Anyone know this idiot?

[Deleted member 26715]

And I think it's worth adding, I've been in exactly this situation as a driver - not of an artic,

Which is not exactly the same situation, in fact it's nowhere near

but a 14 metre long van and trailer.

Which goes to show how little you actually know about the subject, next time you see a HGV driver chomping down on his Yorkie, ask if you can sit in his drivers seat. Then you may understand that driving a 'van' however long, is no comparison to the view from a HGV, the driver did nothing wrong & the cyclist is lucky to be live.

 

[benb]

I'd just point out that the arrows painted on the road are advisory only, unless they have eg "Left Turn Only" and "Ahead Only" painted on too. That is, going straight on from that left lane is not breaking the law. *

Having said that, if they wanted to go straight on, they should absolutely have slotted in behind the lorry and not stayed alongside.

But I also agree that the lorry driver has a responsibility to drive safely, regardless of whether another road user is doing something inadvisable. IMO, he knew the cyclist was there and wanted to teach him a lesson. He is driving a potentially deadly machine, and we should rightly expect him to do so with the utmost care to others, even if they are behaving dangerously themselves.

* Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

 

[Tin Pot]

why should he not have drove on when the lights changed it was safe for him to drive on and thats his job and duty as a driver to do so,

Because at the lights he knows the cyclists are there. When the lights change, he sees them flood around in front of him. It is reasonable for us to expect him to be cautious, knowing that things are not hunky dory.

When we're driving, or doing anything, we still have onus to be reasonably cautious regardless of how bad someone else behaves.

 

[mickle]

Which is not exactly the same situation, in fact it's nowhere near
Which goes to show how little you actually know about the subject, next time you see a HGV driver chomping down on his Yorkie, ask if you can sit in his drivers seat. Then you may understand that driving a 'van' however long, is no comparison to the view from a HGV, the driver did nothing wrong & the cyclist is lucky to be live.

How little I know about which subject Oh Great Font ?

At the risk of repeating myself, can I just re-iterate, that if a driver can't see great swathes of the road around his vehicle then it shouldn't be allowed on the road because it's clearly not compatible with the environment it's being operated in.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what the cyclist did, the truck driver could have predicted that a cyclist might be down the side of his vehicle and should have adjusted his driving accordingly. 'Priority' on the road is to be given, not taken. He drove like he wasn't taking any prisoners, probably hadn't had his Yorkie bar that morning and was in a mood to punish the cyclist's 'transgression'.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what the cyclist did the truck driver failed in his duty of care to other road users.

It's not his farking job to punish other road users, he is neither police nor judge nor excecutioner.

 

[mickle]

Yeah. I dare say the driver was checking the other mirror etc trying to merge into the single lane ahead anyway.

If he does have a full set of mirrors why would he set off if he hadn't checked them all?

And if he doesn't have a full set of mirrors - whilst driving around London's roads with all those vulnerable cyclists - why not?

 

[mickle]

I may be paranoid but I do believe that there are those that drive motor vehicles that would quite happily kill or maim a cyclist if they were sure that the fault was with the cyclist. However, this doesn't apply to this instance. The lorry driver had right of way and probably was not able to see the cyclists changing lane when it was not safe to do so.

What is 'right of way'?

 

[I like Skol]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what the cyclist did the truck driver failed in his duty of care to other road users.

It's not his farking job to punish other road users, he is neither police nor judge nor excecutioner.

Stop banging this drum because you are wrong! You DO NOT know what the driver knew or was thinking yet YOU are acting as judge, jury and executioner delivering a damning guilty verdict anyway.

From the evidence we have, the only person we can say for sure failed in his duty of care was the cyclist failing to take care of his own well-being.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

It's not his farking job to punish other road users, he is neither police nor judge nor excecutioner.

 

[I like Skol]

If he does have a full set of mirrors why would he set off if he hadn't checked them all?

He appears to have a full complement of mirrors and I am sure he would have had a good view of the road users around him when he was stopped at the lights. As I described earlier in the thread, what he cannot do, because he is not a computer or superhuman, is monitor each one of those mirrors fully and simultaneously to make sure he spots some suicidal fookwit cyclist trying to half-heartedly sprint into a gap that doesn't exist.

 

[potsy]

Was it the driver's first experience of driving in London?

If it was then maybe he got taken by surprise, his reaction afterwards could have partly been down to shock and not aggression.

If he's a regular down there then surely he has seen it all before 'everyone does it' after all, so not sure why he wasn't driving more defensively.

That said, every single one of those cyclists are complete nobbers, the guy that got swiped especially.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Perhaps he looked in all those mirrors and thought - "There's a load of cyclists in the left turn lane intending to turn left".

 

[sight-pin]

If he does have a full set of mirrors why would he set off if he hadn't checked them all?

And if he doesn't have a full set of mirrors - whilst driving around London's roads with all those vulnerable cyclists - why not?

What i was trying to say was, Assuming the mirrors was clear of riders and seeing them riding off in front, he would then have to switch views to the offside to check it's clear as he would be merging to the outside lane, maybe the rider was out of view, (who knows?)

 

[Tin Pot]

Perhaps he looked in all those mirrors and thought - "There's a load of cyclists in the left turn lane intending to turn left".

Then covered his eyes and ears, hummed loudly and stamped on the accelerator. Yes, quite understandable.

 

[Rooster1]

Wow. I don't know what to say. So close to death. I feel for the lorry, he needs to be able to proceed and he has deathwish cyclists trying to race for priority. You have got to read the situation. I do see that the lorry does not proceed with caution, rather he accelerates at a rapid pace and has no desire to back off. Fact is there is no cycle lane ahead so you are either clearly in front of a vehicle or you go behind - or under if you want to chance it. Scary as shoot

Hang on hang on, they are not in a cycle lane at all, but a turn left lane. They are not supposed to go straight on from that lane. Idiots.

 

[mickle]

Yes, but you failed to address the points that I raised.