Whose fault?

[AndyK]

The cyclist for passing the truck on the inside? (I would not have done that). The local authority for their crap cycle lane? Or the truck driver (who tbh probably couldn't see the cyclist due to his road position):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxEquA2dVoU

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

The cycle lane is crap but the cyclist wasn't in it when the truck went past. The undertaking of the lorry was less than ideal but had nothing to do with the incident - the cyclist had got well ahead of the lorry before it caught up and overtook him. The only person to blame is the lorry driver who overtook too closely.

[PeteB99]

Yep - agree with Kirst.

I'd say that the cyclist maybe should have moved out to primary once he was ahead of the lorry but then he would have probably been completely squashed.

[Wowbagger]

Firstly, the cycle lane is a disaster waiting to happen. It's all in the gutter.

Secondly, the cyclist was in completely the wrong position at the start of the video and, although some of the undertaking of the smaller vehicles was justified, it certainly wasn't in the case of the lorry.

Thirdly, by the time the lorry overtook the cyclist he had been in front of it for some time. The driver ought to have been aware of his existence. Having said that, by the time the lorry overtook, the cycle lane had gone off the road and either the cyclist should have followed it or should have taken primary on that narrow lane.

I think there's another point: by undertaking a lorry that close, the cyclist is giving the impression that he is perfectly comfortable with lorries on his right shoulder.

The whole thing was an absolute disaster: road design, cycling and driving.

[Arellcat]

Given that only eight seconds elapsed between the cyclist passing the nearside front corner of the truck, and it reappearing in the frame in the overtake, and the relative speeds of the two, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that there was ever very much space separating them, and blind spots might well have come into play.  The undertaking of the truck by the cyclist was a stupid manoeuvre.

Were it me, I would prefer to take full primary all along that road, and perhaps sprinting to keep pace with the other vehicles.  Actually, were it me, at the traffic light I would have stopped behind the motor scooter rider rather than right up against the kerb.

[rower40]

I haven't watched the video yet (I'm on a train - limited bandwidth!) but from the other descriptions and opinions, this would be a missed opportunity if one didn't use the word "Clusterf**k".

[Ham]

My impression is that it is the cyclists fault. He undertakes the lorry while it is moving and accelerating, and then holds position with the car in front. That suggests strongly to me that he is holding station with the lorry in its blind spot. The lorry was moving all the time, going through a green traffic light. Nobody to blame but himself.

[andyoxon]

Agree with Kirst/Wowb.  Personally I wouldn't have undertaken the lorry, and especially given the speeds.  It seems that at the end of the bus stop where the cyclist is hit, there is a road restriction central island ahead, and I wonder whether the lorry was trying to beat the cyclist to this, and not giving cyclist due room.  I think also that moving to primary position on this stretch (where no cycle lane) here is an important safety consideration.  I would tend to ignore narrow cycle lanes and move to a safer road positioning when traffic was flowing...

Anyway given IMO HGV driver most probably saw cyclist - he appeared to treat the cyclist as though he wasn't there...

[Speshact]

What an appalling cycle faciility, with the classic failure to end it properly. These shouldn't be described as cycle lanes; they're filter lanes in effect. Having said which, the cyclist passed the lorry while in what is clearly intended to be a mandatory cycle lane. Therefore it is the same as passing a lorry while in a bus lane. Allowed and up to the driver of the lorry to check before crossing into the lane. Except that the cycle lane suddenly veers off with no clear merging policy. Classic UK fuck-up and co-incidentally the subject of one of my recent blogposts http://kenningtonpob.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/aargh-wheres-cycle-lane-gone.html

As far as I'm concerned cycle facilities should be designed with kids in mind (kids can cycle but you have to be an adult to drive) and the responsibility should be on the adult to resolve conflicting situations. In my view the driver and council were in the wrong here because the cyclist could have been a kid and the facility and driving were too poor to allow a kid safe passage.

