Whose fault?

[why1040]

WRT blind spots and lorries...
A few years ago, an HGV t-boned my Suzuki Grand Vitara. He had no idea I was there til he crunched my car into the railings opposite. The blind spot on those things is big enough to hide a small 4x4...

I can't watch the video as I'm on my phone so can't comment on that at the moment-and may not be able to at all, having comparatively little experience.

[Regulator]

WRT blind spots and lorries...
A few years ago, an HGV t-boned my Suzuki Grand Vitara. He had no idea I was there til he crunched my car into the railings opposite. The blind spot on those things is big enough to hide a small 4x4...

Somehow I doubt it.  The reality was probably that he simply wasn't looking.

I've been in the trucks and seen what the blind spots are like.  With good mirrors they're minimised to such an extent you'd basically have to be lying flat under the bumper of the truck to not be seen.

Let's not beat about the bush.  There is absolutely no reason for lorries to have blind spots - other than manufacturers and/or operators being to cheap to fit proper mirrors.

And most of these incidents happen not because there are blind spots - but because the bloody driver wasn't looking.  They're too busy looking at paperwork / using a handheld phone / drinking a cup of coffee etc... to pay due regard to the road and other road users.

[Jaded]

We don't know if this driver was a regular along here. Drivers expect normal things. Undertaking is not normal when there is not a lane to your left. There is so little room on the left in the "cycle lane" I don't think the driver would have expected an undertaker. Plus he was moving, not stationary, so he wouldn't be checking his side mirrors as much as he would do if at lights etc. Watching the video I thought that the cyclist was intent on making progress to the detriment of his safety. I though this way before he happened upon the lorry.

[Ashaman42]

Undertaking a moving lorry, or a lorry that is likely to start moving, is at the far end of the Richter scale for danger. Ashaman, the presence of a lane does not make it safe to overtake on the insider, neither for a car, motorbike or cycle.

I know, I was saying that the driver may not have seen the bike in front of him (due to ridiculously big blindspots). Not that the cyclist should have undertaken.

[ian]

Yes. I think all cyclists should get themselves some lycra, get out there in the middle of the road and sprint. Take the road. Eat BMWs, shit Audis. Be a lean, mean, exhaust chomping machine. Show no mercy. Kids, OAPs, ordinary people, just fuck off, it ain't for you.

Is your name really Jon?

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but if this was the cyclist's regular commute, he would have known that the cycle lane was about to move to the pavement, surely? However, I agree with others that the fault is fairly equally split between the cyclist and the lorry driver.

My point was that I get frustrated with these threads. None of us where there and video can be misleading. Yet, pontification from upon high. Judged ye are, and found wanting. I personally wouldn't zip along the inside at that kind of speed but hey, that's not the point. It really isn't. Either the lorry driver saw him or didn't. If he didn't he should have. Blind spots need to stop being an excuse. If a vehicle has blind spots then it shouldn't be on the road. That's a narrow road, as are many urban roads. Are we genuinely saying it's OK for a heavy vehicle to speed down it at 30 mph with metres of zero visibility in front? A zone that covers not only everything immediately in its path, but the pavement to the side. Really? That it's fine for such a vehicle to manoeuvre in similar tight circumstances? That's acceptable?

Not to me, it isn't. I don't care what the cyclist was or wasn't doing. I do care about many tonnes of fast moving vehicle. That's where the responsibility lies.

[Feline]

Agree with most of the above, cyclist and driver could have been more careful, poor cycle lane layout etc.etc. But surely the fault has to lie with the law allowing a mahoosive HGV onto our roads that has blind spots in front and the side of it. Why the hell can such a vehicle be allowed on a narrow road within inches of the squishy bodies of people who have every right to be there? The whole blind spot thing makes me angry. I agree with Ian, it's all very well skilled cyclists critiquing the performance of another regular cyclist, but what about the kids and grannies and 'normal' people?

[Cudzoziemiec]

I haven't read the intervening posts, but from watching the video: I think it's the lorry driver's fault, mainly. However, the cyclist is riding like a dick, undertaking everything including the lorry at far too high a speed. If you compare the cyclist's speed with that of the motorcyclist who is overtaking the cars - as opposed to undertaking them - you'll see the cyclist is gaining on the biker. The cycle lane is also crap, far too narrow to be any use, and does - unfortunately - encourage this sort of dickish riding. Nevertheless, I think the lorry driver probably had enough time to see the cyclist in front of him, if he had been looking all around him. The cyclist is partly to blame IMO but only to a minor extent because he did put himself in a position where he is extremely likely not to be seen. And lastly to blame but not blame-free is the designer of the cycle lane.

