have shops and cyclists that we could look to for ideas.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
you’re right, it is 2017! We have autonomous electric vehicles, so let’s start using them, and they will stop for every cyclist that chances their arm, and there will be far fewer deaths on the road, not just from the reduction in two objects trying to fill the same space at the same time, but also from the reduction in pollution.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
None of which is an argument against redesigning the HGV, the infrastructure, or both.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
yet there are some European Capital cities out there where artics appear to be banned. It is possible if we accept that we don’t need these vehicles in urban areas. If we fight all options, we’re knackered.
Seem to 2 fairly distinct
Seem to 2 fairly distinct camps here.
Camp 1 – cyclist’s fault. Wrong lane.
Camp 2 – lorry at fault , should basically not bother to move from the spot ever, as cyclist’s may go up the inside forever and a day.
Like many people here when I
Like many people here when I first saw this video clip I believed that just the cyclist was at fault but having rewatched this several times I’m of the mind that there’s something more sinister about this than as first appears. In fact, the very first words that come out of the driver’s mouth pretty much damn him. When you hear what he says then rewatch the video it put’s a different spin on things entirely.
At 0:33 in the video when the cyclist filming is stationary you can clearly see the small curved blindspot mirror on the drivers’ cab. Any large vehicle driver who drives in London would know to expect cyclists on their left and the driver would be able to clearly see those cyclists in that mirror.
At 0:59 the lights change and the traffic moves forward. The driver of the lorry, presumably still aware he has cyclists to his left, moves forward and you can hear the sound of the lorry being accelerated hard.
The lorry driver may see cyclists ahead of him but he cannot know if all the cyclists have cleared the space around the cab of his vehicle. As the road narrows he makes no attempt to either slow or leave any reasonable space between the lorry and the kerb. Remember the lorry is behind the cyclist at this stage.
At 1:08 at point of impact the lorry is heading for a space that leaves no more than 18 inches between his front wheel and the kerb. He only turns away from the cyclist after the impact.
At 1:27 the driver can be heard remonstrating with the cyclist. At this point he hoists himself with his own petard. The driver knew where the cyclist had come from and where he was before he hit him. For avoidance of doubt the driver says (without the swearing)…
“You’ve gone in the left hand lane, and come on my inside on an Artic”
At 1:58 I think we hear him point out that the cyclist was in the left hand lane, ‘the wrong lane’.
The driver was aware that there were other road users who might be in danger and takes no action, in fact that actions he does take were irresponsible given the situation and at best careless and at worst dangerous/deadly.
Now, one could look at that and think, perhaps a truck driver who was pissed off at ‘bloody cyclists’ in the wrong lane, might want to give one of them a bit of a scare assuming that a cyclist would be conscious of the big lorry and forced to stop less be squashed. Perhaps it’s not the first time they have raced from the lights to squeeze a space so small a cyclist might slam the brakes on and curse some obscenities… Perhaps on one occasion it might go horribly wrong and lead to something like this, or worse. But I don’t want to speculate.
The lorry driver clearly knew, said he knew, and did nothing to prevent this from happening. That fault lays at his door and he is very lucky he didn’t kill that guy.
For balance, being up the left is not smart, and being up the left without looking over your shoulder to see where the big lorry is, is not smart. The female rider had the common sense to stay wide and that’s why it wasn’t her being bounced up the pavement.
But… poor infrastructure at those lights. If lorries use that road all the time (and they do) then it’s begging for a box at the front, especially as the road narrows ahead. Beyond daft.
This does throw up a bigger point though about the message to vehicle drivers about where the onus lies for safety. The driver of the lorry repeats, you are told not to come up the left. The onus is placed on the cyclist. Personal safety is of course one’s own responsibility but in this case the driver sees it as a green flag for him to ignore any responsibility he may have had for other road users around him. No wonder Chris Boardman and others have railed against that message. It’s almost an absolution to any non-cyclist to take whatever action they want without consequence; “sorry your honour, he was up the left and he shouldn’t have been there so I just carried on my merry way and had the bottom of the cab hosed down at the depot”.
The cyclist was a dick for riding off. He was involved in a collision so should have stood his ground. He was probably badly shaken up and in no state to ride off into one of the worst areas for cycling in the country either. Unbelievably later on there’s a guy riding up the pavement as well! Just a little cherry on the cake for all the cyclist-haters to froth over.
Lorry driver, dumb-arse, borderline psychotic
Cyclist – muppet
Local Council – derelict in their duties to safeguard all road users as usual – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea I believe… now where have I heard of them taking shortcuts with people’s lives before…
Feel free to tear to shreds, this is the Internet and I’m not precious.
2o2m.
