Lorry in Advanced Stop Box blamed for cyclists' death

Porgy

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=1660
It's a junction I use most days and consider to be pretty hazardous at best of times. I think a pedestrian was killed here not so long ago too.

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1661
government want us to cycle, but won;t make it safe for beginners.

anyway - thought peeps might be interested.

markos1963

Even with a witness another example of why we are treated with no respect on the roads. Perhaps we should think of petitioning the government to introduce road tax for cycles as this seems to be the excuse that cagers use in arguements about our presence on the road. Although I think we'll still be nothing more than roadkill to the average motorist.

Porgy

i believe that the government should be advocates on our behalf - a public information campaign - why we don't pay vehicle tax, why we have a right on the road and what they need to do to help us stay safe.

the words wind and pi55ing come to mind though.

downfader

The road tax "issue" is just a red herring. Those that do actually beleive in this notion wont be happy until cyclists are paying £250 to be "equal" to motorists, and then the debate will shift to "you're too small, too slow, get in my way, get off the road you're causing conflict" in full.

With ASLs I often wont filter down into a couple of the local ones as a) they aint that big and b) I feel it unsafe to do so. I do wholehertedly feel that they are pointless unless you allow a headstart for cyclists. I'm only talking 5 seconds here and it is reasonably easy to adapt the lights system, the difficulty comes with the costs involved.

rake

i wonder if theyre ok with the postman bringing their mail by bike. it would never get there if they had to ' get out of the way ' its pretty amazing how climbing into a vehicle affects character. if a large individual muscled smaller people off the pavements it wouldnt have much support (i hope). would they try it walking?

Mike Healey

Witness who was with her quoted as: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front."

Does this imply that the driver was there first? If so, then trying to get to the front may have been unwise., especially if he was already signalling left.

markos1963

Mike Healey wrote:

Witness who was with her quoted as: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front."

Does this imply that the driver was there first? If so, then trying to get to the front may have been unwise., especially if he was already signalling left.

So this offense is punishable by death then? Its the car drivers responsibility to take all reasonable steps to be safe before turning, if the lights were red he would have had enough time to see them if he had bothered to look. Or he missjudged the speed of the cyclist and thought he had enough time to turn regardless.

downfader

markos1963 wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

Witness who was with her quoted as: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front."

Does this imply that the driver was there first? If so, then trying to get to the front may have been unwise., especially if he was already signalling left.

So this offense is punishable by death then? Its the car drivers responsibility to take all reasonable steps to be safe before turning, if the lights were red he would have had enough time to see them if he had bothered to look. Or he missjudged the speed of the cyclist and thought he had enough time to turn regardless.

No one is saying anything about punishment. The driver did not punish the cyclist for making a mistake (and to be fair both the cyclist and the driver made mistakes that lead to this terrible consequence)

We dont know if he did have time to stop, was he a UK driver? - if he was foreign he may not have known about ASLs....

markos1963

People are always trying to mitigate someones actions in some way eg If he hadn't been riding down a country road then the Chav in a tarted up 106 playing rally driver wouldn't have hit him.

The same thing about being foreign, whats that got to do with it, if you or I were in a different country does that give us the right to knock over pedestrians?

My dad was a driving instructor for a while and his instructor reckoned that 99% of all 'accidents' weren't. They were the poor choices of the participants involved and therefore not really accidents, accidents are avoidable if people did things correctly(using the excuse 'we're only human' doesn't cut the mustard)

downfader

markos1963 wrote:

People are always trying to mitigate someones actions in some way eg If he hadn't been riding down a country road then the Chav in a tarted up 106 playing rally driver wouldn't have hit him.

The same thing about being foreign, whats that got to do with it, if you or I were in a different country does that give us the right to knock over pedestrians?

My dad was a driving instructor for a while and his instructor reckoned that 99% of all 'accidents' weren't. They were the poor choices of the participants involved and therefore not really accidents, accidents are avoidable if people did things correctly(using the excuse 'we're only human' doesn't cut the mustard)

I'm not mitigating I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. You motioned that it was punitive when we dont have any fact to base that on. Being foreign has a lot to do with it, locally I know about 15% of LGV drivers arent from the UK, they are coming through the docks from abroad. Foreign law and driving situations can conflict, ideally if you're going to drive in another country you read up, some of the foreign workers havent or dont bother. We're just as bad as a nation of road users when we're abroad.

