usual frothing in the comments....

asprilla

Paulie W wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Cyclist would be invisible to the driver if he was alonside the cab - Cycling + did an article on HGV visibility - there is an area alongside the cab and immediately in front of the vehicle where a cyclist would be completely invisible.

Why would you ride up alongside a vehicle (HGV or otherwise) which is signalling a left turn ?

But surely the point is that he didnt just magically appear in the blind spot; he perhaps foolishly rode into it but the HGV driver had time to see him before he disappeared into the blind spot but appears not to have checked his inside mirror.

And the driver is just supposed to be staring at his left mirror for all this time is he or is he actually allowed to check his other mirrors or perhaps look out of his windscreen, or change the radio station?

Paulie W

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Cyclist would be invisible to the driver if he was alonside the cab - Cycling + did an article on HGV visibility - there is an area alongside the cab and immediately in front of the vehicle where a cyclist would be completely invisible.

Why would you ride up alongside a vehicle (HGV or otherwise) which is signalling a left turn ?

But surely the point is that he didnt just magically appear in the blind spot; he perhaps foolishly rode into it but the HGV driver had time to see him before he disappeared into the blind spot but appears not to have checked his inside mirror.

And the driver is just supposed to be staring at his left mirror for all this time is he or is he actually allowed to check his other mirrors or perhaps look out of his windscreen, or change the radio station?

The report - whether you accept it or not is another question - suggests that there was an extended period when the driver could have seen the cyclist approaching on his left. So it doesnt require him to sit with his eyes glued to the left mirror.

Wallace1492

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Any independent proof the driver was indicating?

Why wasn't the prosecution witness called?

No-one has called into question whether the lorry was indicating. Do you not think that if it was in question, then it would have been used? I am sure teh CCTV footage showed the lorry indicating.

asprilla

Paulie W wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Cyclist would be invisible to the driver if he was alonside the cab - Cycling + did an article on HGV visibility - there is an area alongside the cab and immediately in front of the vehicle where a cyclist would be completely invisible.

Why would you ride up alongside a vehicle (HGV or otherwise) which is signalling a left turn ?

But surely the point is that he didnt just magically appear in the blind spot; he perhaps foolishly rode into it but the HGV driver had time to see him before he disappeared into the blind spot but appears not to have checked his inside mirror.

And the driver is just supposed to be staring at his left mirror for all this time is he or is he actually allowed to check his other mirrors or perhaps look out of his windscreen, or change the radio station?

The report - whether you accept it or not is another question - suggests that there was an extended period when the driver could have seen the cyclist approaching on his left. So it doesnt require him to sit with his eyes glued to the left mirror.

A whole 12 seconds, I believe.

Paulie W

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Cyclist would be invisible to the driver if he was alonside the cab - Cycling + did an article on HGV visibility - there is an area alongside the cab and immediately in front of the vehicle where a cyclist would be completely invisible.

Why would you ride up alongside a vehicle (HGV or otherwise) which is signalling a left turn ?

But surely the point is that he didnt just magically appear in the blind spot; he perhaps foolishly rode into it but the HGV driver had time to see him before he disappeared into the blind spot but appears not to have checked his inside mirror.

And the driver is just supposed to be staring at his left mirror for all this time is he or is he actually allowed to check his other mirrors or perhaps look out of his windscreen, or change the radio station?

The report - whether you accept it or not is another question - suggests that there was an extended period when the driver could have seen the cyclist approaching on his left. So it doesnt require him to sit with his eyes glued to the left mirror.

A whole 12 seconds, I believe.

So what's your point here? That there is no onus on the driver of a very large vehicle with significant blind spots that is turning left to check his left mirror at regular intervals for cyclists given that cyclists are frequently directed to undertake by the road markings? And 12 seconds is 12 seconds - enough time to check all your mirrors a couple of times, have a quick scratch and find a better radio station.

And by the way I'm not saying that there is no onus on the cyclist to make decisions that do not put him/her in danger. I'm just pointing out that this is not a straightforward story of a dumb cyclist merrily riding to his doom.

veronese68

I can't speak for Asprilla but the point I was trying to make is that there's a lot going on at a junction. Plenty of other things to be paying attention to. There could have been a particularly attractive young lady crossing the road that stopped him looking in the mirror for a few seconds. He may have looked in his mirrors as he was slowing down, again before setting off and relied on preipheral vision in between. I don't know.
I'm sure we've all been guilty of being distracted for a moment at some point. Unfortunately this moment of distraction can have disastrous consequences. I don't expect a driver to be sat at a junction with his eyes glued to his mirrors.
I'm not saying the lorry driver is without fault, there is blame in both camps. I can understand how it could happen though. But as the vulnerable one in this case the onus is on the cyclist to look after his own safety. I think someone said earlier in this thread "But, I had right of way" doesn't look good on a gravestione.

bails87

The driver *should* have been checking his mirrors. He's a professional driver, in control of a dangerous machine, next to a cycle lane after all.