[teethgrinder]

it's all very well skilled cyclists critiquing the performance of another regular cyclist, but what about the kids and grannies and 'normal' people?

They might have followed the crappy cycle lane up the kerb and wherever else it went.
The only way you could fiot a decent cyclepath on that narrow road would be to make it one way for motors and two way for cycles by dividing the road width in two and having a two way cycle lane and a one way motor lane.
It does look to me as if the cyclist could well have not got further than a few feet in front of the lorry. But he was there for some time.
I think that this is a problem in general with cycle farcilities. They aren't thought out as well as proper roads are and seem to have their own rules which nobody knows. If we're to have cycle facilities, they need to be done properly, like I suggested above. But they're done on the cheap as an afterthought, so are almost always crap. I've nothing against cycle facilities, but I am against crap and dangerous ones, which they almost always are.

[Freya]

I've never driven a lorry, but for those of you blaming the lorry driver... I can't help noticing the motorbike also overtaking the lorry on the RHS as he moves. So what with that, driving his lorry & looking up the road etc I suspect the last thing the driver was thinking was that a bike might sneak up the inside. Do you think the bloke has eyes like the human fly?

Show some sense. Just like the cyclist should have.

[nicknack]

So what with that, driving his lorry & looking up the road etc I suspect the last thing the driver was thinking was that a bike might sneak up the inside. Do you think the bloke has eyes like the human fly?

So he's accelerating umpteen tons of metal whilst not being able to cope with all the visual information he's receiving. Is this a good state of affairs? Wouldn't slowing down be slightly preferable?

[Freya]

No, it is called driving & it is a normal state of affairs. He can cope with the visual information he is receiving but that doesn't mean he can see (and concentrate on) 360 degrees around him continuously. He can only look in one place at any given time and then scan those areas most likely to be a threat.

 It is also why you don't bugger about in the vicinity of HGVs if you want to stay alive.  The driver is only human. You can't expect him to be 100% perfect every second of the day....especially if you seem to expect the cyclist to be entitled to be 100% stupid. The cyclist knows lorry is there. He should act accordingly.

[nicknack]

it is a normal state of affairs.

And that is exactly what is wrong.

[Jaded]

It is the current situation on the roads. The situation that gives drivers £120 fines and 3 points for killing people. The situation that makes people drive their kids 400m to school.

It isn't ideal but it is what it is like now. And in this situation, I would not go up the inside of a lorry like that. I'd overtake it if there was actually an overtake possible and not some stupid "I can do this because I'm faster in this half-second" boy racer shit that is also part of the the current situation on the roads...

[Cudzoziemiec]

+n to Jaded's post. Why do cyclists put themselves in dangerous positions cutting between kerb and lorry? Sure it's because they (often) don't realise the danger or have the shield of invulnerability that clings to most of us before we hit something and break, but beyond that it's an all-pervading desire to get forward and "make progress" regardless of where that gets you. It's so ubiquitous it's beyond boy racer-hood, it's an unwritten assumption.

[TimC]

There are an awful lot of assumptions being made here, which aren't necessarily supported by the only evidence we have - the video. We can't know if the lorry driver could have seen the cyclist, or where his attention was. We know nothing about the lorry other than it was pulling away as the cyclist passed it on its nearside - a manoeuvre known by all of us to be unwise and sometimes fatal. The only person whose actions we can judge is the cyclist: he was riding very quickly for the space available, he appears to take a relaxed attitude to risk, and he seemed not to allow for the inadequacies of those he shared that road with. Therefore, my take is that he did much to bring the accident upon himself.

The fact that lorries have large blind spots is not news. All vehicles have blind spots to a greater or lesser degree, as do human heads. While it is obviously incumbent upon us all to do our best to look around us and be aware of what surrounds us, it isn't possible to be all-seeing. Therefore it is also essential that we are predictable, courteous, and look after our own safety. This rider failed on at least two of these criteria. It isn't always someone else's fault, however much we'd like to believe so.

[clarion]

You note that we do not know where the driver's attention was, and that is a very good point.  However, it does not make the cyclist guilty of anything.  In fact, it makes the motorist more culpable if his attention is not on conditions on the road.

You neglect one other important fact, which is that the cyclist was travelling significantly faster than the truck when it passed out of view.