TBH I agree with your Dad. A lot of the crap that happens is easily avoided. By definition an acident is unavoidable as your Father's instructor implied.

markos1963

This is the problem, we are too quick to label something as an accident when in fact it should be called an incident. In my industry(railways) its always called an incident until all the possible causes are looked at and no other explanation is offered. In the time I have been there I have never heard the term 'It was an accident' there has always been an explanation for an event.

spen666

markos1963 wrote:

This is the problem, we are too quick to label something as an accident when in fact it should be called an incident. In my industry(railways) its always called an incident until all the possible causes are looked at and no other explanation is offered. In the time I have been there I have never heard the term 'It was an accident' there has always been an explanation for an event.

I disagree - its an accident if it was not deliberate

The fact it is an accident does not mean that blame does not attach to one party.

Far too much time and effort is wasted on semantics whether ijts an accident, a collision, an incident, a bump, a bang or whatever is irrelevant the label on it.

We need to look at the reality, not waste time arguing about the label.

you call it an incident, I can call it an accident- its irrelevant.

What matters is what we do about it

G-Wiz

I disagree - its an accident if it was not deliberate

I disagree, too many things are called 'accidents' when they are down to carelessness, or recklessness.

Noone 'deliberately' knocks cyclists off their bikes (well, not many people), but plenty of collisions could be avoided if drivers took the care that they should.

'Accident' is used too often by people who won't take responsibility for their own actions but can't find anyone else to blame. Accidents can't be avoided, careless and reckless drivers can.

markos1963's distinction is quite useful in that respect.

It's got to the state that people see car use as a right, rather than a privilege, so taking it off them is nigh on impossible.

spen666

G-Wiz wrote:

I disagree - its an accident if it was not deliberate

I disagree, too many things are called 'accidents' when they are down to carelessness, or recklessness.

Noone 'deliberately' knocks cyclists off their bikes (well, not many people), but plenty of collisions could be avoided if drivers took the care that they should.

'Accident' is used too often by people who won't take responsibility for their own actions but can't find anyone else to blame. Accidents can't be avoided, careless and reckless drivers can.

markos1963's distinction is quite useful in that respect.

It's got to the state that people see car use as a right, rather than a privilege, so taking it off them is nigh on impossible.

If you want to waste time and energy on semantics rather than on dealing with the problem- great but I hate to point out to you that its being hit by vehicles that cause injury, not the use of the word to describe what happened.

An accident is not something that happens without fault or blame. An accident is something that is not deliberate.

The fact that blame attaches does not prevent it being an accident.


What is the relevance of someone seeing driving as a right to whether something is accidental or not?


On a personal note, I'm currently off work and have been for a number of months as a resul;t of an accident whilst cycling. A car driver, driving like a pratt drove straight into the back of me as I was riding along a straight road. I am awaiting to see if I need an operation.

The drivewr was 100% to blame ( witnesses confirm this). It was however still an accident as driver did not deliberately drive into me. He simply had not seen me- not paying attention.

I will be sueing and am waiting to see if police prosecute. However. it is still an accident

markos1963

spen666 wrote:

G-Wiz wrote:

I disagree - its an accident if it was not deliberate

I disagree, too many things are called 'accidents' when they are down to carelessness, or recklessness.

Noone 'deliberately' knocks cyclists off their bikes (well, not many people), but plenty of collisions could be avoided if drivers took the care that they should.

'Accident' is used too often by people who won't take responsibility for their own actions but can't find anyone else to blame. Accidents can't be avoided, careless and reckless drivers can.

markos1963's distinction is quite useful in that respect.

It's got to the state that people see car use as a right, rather than a privilege, so taking it off them is nigh on impossible.

If you want to waste time and energy on semantics rather than on dealing with the problem- great but I hate to point out to you that its being hit by vehicles that cause injury, not the use of the word to describe what happened.