The cyclist shouldn't have gone up the left of a left indicating vehicle, what did he think was going to happen?!

sketchley

bails87 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Fault of the lorry driver was blocking the ASL

The lorry could have been completely legally in the ASL, not saying he was, but it's not automatically a 'guilty' marker.

As I said

Fault of the lorry driver was blocking the ASL and failing to check for a cyclist before turning

coopster_the_1st

Paulie W wrote:

So what's your point here? That there is no onus on the driver of a very large vehicle with significant blind spots that is turning left to check his left mirror at regular intervals for cyclists given that cyclists are frequently directed to undertake by the road markings? And 12 seconds is 12 seconds - enough time to check all your mirrors a couple of times, have a quick scratch and find a better radio station.

And by the way I'm not saying that there is no onus on the cyclist to make decisions that do not put him/her in danger. I'm just pointing out that this is not a straightforward story of a dumb cyclist merrily riding to his doom.

There are many times I am angered when the driver is at fault for the crash but in this situation as described, the majority of the blame sits with the cyclist. We can argue that cycle lanes send you up the left side at junctions, all vehicles have blind spots, etc, but common sense has to prevail here.

How are we as a group to be respected as road users if we want to be allowed to perform stupid actions but then put the blame on the other party? The cyclist getting anything out of this case as it is described is just going to alienate us more to the haulage community. We want to be working together not against each other!

sketchley

The fact the cyclist was stupid does not change the guilt (if any) of the lorry driver.
The guilt (if any) of the lorry driver does not change the fact the cyclist was stupid.

They be different things.

Also had the lorry driver stopped at first white line then cyclist would not of been next to his door and would have been enough distance in front (had he stopped at second line) for the driver to see him. After all this is what ASLs are designed for, and not as many motorist think to give cyclist head starts. Had that bizarre set of circumstances occurred where the driver happened to have gone over the first line on green (amber means stop after all) but due to traffic had been unable to cross the second line before it turn red (so he was legally in the ASL*) then he should have been doubly aware of the danger he presented to cyclists, especially as he was turning left and should have taken more care. The cyclist was still stupid (see above), however if the lorry was a long lorry then he may of not been able to see that the lorry driver was blocking the ASL (this has happened to me leading too a sh!t what am I doing here moment).

*note the lorry tachograph should be able to show when he entered the ASL and how this compared to light sequence

Wallace1492

I think we all agree that there is blame on both sides.

Can we just learn from this and move on.

Tell as many cycling folk you know not to filter up the inside of a lorry, be it indicating or not. It simply is not worth it.

asprilla

Paulie W wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Cyclist would be invisible to the driver if he was alonside the cab - Cycling + did an article on HGV visibility - there is an area alongside the cab and immediately in front of the vehicle where a cyclist would be completely invisible.

Why would you ride up alongside a vehicle (HGV or otherwise) which is signalling a left turn ?

But surely the point is that he didnt just magically appear in the blind spot; he perhaps foolishly rode into it but the HGV driver had time to see him before he disappeared into the blind spot but appears not to have checked his inside mirror.

And the driver is just supposed to be staring at his left mirror for all this time is he or is he actually allowed to check his other mirrors or perhaps look out of his windscreen, or change the radio station?

The report - whether you accept it or not is another question - suggests that there was an extended period when the driver could have seen the cyclist approaching on his left. So it doesnt require him to sit with his eyes glued to the left mirror.

A whole 12 seconds, I believe.

So what's your point here? That there is no onus on the driver of a very large vehicle with significant blind spots that is turning left to check his left mirror at regular intervals for cyclists given that cyclists are frequently directed to undertake by the road markings? And 12 seconds is 12 seconds - enough time to check all your mirrors a couple of times, have a quick scratch and find a better radio station.

And by the way I'm not saying that there is no onus on the cyclist to make decisions that do not put him/her in danger. I'm just pointing out that this is not a straightforward story of a dumb cyclist merrily riding to his doom.

