Lorry blind spots; a get out of jail free card?

[glasgowcyclist]

The verdict was 'accidental death', as if it were just one of those things. Sh*t happens.

The lorry driver turned left across the teenage cyclist because she 'thought' he was going left too. Asked why she did not double-check where he was when she was turning left, she said that,

"...the type of lorry she was driving - a Class 2 vehicle that was not her regular DAF lorry - had a number of blind spots and she had lost sight of him."​

Isn't the responsibility for blind spots that of the driver? Are cyclists, drivers, even pedestrians, who are overtaken by lorries meant to take evasive action to keep out of these blind spots? It's time drivers (and courts) accepted that the safe conduct of a vehicle, whatever the size, around other people is an onus they cannot transfer to others.

And don't get me started on the headphones reference.


GC

 

[chewa]

While I agree with you re blind spots, I can't tell from this report what happened.

I don't understand whether she passed him when he was on the pavement and he came back on to the road into the blind spot or whether she was passing him when he was back on the road and "forgot" he was there.
Either way, it's incredibly sad for all involved

 

[theclaud]

FFS.

 

[bpsmith]

As above, there is no context around the incident. As far as transferring the onus is concerned, a bicycle is also a vehicle and surely we all have an element of responsibility too?

A lot of people take risks based on what Others should be doing, when they could sometimes avoid the whole thing happening if they also thought about situations too.

 

[glenn forger]

Is our element of responsibility accentuated by the number of lorry drivers killed by cyclists?

 

[bpsmith]

Not seen that stat, so can't comment. I was referring to responsibility for oneself.

 

[glenn forger]

So you think culpability in terms of a cyclist would be mitigated were the cyclist to obscure their vision?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

From the various bits reported it seems like he'd gone on to the pavement to avoid the approach to the junction, then skipped back to the cyclepath across the front of the junction at which point she hit him turning left in to the side road. She had presumed that as he'd left the road he was on he was intending to turn in to the same side road. But you're right, it seems like a bizarre route choice, I can only presume that the road narrows there (possibly because of the entrance to the petrol station) or some such. Actually, as this is the google streetview the idea that she might think a cyclist, I presume in school uniform, would be turning down there seems a bit disingenuous.
Sounds like a number of mistakes made all round, unfortunately those made by the lorry driver were life taking ones.

 

[bpsmith]

So you think culpability in terms of a cyclist would be mitigated were the cyclist to obscure their vision?

Firstly, I am talking generally, as was unaware of this specific situation as stated when posting above.

Secondly, I said nothing of the sort.

What I meant was, on occasion, accidents could be avoided if we all thought a bit more about things and didn't assume as much.

A cyclist can't just decide that, as were more vulnerable, that others should take more care. On the same basis, lorry drivers can't assume that we should all move out of the way as they are so big.

This actual situation appears to be one of mistakes based on assumption. Very unfortunate though!

 

[Beebo]

He was a young boy having fun on his bike, I wish him and his family no ill. But this incident isnt as clear cut as some where I would fully support conviction of the driver.
The witnesses, a drivers and pedestrian, seem to agree with the stated version of events. The report suggest that the cyclist jumped up on to the pavement immediately before the crash, and then dropped down into the road again across a junction, just as the lorry turned left. And CCTV appears to support the drivers version of events. If that is correct then what the cyclist did was dangerous. The lorry driver can't anticipate what every cyclist or pedestrian is going to do, especially if they are riding eractically. A jury will never convict on that basis, and I'm not sure I'd be happy with the driver going to prison, after alll they have to live with the consequences anyway.

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
Don't go wandering off into hypothetical questions/ situations, please.

 

[User6179]

He was a young boy having fun on his bike, I wish him and his family no ill. But this incident isnt as clear cut as some where I would fully support conviction of the driver.
The witnesses, a drivers and pedestrian, seem to agree with the stated version of events. The report suggest that the cyclist jumped up on to the pavement immediately before the crash, and then dropped down into the road again across a junction, just as the lorry turned left. And CCTV appears to support the drivers version of events. If that is correct then what the cyclist did was dangerous. The lorry driver can't anticipate what every cyclist or pedestrian is going to do, especially if they are riding eractically. A jury will never convict on that basis, and I'm not sure I'd be happy with the driver going to prison, after alll they have to live with the consequences anyway.

The cyclist was going from pavement to pavement across a junction is what I thought happened , the worst bit is the lorry was aware of him but still managed to kill him which suggests it could of been easily avoided by the lorry slowing down till they eye balled the cyclist again , put it this way , if it had been a cyclist driving the lorry I would of thought the accident would never of happened .

 

[User6179]

Where it happened .

 

[glenn forger]

So there's a cycle lane the full length of the road, but the legal system decided that someone crossing a cycle lane without bothering to check for cyclists has done nothing wrong.

 

[steveindenmark]

It is pretty obvious that none of us on here have the full facts and people on here are trying to defend the cyclist and no doubt people on a lorry forum will be trying to defend the driver.

As an ex class 1 lorry driver, my reaction if I were in a similar situation to what is described above would be to stop and even get out to find where the cyclist had got to if necessary.

It was the court who made the decision and so I assume they knew a lot of details we dont know.

Things will never improve until this us and them attitude disappears.

Eddy , there are idiot drivers and also idiot cyclists.

If the cyclist had skipped off the road and onto the pavement, the lorry driver could have thought the cyclist was going to turn left. Otherwise, why did they leave the road? It may turn out the cyclist skipped onto the pavement and carried straight on and back onto the road with the intention of riding up the opposite Kerb and back onto the pavement. It is all speculation. But if that is the case, it is easy to see how the verdict was reached.

Its never as straight forward as the papers report.

But very sad.