An accident is not something that happens without fault or blame. An accident is something that is not deliberate.

The fact that blame attaches does not prevent it being an accident.


What is the relevance of someone seeing driving as a right to whether something is accidental or not?


On a personal note, I'm currently off work and have been for a number of months as a resul;t of an accident whilst cycling. A car driver, driving like a pratt drove straight into the back of me as I was riding along a straight road. I am awaiting to see if I need an operation.

The drivewr was 100% to blame ( witnesses confirm this). It was however still an accident as driver did not deliberately drive into me. He simply had not seen me- not paying attention.

I will be sueing and am waiting to see if police prosecute. However. it is still an accident

So you are saying that its an accident, fine, so why are you waiting for the police to prosecute then, they can't charge him with accidental driving. you say semantics are irrelevant well I think in your case they have total relevance. With your seaming experience with the law I would have thought you would know that the law was based on the interpretation of words

spen666

markos1963 wrote:

...

So you are saying that its an accident, fine, so why are you waiting for the police to prosecute then, they can't charge him with accidental driving. you say semantics are irrelevant well I think in your case they have total relevance. With your seaming experience with the law I would have thought you would know that the law was based on the interpretation of words[/quote]


As I have posted repeatedly here and you seem to ignore

The fact that something is accidental does not mean that blame does not attach.

The driver in my accident. Did not intend to hit me. The accident, was just that accidental.

His driving however fell below the standard of the reasonable driver and on that basis, he is IMHO guilty of careless driving


I'll repeat once again for you
The use of the term accident does not mean that there is no blame

markos1963

Well thats fine Spen666 I hope you win your case but I wouldn't go into court myself and start throwing the word 'accidental' around. I would imagine his lawyers would have a field day with that.

shouldbeinbed

30+ tons of badly designed metal ( from a bike point of view) vs a few stone of offal in a jumper in an enclosed arena- do the maths.

we are vulnerable with the law or without it and have a duty of care to ourselves not to assume some arrogant god given right to get to the front of any queue no matter how hazardous a place that might be and then point the finger everywhere else if things pan out badly.

yes the truck driver likely made a bad choice to go into the ASB but the cyclists made a whole range of bad choices themselves to place themselves in the position, then they did not get out of it. They participated very heavily to create that outcome. They weren't passive and unlucky bystanders caught by someone elses failings (like Spen) they manufactured the position they were in that allowed someone elses inattention to kill.

I genuinely don't understand the mentality of cyclists like this

I'll take staying alive over asserting my legal right or filtering just because I can any day.

Paulie W

Aboslutely not commenting directly on this case because I dont know the details but it frustrates the hell out of me that so many cyclists see it as a mission to get to the front of the row of traffic at junctions and traffic lights no matter what that takes. IME in the majority of cases there is absolutely no advantage to being at the front. I think ASLs have helped to create this drive - people allow the road markings to override their common sense.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

...

So you are saying that its an accident, fine, so why are you waiting for the police to prosecute then, they can't charge him with accidental driving. you say semantics are irrelevant well I think in your case they have total relevance. With your seaming experience with the law I would have thought you would know that the law was based on the interpretation of words

As I have posted repeatedly here and you seem to ignore

The fact that something is accidental does not mean that blame does not attach.

The driver in my accident. Did not intend to hit me. The accident, was just that accidental.

His driving however fell below the standard of the reasonable driver and on that basis, he is IMHO guilty of careless driving


I'll repeat once again for you
The use of the term accident does not mean that there is no blame[/quote]




Sorry to hear that you have fallen victim to a moton spen :shock: . Hope you are healing well and you will soon be cycling again. I must admit I didn't have you down as a cyclist despite this being a cycling forum. I thought you used it for sharpening your legal skills .

How do you know that the driver who ran into you didn't try to run you down, not you personally (one hopes), but as a cyclist? How can you determine what his/her intention was? Is it wise to be speculating on a public forum on your own case as it MAY help the other side if they watch or contribute and can put 2+2 together?