[SlowCoach]

I tend to agree with Arellcat. The cyclist should either use the cycle lane (which is very poorly designed) or not use it. At 1:28 he leaves the cycle lane and enters the main carriageway whilst still alongside the lorry. At this point he commences an undertake in the same lane as the HGV in the vehicle's blindspot. Even if the driver was aware of him before, I think it would be a reasonable assumption that, because he was using the cycle lane, he had continued along it onto the shared use path to the left (the rider having had to slow down to make the manoeuvre would have remained in the blindspot). As Arellcat suggests, the short length of time that elapsed between this point and the drain cover combined with the relative speeds of both vehicles does little to convince me that he ever pulled more than a couple of feet in front.

If I were him I would be treating this as an object lesson in why not to ride alongside HGVs..

[Ham]

Agree with Kirst/Wowb.  Personally I wouldn't have undertaken the lorry, and especially given the speeds.  It seems that at the end of the bus stop where the cyclist is hit, there is a road restriction central island ahead, and I wonder whether the lorry was trying to beat the cyclist to this, and not giving cyclist due room.  I think also that moving to primary position on this stretch (where no cycle lane) here is an important safety consideration.  I would tend to ignore narrow cycle lanes and move to a safer road positioning when traffic was flowing...

Anyway given IMO HGV driver most probably saw cyclist - he appeared to treat the cyclist as though he wasn't there...

Sorry, I disagree. The cyclist arrives at the front of the truck at 1:29 (disappears from view at 1:28 and the collision occurs at 1:36, seven seconds later. The cyclist starts by travelling faster than the truck, and appears to hold a constant speed, at the same time you know the truck is moving, and has been for some seconds before he starts undertaking, and at some stage decides to accelerate faster. Given the time the truck has been rolling (at least since around 1:16) it is likely that it will be doing 15 - 20 mph, or roughly what the bike must have been doing. It is entirely possible and in my view likely that the bike was sat in the driver's blind spot. The manouvre was unbelievably risky, possibly if you had the best driver in the truck he could have got away with it, but it would have been more luck than judgement.

How many freakin' times does the message have to be said: Undertaking lorries is dangerous. It's simple, and he really needs to take responsibility for his own actions. You do that sort of thing often enough and sooner or later you may well come a cropper.

edit: and I agree with Specshat, as a cycle facility that stinks.

[SlowCoach]

edit: and I agree with Specshat, as a cycle facility that stinks.

+1 that facility is appalling.

[hubner]

Agree with Kirst/Wowb.  Personally I wouldn't have undertaken the lorry, and especially given the speeds.  It seems that at the end of the bus stop where the cyclist is hit, there is a road restriction central island ahead, and I wonder whether the lorry was trying to beat the cyclist to this, and not giving cyclist due room.  I think also that moving to primary position on this stretch (where no cycle lane) here is an important safety consideration.  I would tend to ignore narrow cycle lanes and move to a safer road positioning when traffic was flowing...

Anyway given IMO HGV driver most probably saw cyclist - he appeared to treat the cyclist as though he wasn't there...

Sorry, I disagree. The cyclist arrives at the front of the truck at 1:29 (disappears from view at 1:28 and the collision occurs at 1:36, seven seconds later. The cyclist starts by travelling faster than the truck, and appears to hold a constant speed, at the same time you know the truck is moving, and has been for some seconds before he starts undertaking, and at some stage decides to accelerate faster. Given the time the truck has been rolling (at least since around 1:16) it is likely that it will be doing 15 - 20 mph, or roughly what the bike must have been doing. It is entirely possible and in my view likely that the bike was sat in the driver's blind spot. The manouvre was unbelievably risky, possibly if you had the best driver in the truck he could have got away with it, but it would have been more luck than judgement.

How many freakin' times does the message have to be said: Undertaking lorries is dangerous. It's simple, and he really needs to take responsibility for his own actions. You do that sort of thing often enough and sooner or later you may well come a cropper.

edit: and I agree with Specshat, as a cycle facility that stinks.