12 seconds is plenty of time to check your left mirror and it's also small enough that it can be taken up looking at other hazards. The fact the driver didn't check his mirror in those particular 12 seconds could simply have been dumb luck whereas cycling up the left of a left indicating articulated vehicle and sitting in it's blind spot is just dumb.

Mr Sworld

Sketchley wrote:

*note the lorry tachograph should be able to show when he entered the ASL and how this compared to light sequence

Even digital tachographs are only accurate to a minute (or so I'm led to believe) so I don't think that could be proved. GPS data would prove it however.

asprilla

Mr Sworld wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

*note the lorry tachograph should be able to show when he entered the ASL and how this compared to light sequence

Even digital tachographs are only accurate to a minute (or so I'm led to believe) so I don't think that could be proved. GPS data would prove it however.

GPS is only accurate to 12 feet (ish)

clarkey cat

The fact the cyclist was stupid does not change the guilt (if any) of the lorry driver.
The guilt (if any) of the lorry driver does not change the fact the cyclist was stupid.

however, just because he may be guilty of entering an ASL illegally doesn't mean that he is guilty of dangerous driving or whatever other charge is being laid upon him.

shouldbeinbed

Paulie W wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Cyclist would be invisible to the driver if he was alonside the cab - Cycling + did an article on HGV visibility - there is an area alongside the cab and immediately in front of the vehicle where a cyclist would be completely invisible.

Why would you ride up alongside a vehicle (HGV or otherwise) which is signalling a left turn ?

But surely the point is that he didnt just magically appear in the blind spot; he perhaps foolishly rode into it but the HGV driver had time to see him before he disappeared into the blind spot but appears not to have checked his inside mirror.

And the driver is just supposed to be staring at his left mirror for all this time is he or is he actually allowed to check his other mirrors or perhaps look out of his windscreen, or change the radio station?

The report - whether you accept it or not is another question - suggests that there was an extended period when the driver could have seen the cyclist approaching on his left. So it doesnt require him to sit with his eyes glued to the left mirror.

12 seconds. Maybe for 1/3 of that time (seconds 1-4) he was checking the LH mirror and did see the cyclist, then (not unreasonably) thought I'm in a huge vehicle indicating my intention to turn left and he is clearly behind me and can see this, no one would be so f*#@ing stupid as to pull alongside me here, they'd have to be a reckless suicidal cretin, I think I'll be a responsible lorry driver & check the front and right side of my vehicle. Then sweeping back to the left mirror and not seeing the cyclist he (not unreasonably) assumes the cyclist is not a suicidal cretin with zero awareness & has pulled up and is waiting behind the lorry as any other road user would do.

12 seconds isn't a long time when broken down into a full sweep of the surroundings. I'm hard pressed to criticise the driver on the superficial data we have. HGV possible legitimate /possibly not ASL encroachment vs the cyclist having 12 seconds of clearly seeing a known cycle killer vehicle type indicating the main cycle killer manoeuvre & still put himself in a known cycle killer blindspot beside a big heavy wheel nearly as big as himself, then complaining when it goes wrong for him.

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

I think we all agree that there is blame on both sides.

Can we just learn from this and move on.

Tell as many cycling folk you know not to filter up the inside of a lorry, be it indicating or not. It simply is not worth it.

Okay, I'll start.

Sketchley wrote:

The cyclist was still stupid (see above), however if the lorry was a long lorry then he may of not been able to see that the lorry driver was blocking the ASL (this has happened to me leading too a sh!t what am I doing here moment).

Don't undertake lorries!

jds_1981

Sketchley wrote:

The cyclist was still stupid (see above), however if the lorry was a long lorry then he may of not been able to see that the lorry driver was blocking the ASL (this has happened to me leading too a sh!t what am I doing here moment).

Or you can start to overtake presuming they'll stop before the ASL & they don't
http://vimeo.com/20082252

Jay dubbleU

Asprilla wrote:

Mr Sworld wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

*note the lorry tachograph should be able to show when he entered the ASL and how this compared to light sequence

Even digital tachographs are only accurate to a minute (or so I'm led to believe) so I don't think that could be proved. GPS data would prove it however.