I am a beleiver that in general usage such as in traffic reports the word ACCIDENT should not be used as most people beleive it means an unavoidable event that occurs where two parties suffer injury or damage to property where no party is at fault. I think the use of words CRASH or COLLISION are far more suitable and would remove the false sense that road traffic accidents are BLAMELESS occurances which cannot be avoided when clearly they can. Trouble is most people do not take your understanding of the word accident.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

.....




Sorry to hear that you have fallen victim to a moton spen :shock: . Hope you are healing well and you will soon be cycling again. I must admit I didn't have you down as a cyclist despite this being a cycling forum. I thought you used it for sharpening your legal skills .

How do you know that the driver who ran into you didn't try to run you down, not you personally (one hopes), but as a cyclist? How can you determine what his/her intention was? Is it wise to be speculating on a public forum on your own case as it MAY help the other side if they watch or contribute and can put 2+2 together?

I am a beleiver that in general usage such as in traffic reports the word ACCIDENT should not be used as most people beleive it means an unavoidable event that occurs where two parties suffer injury or damage to property where no party is at fault. I think the use of words CRASH or COLLISION are far more suitable and would remove the false sense that road traffic accidents are BLAMELESS occurances which cannot be avoided when clearly they can. Trouble is most people do not take your understanding of the word accident.

I have seen the statements of 2 independent witnesses and spoken to others who say driving of moorist before the accident. His driving was poor and had caused several motorists to take note of him before he hit me. He ewas weaving in and out of lanes at speed. He was clearly not paying attention to what was going on

I do not for one minute suggest his driving into me was deliberate and am happy to state that publically.

It was an accident. The driver whilst driving like a pratt did stop at the scene, offered to take me home, and even called me 2 days later to see how I was. That is not consistent with deliberately running someone down- at least not normally

BTW Thanks for your concerns- - not recovering well, am still off work as injured my knee and can't walk properly any distance so cant get to work or sit at a desk for any length of time

spen666

BTW if it was deliberate, I suspect they were put up to it by any one of several members of this forum!

You all hate me

Porgy

markos1963 wrote:

This is the problem, we are too quick to label something as an accident when in fact it should be called an incident. In my industry(railways) its always called an incident until all the possible causes are looked at and no other explanation is offered. In the time I have been there I have never heard the term 'It was an accident' there has always been an explanation for an event.

My approach exactly. I too work in the railways and every incident has a root cause, even a bloke who banged himself on the thumb with his own hammer - turned out in the subesequent investigation that he was using an unapproved hammer with a poor grip. Bulletin sent out reminding staff of the importance of using approved tools, job done. Labelling things as accidents do not help you get to the root cause.

I wish we were as vigilant with road incidents as we are with railway incidents. But I guess it's only lives at stake, not money, so who cares?

dennisn

Being on the other side of the pond, I'm not sure what an "advanced stop box" is.
Anyone?

Porgy

dennisn wrote:

Being on the other side of the pond, I'm not sure what an "advanced stop box" is.
Anyone?

one of these
http://www.cycling.bham.ac.uk/images/SafeSec/AdvStopLine.jpg


they're for taxis, motorbikes and mopeds. the bicycle sign within means cyclists keep out.

Paulie W

It's a marked off area ahead of the stop line for motorised vehicles at junctions which is notionally not supposed to be entered by motorised vehicles, i.e. its a space that bikes can move into to get them ahead of the traffic.

Paulie W

Porgy wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

This is the problem, we are too quick to label something as an accident when in fact it should be called an incident. In my industry(railways) its always called an incident until all the possible causes are looked at and no other explanation is offered. In the time I have been there I have never heard the term 'It was an accident' there has always been an explanation for an event.

My approach exactly. I too work in the railways and every incident has a root cause, even a bloke who banged himself on the thumb with his own hammer - turned out in the subesequent investigation that he was using an unapproved hammer with a poor grip. Bulletin sent out reminding staff of the importance of using approved tools, job done. Labelling things as accidents do not help you get to the root cause.

I wish we were as vigilant with road incidents as we are with railway incidents. But I guess it's only lives at stake, not money, so who cares?

