Eric Elliott Transport Lorry.

[Globalti]

Seems a perfectly safe overtake to me.

There's the small matter of the traffic island with a keep left requirement, as well as the law prohibiting overtaking on the approach to junctions and probably the speed limit and a couple of others.

 

[Profpointy]

A pal of mine at university admitted to doing the same thing, and got 2 endorsements (maybe 8 points in today's money) for "dangerous driving". He regarded it as a fair cop.

 

[snorri]

I'm not trying to excuse an appalling piece of driving, but if the lorry driver had tried to keep to the left of the island, the cyclist would have ended up under his wheels, wouldn't he? The driver completely failed to anticipate the road conditions ahead but he made a non-lethal decision to get out of it. Am I being too charitable?

Yes.
It was his own reckless driving that threatened the safety of the cyclist in the first place, to commit another reckless act in order to avoid hitting the cyclist does not negate the first indiscretion.
Two wrongs don't make a right!

 

[Drago]

Mandatory keep left markings on the bollard too. Indefensible morally, and multiple applicable offences. A chap who did that in a car locally last year got banned for DD for it, trumpeted as the first conviction in the county based upon dash cam evidence.

Dob him in without delay, if not sooner.

 

[ManiaMuse]

Yes.
It was his own reckless driving that threatened the safety of the cyclist in the first place, to commit another reckless act in order to avoid hitting the cyclist does not negate the first indiscretion.
Two wrongs don't make a right!

To be fair I think his actions once he realised he had cocked up were probably safer (at least from the perspective of the cyclist) than the alternative which could have led to the cyclist being under his back wheels.

But yes you're right, incompetent, impatient driving and lack of woeful lack of anticipation/looking ahead in the first place.

 

[Drago]

The alternative would have been abort, to progressively apply the brakes, allow the cyclist to clear the inside, then safely pull back in. The only thing stopping him taking that safe and sensible option was his ego.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

There's the small matter of the traffic island with a keep left requirement, as well as the law prohibiting overtaking on the approach to junctions and probably the speed limit and a couple of others.

I suppose all here ALWAYS drive within the law. There was never anyone in danger. Goodness me you lot need to see driving in mainland Europe or South East Asia, you'd have panic attacks if you think that was dangerous.
Seriously, who was in danger at any time?

 

[Drago]

I suppose all here ALWAYS drive within the law.

Absolutely I do. For almost three decades I've been in jobs where a driving conviction means further disciplinary trouble at work too, so impeccable observance of the rules of the road is ingrained second nature. People who ask that question shouldn't Judge others by their own standards.

All the other road users were in danger. By ignoring the rules of the road in such a way they make it impossible for other road users to safely predict their behaviour and respond accordingly. That no person was hurt during this incident was entirely a matter of luck, and owes nothing whatsoever to skill or judgement.

 

[Globalti]

Anybody who has driven a truck with air brakes will know that they are extremely powerful with almost an on/off action and that a panic stamp on the brake pedal will very likely lock the wheels, especially if the truck happens to be unloaded. This will have been in the driver's mind when he looked up from his satnav/cellphone/magazine and realised he was heading for disaster.

 

[Origamist]

Road ahead was clear, he'd have much higher up PoV. Seems a perfectly safe overtake to me.

Overtaking in the opposite lane, around a traffic island, with a pedestrian refuge, at speed, with an obscured junction to the left, is not a perfectly safe overtake - far from it.

 

[slowmotion]

Yes.
It was his own reckless driving that threatened the safety of the cyclist in the first place, to commit another reckless act in order to avoid hitting the cyclist does not negate the first indiscretion.
Two wrongs don't make a right!

But wasn't the second wrong slightly better than killing the cyclist?

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Absolutely I do. For almost three decades I've been in jobs where a driving conviction means further disciplinary trouble at work too, so impeccable observance of the rules of the road is ingrained second nature. People who ask that question shouldn't Judge others by their own standards.

All the other road users were in danger. By ignoring the rules of the road in such a way they make it impossible for other road users to safely predict their behaviour and respond accordingly. That no person was hurt during this incident was entirely a matter of luck, and owes nothing whatsoever to skill or judgement.

All supposition with no grounding.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Overtaking in the opposite lane, around a traffic island, with a pedestrian refuge, at speed, with an obscured junction to the left, is not a perfectly safe overtake - far from it.

Why? What was the risk?

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Anybody who has driven a truck with air brakes will know that they are extremely powerful with almost an on/off action and that a panic stamp on the brake pedal will very likely lock the wheels, especially if the truck happens to be unloaded. This will have been in the driver's mind when he looked up from his satnav/cellphone/magazine and realised he was heading for disaster.

I have had license for articulated since I was 18 years old (Army had different age limits in those days) and I again cannot see in the video the supposed dangers, I just can't. The fact they have air brakes is just a red herring in the context of the video.

 

[snorri]

But wasn't the second wrong slightly better than killing the cyclist?

It was, but no reason to ignore the first wrong, in fact it just underlines the seriousness of the first wrong.