[TimC]

I think you have very high expectations of drivers, and very low expectations of cyclists! That may be understandable from the 'they're not in my gang' PoV, but it's hardly backed up by observation - everyone is fallible. Therefore it makes sense to expect people to make mistakes - and not to put yourself in a situation where such a mistake could be fatal. I don't know if the lorry driver made a mistake, but what I can see from the video is that the cyclist put himself in harm's way. That doesn't make it his fault, of course, but it is at least a contributing factor.

[clarion]

I think you have very high expectations of drivers, and very low expectations of cyclists! That may be understandable from the 'they're not in my gang' PoV, but it's hardly backed up by observation - everyone is fallible. Therefore it makes sense to expect people to make mistakes - and not to put yourself in a situation where such a mistake could be fatal. I don't know if the lorry driver made a mistake, but what I can see from the video is that the cyclist put himself in harm's way. That doesn't make it his fault, of course, but it is at least a contributing factor.

But fault is precisely what we are discussing in this thread, quite overtly.

We know that the cyclist made what we all seem to acknowledge to be a mistake, but did not commit any illegal act.

We know the truck driver should have seen the extensive cycle lane and be looking out for cyclists on the left.

We know that the cyclist spent some time in front of the truck.

We know that the truck came past far too close and knocked the cyclist to the floor.

We know an offence occurred.

We know that the cyclist committed no offence.

[Jaded]

I think you have very high expectations of drivers, and very low expectations of cyclists! That may be understandable from the 'they're not in my gang' PoV, but it's hardly backed up by observation - everyone is fallible. Therefore it makes sense to expect people to make mistakes - and not to put yourself in a situation where such a mistake could be fatal. I don't know if the lorry driver made a mistake, but what I can see from the video is that the cyclist put himself in harm's way. That doesn't make it his fault, of course, but it is at least a contributing factor.

But fault is precisely what we are discussing in this thread, quite overtly.

We know that the cyclist made what we all seem to acknowledge to be a mistake, but did not commit any illegal act.

We know the truck driver should have seen the extensive cycle lane and be looking out for cyclists on the left.

We know that the cyclist spent some time in front of the truck.

We know that the truck came past far too close and knocked the cyclist to the floor.

We know an offence occurred.

We know that the cyclist committed no offence.

What offence? It is a bit unclear.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Quite! This puts me in mind of the issue of presumed liability, where drivers can be held responsible for their actions without it having to be proved they've committed an offence. In this case neither cyclist nor driver seem to have committed an illegal act* but the cyclist was riding in a very irresponsible way and the driver was quite likely not paying 100% attention (as most people don't, most of the time... )

*It's not clear whether the driver stopped or whether he was even aware of having hit the cyclist.

[Ham]

Clarion, it is perfectly legal to ride your biike off the end of a 100m cliff, but you will still die at the end.

It is just wrong to go up the inside of a moving lorry, because of the potential negative consequences. Guess what? those negative consequences happened (thankfully with the cyclist living to tell the tale), we can bang on as much as we like about what the driver's responsibilities may or may not have been, but the cyclist should not have been there. It is therefore his fault.

[clarion]

The driver did not seem to stop.  If he was not aware that he had knocked someone off, then that is just an argument against allowing lorries as they currently are on the roads.

I still believe, on the basis of the evidence we have available, that the cyclist was visible through the windscreen of the truck.  If the driver did not look, then, bearing in mind particularly the existence of the cycle lane, he was driving carelessly.

[clarion]

Clarion, it is perfectly legal to ride your biike off the end of a 100m cliff, but you will still die at the end.

It is just wrong to go up the inside of a moving lorry, because of the potential negative consequences. Guess what? those negative consequences happened (thankfully with the cyclist living to tell the tale), we can bang on as much as we like about what the driver's responsibilities may or may not have been, but the cyclist should not have been there. It is therefore his fault.

Ham, you do know you're talking nonsense, don't you?

The cyclist made a mistake.  But he did nothing illegal, and did not cause harm to anyone.

[Jaded]

Im sorry, but in a situation where you have looked all round and checked it is clear, then started accelerating, quite probably paying attention to the RHS of your f-o-v because of overtaking motorcycles, then I do not think you can be held liable for someone putting themselves in danger on your left.

We do not know that the bike was visible - that is pure conjecture. The camera is mounted towards the front of the bike and faces forwards. pov footage from cameras  in my experience, give a somewhat distorted aspect of what happened.

[clarion]

Work out the relative speeds and acceleration for yourself.  Plot it on a graph.  Draw it out on a piece of paper.

The driver didn't look at a position he should have expected to see a hazard.