I dont disagree with the notion that we should be looking at the root cause of incidents but isnt your example a case of, I dont know, incident investigation gone mad (or is that your point and I'm missing the joke?)

Porgy

Paulie W wrote:

Porgy wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

This is the problem, we are too quick to label something as an accident when in fact it should be called an incident. In my industry(railways) its always called an incident until all the possible causes are looked at and no other explanation is offered. In the time I have been there I have never heard the term 'It was an accident' there has always been an explanation for an event.

My approach exactly. I too work in the railways and every incident has a root cause, even a bloke who banged himself on the thumb with his own hammer - turned out in the subesequent investigation that he was using an unapproved hammer with a poor grip. Bulletin sent out reminding staff of the importance of using approved tools, job done. Labelling things as accidents do not help you get to the root cause.

I wish we were as vigilant with road incidents as we are with railway incidents. But I guess it's only lives at stake, not money, so who cares?

I dont disagree with the notion that we should be looking at the root cause of incidents but isnt your example a case of, I dont know, incident investigation gone mad (or is that your point and I'm missing the joke?)

no - i chose a trivial sounding example on purpose because I wanted to highlight that even simple sounding incidents - and on the face of it obviously accidents - turn out to be negiligence on someone's part.

the reason an investigation was held is becasue the guy took a day off work, which then becomes a money issue. By proving that it was his own negligence we can dock his pay, and stop any possible action he might take against the company.

also - we were able to clamp down on a growing trend of people bringing in their own tools before something more serious occured.

Mike Healey

markos1963 wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

Witness who was with her quoted as: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front."

Does this imply that the driver was there first? If so, then trying to get to the front may have been unwise., especially if he was already signalling left.

So this offense is punishable by death then? Its the car drivers responsibility to take all reasonable steps to be safe before turning, if the lights were red he would have had enough time to see them if he had bothered to look. Or he missjudged the speed of the cyclist and thought he had enough time to turn regardless.

Sorry Marcos, but I did not describe her behaviour as an offence. I simply observed that, from the description of the witness, who was riding with her, that it appears that the lorry was already in the ASL, in which her decision to ride up alongside was, perhaps, unwise.

As for the driver seeing her, it should be perfectly clear from other threads on this forum, that there are considerable blind spots on any lorry. This being so, and if she was in a blind spot, then blame does not fall on him.

dennisn

Paulie W wrote:

It's a marked off area ahead of the stop line for motorised vehicles at junctions which is notionally not supposed to be entered by motorised vehicles, i.e. its a space that bikes can move into to get them ahead of the traffic.

Interesting. Seems like a good idea. IMHO I think it's somewhat safer for cyclists to be at the head of traffic, at a stop, and not mixed in in the "lineup", so to speak. Lets everyone see you(hopefully). I always try and go to the front. Not because I'm trying to get an advantage but I just feel safer starting off to the side and gradually working my way back into the flow as the cars come around me.

markos1963

Mike Healey wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

Witness who was with her quoted as: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front."

Does this imply that the driver was there first? If so, then trying to get to the front may have been unwise., especially if he was already signalling left.

So this offense is punishable by death then? Its the car drivers responsibility to take all reasonable steps to be safe before turning, if the lights were red he would have had enough time to see them if he had bothered to look. Or he missjudged the speed of the cyclist and thought he had enough time to turn regardless.

Sorry Marcos, but I did not describe her behaviour as an offence. I simply observed that, from the description of the witness, who was riding with her, that it appears that the lorry was already in the ASL, in which her decision to ride up alongside was, perhaps, unwise.

As for the driver seeing her, it should be perfectly clear from other threads on this forum, that there are considerable blind spots on any lorry. This being so, and if she was in a blind spot, then blame does not fall on him.

I can see where you guys are going to with this one and I understand your point. What I am trying to get to is if the lorry overtook the biker before the ASL and THEN turned left its a different case and not an accident, possibly dangerous driving? ie the lorry driver having overtaken the biker maybe 100 yards before the junction should have expected the cyclist to still be in the vicinity and made sure before turning that the cyclist hadn't slipped up the inside not having seen the lorries indicators.(we have all seen how late some drivers leave it before indicating)