GPS is only accurate to 12 feet (ish)

GPS is accurate up to 3m in open areas - in built up areas buildings make it less accurate

12 seconds was estimated by the police - wouldn't take most of us 12 seconds to ride from rear to front of an HGV

Applespider

You know - we all say that we know not to undertake lorries but there are a scary amount of people out there who don't seem to know. There have been several times where rather than undertake a lorry at a set of lights (particularly where I know there's not a lot of time left on red), I've sat behind it and been roundly abused by a later arriving cyclist for blocking his way. Following which, at least one has manoeuvred around me, and been a smidgeon away from being crushed by the truck - or if the driver saw him, it slows down all the traffic while he lets him get to the front.

veronese68

Applespider wrote:

You know - we all say that we know not to undertake lorries but there are a scary amount of people out there who don't seem to know. There have been several times where rather than undertake a lorry at a set of lights (particularly where I know there's not a lot of time left on red), I've sat behind it and been roundly abused by a later arriving cyclist for blocking his way. Following which, at least one has manoeuvred around me, and been a smidgeon away from being crushed by the truck - or if the driver saw him, it slows down all the traffic while he lets him get to the front.

Very true, we are probably a LOT more aware than most.

Wallace1492

Veronese68 wrote:

Applespider wrote:

You know - we all say that we know not to undertake lorries but there are a scary amount of people out there who don't seem to know. There have been several times where rather than undertake a lorry at a set of lights (particularly where I know there's not a lot of time left on red), I've sat behind it and been roundly abused by a later arriving cyclist for blocking his way. Following which, at least one has manoeuvred around me, and been a smidgeon away from being crushed by the truck - or if the driver saw him, it slows down all the traffic while he lets him get to the front.

Very true, we are probably a LOT more aware than most.

Here, here. Never mind whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet, had high viz or a decent amout of super bright lights. Has the cyclist ever read Cyclecraft, had any training, even thought about his safety in any meaningful way? Compare to lorry driver who had had to pass test and have a fair bit of training.

notsoblue

Wallace1492 wrote:

Here, here. Never mind whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet, had high viz or a decent amout of super bright lights. Has the cyclist ever read Cyclecraft, had any training, even thought about his safety in any meaningful way? Compare to lorry driver who had had to pass test and have a fair bit of training.

I've never had training and I don't even know what the cover of Cyclecraft looks like.

jejv

Applespider wrote:

You know - we all say that we know not to undertake lorries but there are a scary amount of people out there who don't seem to know. There have been several times where rather than undertake a lorry at a set of lights (particularly where I know there's not a lot of time left on red), I've sat behind it and been roundly abused by a later arriving cyclist for blocking his way. Following which, at least one has manoeuvred around me, and been a smidgeon away from being crushed by the truck - or if the driver saw him, it slows down all the traffic while he lets him get to the front.

+1

Wallace1492

notsoblue wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Here, here. Never mind whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet, had high viz or a decent amout of super bright lights. Has the cyclist ever read Cyclecraft, had any training, even thought about his safety in any meaningful way? Compare to lorry driver who had had to pass test and have a fair bit of training.

I've never had training and I don't even know what the cover of Cyclecraft looks like.

But you will have thought about your safety in a meaningful way. Any of the three count. It should be common sense, but there are plenty riders without it.

notsoblue

Wallace1492 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Here, here. Never mind whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet, had high viz or a decent amout of super bright lights. Has the cyclist ever read Cyclecraft, had any training, even thought about his safety in any meaningful way? Compare to lorry driver who had had to pass test and have a fair bit of training.

I've never had training and I don't even know what the cover of Cyclecraft looks like.

But you will have thought about your safety in a meaningful way. Any of the three count. It should be common sense, but there are plenty riders without it.

Hard to teach common sense

There are people who walk without thinking about their safety in a meaningful way. It should be no surprise that they cycle or drive the same way.

With regards to the OP, this is the kind of accident that one should expect when cycle lanes share the same space as huge lorries. The only way to avoid it entirely is to have segregated cycling provision. Its very British to blame the cyclist for not having "common sense" or for "not thinking about their safety in a meaningful way" rather than to take a step back and see that these are just accidents waiting to happen because of poor road design.

rick_chasey

The cycling proficiency certificate was compulsory at my primary school.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

The cycling proficiency certificate was compulsory at my primary school.

Yeah, but it didn't teach you how to safely draft a goods lorry or high speed filtering techniques. Its useless.

bails87

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The cycling proficiency certificate was compulsory at my primary school.

Yeah, but it didn't teach you how to safely draft a goods lorry or high speed filtering techniques. Its useless.

Yep, I did it too, at junior school. It was pretty much: "Stay just over a drain's width away from the kerb all the time except when turning right".

And that was it. All done on deserted residential streets.

sfichele

Yeah, but it didn't teach you how to safely draft a goods lorry or high speed filtering techniques. Its useless.

Is there a good way to safely draft a goods lorry?