Actually when looking at the
Actually when looking at the video several times I think the bike would have been visible and out of the blind spot. The driver accelerates really hard at that point so I have modified my view somewhat and believe the driver did act deliberatley. I would like to see this one hammered out in law!
I would never come out of a filter lane without extreme caution and making it clear to the driver that I had got the wrong lane. Being London apparently ignoring lane markings is normal behaviour?
whobiggs wrote:
Sorry, that’s ridiculous. There is no way at all that you can draw a reliable conclusion about whether the cyclist is in the drivers blind spot at all, not knowing how tall the driver is, how far forward his seat is, the angle of his mirror, the view rnage of the truck etc etc. And an Artic accelerates hard? Whatever.
The entire group of cyclists in the left turn lane that go straight ahead carry the largest part of the blame. The truck driver, if he got there before the cyclists has no reason to expect that they’re going to go straight ahead and may no know that they’re there. If he got there after them then they were in the left turn lane and so far as he knew were turning left. He has no need , and you wouldn’t expect him to, wait to see if they’re going to go straight ahead. After all, when was the last time you stopped in your car in that position and waited to see if the car in your blind spot to the left was going to go straight ahead instead of left? It’s unreasonable and impractical. Again, the cyclsts are really at fault. If they were there before the truck they should have waited in the correct lane, if they weren’t then they’ve put themselves knowingly in grave danger,.
Oh and knowing your vehicle
Oh and knowing your vehicle has terrible blind spots does not mean ignoring them!
Because they what…….?
Because they what…….?
My bad. If I’m honest,
My bad. If I’m honest, because they’re a bit thick. That’s my assumption anyway, if they can’t see that the driver deliberately squeezed the cyclist to the kerb… Or, at best, followed the others dangerously close.
Yep, just because someone cuts in front of you, it does not make it ok to continue to follow them at an unsafe distance. Every driver does it, but apparently that makes it ok, or maybe not, depending on who you listen to in this thread.
Cyclist caused the situation, truck driver made sure a collision occurred, some of you think this wasn’t intentional.
Also, for anyone saying the truck driver is an angel and totally blameless because he couldn’t see the cyclists… What are those THREE massive mirrors on the left side of his cab for, checking his wheels are going round?!
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I really think you need to jump in a truck and drive it for a bit. Those mirrors are to check on traffic around him. It’s well known that Lorries have significant blind spots (nearly all cars have a blind spot just behind the driver’s B pillar, and in the A pillar as you turn right). If you look at the video the cyclist stopped vertically below the mirrors. There is no way the truck driver could see him there. I’d suggest the first time he saw the cyclist was when he could see him in his mirrors, carelessly bouncing off his wheels as he was.
I can’t see any evidence to show the driver moved over and squashed the cyclist out.
So far as the motorway example goes, it has nothing to do with people cutting in in front of you; I’m talking about the queues and queues of traffic bombing along at 60 mph with perhaps 4 car lengths between them.
If you can’t see some of these self obvious truths, you’re clearly well experienced to call others thick
The Driver is not an angel, but the lion’s share of blame lies, as has been exhaustively pointed out, with the cyclists. (and the leopard’s share, and the giraffe’s share too)
i’m afraid I have to agree
i’m afraid I have to agree with the lorry driver in that the cyclist was in the left hand lane, which is normally accepted as turning left only. Personally I would not be positioning myself on the lhs of a lorry in his blindspot. And “just because everyone else does it” does’nt make it right!
Sorry on this one – I can understand the lorry driver’s anger but he was not totally correct in what he was saying either.
The arguments above in
The arguments above in support of the driver all pretty much use a defence of not being aware of the cyclists or not knowing which direction they were turning. The arguments for him being in the right and by implication not needing to be concerned about the other road users regardless of the implied danger beggar belief.
As I’ve said before his own words show he was aware. He knew group of cyclists were to his left. This is not a point one can argue as he admits it himself.
Being aware he made a conscious decision to ignore the fact and drive in a way that was irresponsible given the situation. I stress again he was lucky he did not kill that cyclist.
Why he took that decision is really the bigger question. I refer back to my previous post about the road safety message to cyclists and drivers.
In this particular incident, the driver simply decides they are in the wrong, he is right, and therefore had the right to proceed without any requirement to consider the cyclists. This decision ignore the fact that the Highway Code is clear about the need to be aware of other road users and act accordingly.
Nothing anyone had said on here in defence of the driver challenges that requirement to drive in a manner that suits the environment. Before you think you’ve found an argument, go back and listen to the driver’s first words. He knew there was a large group of cyclists to his left, he could not be sure what their intentions were and in accordance with the Highway Code he should have moved away more cautiously from the lights but instead choose to gun his engine and dominate the whole left lane.
2o2m