It looks like up to before undertaking the lorry, the traffic is slow. As soon as he's undertaken the lorry, the traffic speeds up, note how he doesn't get closer to the car in front of the lorry. My impression is that he is just slightly ahead of the lorry after the undertake, and the lorry driver might not have been able to see him, if he looked.

[Regulator]

Yes the cyclist wasn't perfect - but the driver was clearly not looking where he was going.

And don't give me the 'blind spots' argument.  The cyclist was clearly in front of the vehicle (as it overtakes him) and, if the driver had been properly observant, he'd have seen the cyclist.

[Ashaman42]

Yes the cyclist wasn't perfect - but the driver was clearly not looking where he was going.

And don't give me the 'blind spots' argument.  The cyclist was clearly in front of the vehicle (as it overtakes him) and, if the driver had been properly observant, he'd have seen the cyclist.

My bold. Would he have though? I think it was on here somewhere that I read on some trucks the blindspot extends a good 5 metres in front of the cab. That could easily hide a cyclist from sight.

[Domestique]

How is it undertaking when there is a lane specifically for bicycles?
Truck driver at fault. Next to a cycle lane he should be checking those mirrors constantly. And just because you dont see something doesnt mean its not there.

[mike]

I'd say both poor cycling *and* driving skills.

yes absolutely he should have seen him in his mirrors, but the lorry driver might have noticed that the cycle lane went up onto the pavement and assumed the cyclist had gone that way.  The road looks like it narrows a bit just after, so he might have been holding the same distance from the middle, bringing him too close to the bike that he hadn't noticed had reappeared in front of him.

and the cyclist might have assumed the road stayed the same width / cycle lane reappeared after the crossing, so held his line in that expectation.   He should have been looking behind him, aware that the lorry would have been coming back past at any minute.

[Ham]

Please. All those who live or work in London who come up with any other reason for the fault of this incident than the cyclist should not have been there, please consider taking up the free cycle training offer from TfL http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/11689.aspx - it's not for beginners, you  get to spend an hour with an experienced trained teacher who will help you improve. I've done it and I can cover over 250 miles a week on London roads, and it improved my riding.

There are many potential areas of blame here: the cycle path is poor, the driver may not have been paying full attention, you name it. But there is only one person at fault who - had they been acting correctly - would incontrovertibly been able to avoid the incident.

The. Cyclist. Should. Not. Have. Been. There.

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.

[Honest John]

The truck passed too close and knocked him off.

The correctness of the cycle lane and the cycling are irrelevant - when he was knocked off he was minding his own business riding along an ordinary bit of road with no cycle lane by a careless or bullying driver.

[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.

[andyoxon]

It is entirely possible and in my view likely that the bike was sat in the driver's blind spot. The manouvre was unbelievably risky, possibly if you had the best driver in the truck he could have got away with it, but it would have been more luck than judgement.

Having looked at it again - I agree it is possible the cyclist was not seen.

(A few yrs ago the car I was driving was written off by a HGV on a r-a-bout; driver said 'SMIDSY, it wasn't a purpose job' - apparently I was in his blind spot.  They accepted liability)

[nicknack]

How far in front of a driver does this huge blind spot extend? Considering the relative speeds of the cyclist and truck when the cyclist overtook and the relative slowness of the truck to accelerate, I would imagine that at some point the bike would have been a decent distance in front of the truck before the truck started to close the gap.

[Ham]

I'm very curious - have any of the people who are saying the driver should have seen the cyclist done the "sitting in a lorry driver's seat" thing?

nicknack - the answer is much farther than you might have thought.

[Woofage]

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.

[nicknack]

I'm very curious - have any of the people who are saying the driver should have seen the cyclist done the "sitting in a lorry driver's seat" thing?

nicknack - the answer is much farther than you might have thought.

Are you seriously saying that there is a blind spot in front of the driver that is big enough to hide a cyclist that is completely in front of the truck (perhaps as much as 3 or 4m) and only slightly to the side? How on earth do they manage to drive at all?