don't know what you have linked to but from an earlier post this is the scene
http://tinyurl.com/kpx53c5
Lorry blind spots; a get out of jail free card?
- Thread starter glasgowcyclist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
don't know what you have linked to but from an earlier post this is the scene
http://tinyurl.com/kpx53c5
glenn forger
Guest
The next photo sets the scene for the most interesting experience of the morning, in my book. Here you can see the parents of Andrew McNicoll standing more or less exactly in the ‘killing zone’ on the inside of the tipper. (Andrew was an expert rider who was tragically killed on Edinburgh’s streets; a truck driver was later arrested away from the scene – see Andrew Cyclist).
I jumped into the driver’s seat to see what he/she would be able to see from a normal driving position in the nearside mirrors.
To my great surprise, you can clearly see both the McNicolls in the ordinary side mirror as plain as the nose on your face. You can even see, very clearly, cyclists coming up the inside of the truck from quite some distance behind as part of the photo shoot.
In case anyone offers the appalling excuse that not every driver has the full complement of “basic safety mirrors” fitted, they’re not called “basic safety mirrors” for nothing you know. 66% of urban deaths involve a heavy goods vehicle remember – no driver or company can claim ignorance when it comes to their priorities towards public safety.
http://mccraw.co.uk/sorry-mate-i-cant-see-blind-spot/
I jumped into the driver’s seat to see what he/she would be able to see from a normal driving position in the nearside mirrors.
To my great surprise, you can clearly see both the McNicolls in the ordinary side mirror as plain as the nose on your face. You can even see, very clearly, cyclists coming up the inside of the truck from quite some distance behind as part of the photo shoot.
In case anyone offers the appalling excuse that not every driver has the full complement of “basic safety mirrors” fitted, they’re not called “basic safety mirrors” for nothing you know. 66% of urban deaths involve a heavy goods vehicle remember – no driver or company can claim ignorance when it comes to their priorities towards public safety.
http://mccraw.co.uk/sorry-mate-i-cant-see-blind-spot/
Bad link, pinch point is by the garage
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=south street, Retford, Nottinghamshire, UK&hl=en&ll=53.317698,-0.938269&spn=0.006762,0.016512&sll=53.321366,-0.944765&sspn=0.108588,0.264187&hnear=South St, Retford DN22 6JE, United Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=53.317832,-0.938493&panoid=hjXr_oaklW8K0U7Qq9MW0g&cbp=12,307.44,,0,3.33&z=17
The next photo sets the scene for the most interesting experience of the morning, in my book. Here you can see the parents of Andrew McNicoll standing more or less exactly in the ‘killing zone’ on the inside of the tipper. (Andrew was an expert rider who was tragically killed on Edinburgh’s streets; a truck driver was later arrested away from the scene – see Andrew Cyclist).
I jumped into the driver’s seat to see what he/she would be able to see from a normal driving position in the nearside mirrors.
To my great surprise, you can clearly see both the McNicolls in the ordinary side mirror as plain as the nose on your face. You can even see, very clearly, cyclists coming up the inside of the truck from quite some distance behind as part of the photo shoot.
In case anyone offers the appalling excuse that not every driver has the full complement of “basic safety mirrors” fitted, they’re not called “basic safety mirrors” for nothing you know. 66% of urban deaths involve a heavy goods vehicle remember – no driver or company can claim ignorance when it comes to their priorities towards public safety.
http://mccraw.co.uk/sorry-mate-i-cant-see-blind-spot/
I've been in a similar lorry (fully CrossRail approved, police awareness day) and yes, the side mirrors give a great view of cyclists coming up the side of the lorry on the road , but give no view of cyclists coming up the side of the lorry on the pavement as the victim in this case was
If only she'd seen him first! Oh, wait... she did.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
Theclaud. Your tone is almost saying that the driver ploughed down the cyclist in cold blood and that is obviously not the case. The rider was not a 9 year old kiddie, it was someone who would know that messing about on a road would be dangerous.
If the cyclist left the road at that sign or before you would expect them to turn left and not carry on straight back onto the road again.
In hindsight the driver should have got a view of the cyclist again before making the turn. But the cyclist also had a responsibility to keep themselves safe.
What actions do you think the cyclist should have taken?
We don't know all the facts but the way this thread is working out, it is looking like a 50/50 accident.
If the cyclist left the road at that sign or before you would expect them to turn left and not carry on straight back onto the road again.
In hindsight the driver should have got a view of the cyclist again before making the turn. But the cyclist also had a responsibility to keep themselves safe.
What actions do you think the cyclist should have taken?
We don't know all the facts but the way this thread is working out, it is looking like a 50/50 accident.
Exactly. In hindsight the lad should not have been on and off the pavement and should have been aware of the truck as much as the truck driver of him. It cost him his life.
Let's set the record straight. I am putting across the fact that accidents are usually a 2 way thing. How far the blame travels on a sliding scale is what matters. Based on the info in this thread alone, it appears that neither party is totally innocent and that is my point. I am in no way saying it was solely down to the cyclist, but balancing the blinkered opinions that it was 100% the fault of the driver.
Does anyone on here honestly believe that this was unequivocally the fault of the lorry driver and that they should be locked up as a result?
If the front of the lorry hit the cyclist, you may be correct. (depending on the speed at which the cyclist exited the pavement.
If the cyclist rode off the pavement and into the side of the lorry you are not correct.
I would apologize for things that my tone has almost said, if that made any sense. I didn't imply anything about 'cold blood'. She was responsible for wielding lethal force. She did so irresponsibly and and has managed to shift that responsibility at least halfway onto a person who presented no danger to anyone and was not doing anything she could not have foreseen. He is dead, and she is excused. He was a child, and she is an adult.
are you sure on the basis of the facts reported?
Yes - she admitted she saw him and 'thought' he was turning left. She gambled his safety on her assumption, and failed to check that it was the right one. She was wrong, and killed him as a result.
I have just googled to see who actually hit who, as brought up by someone else. All reports I can find just say collision, so can't conment there.
All witnesses agree that he mounted the kerb and then failed to "Stop, Look and Listen" as he crossed the highway. The latter being evident that he was wearing headphones, albeit impossible to say whether they were on or the volume level if they were.
Driver admitted to seeing him mount the kerb and pointing as if moving left. Also admits that she then did not see him again until they collided. No witnesses argue otherwise. Drive behind, with arguably the best position, said he was not alarmed by the way the lorry was driven and suggests that it was a mistake all round.
Guardian of the cyclist said that Callum regularly said that he had been nearly knocked down there on multiple occasions. We do not know if this is down to Callum or each and every driver who nearly knocked him down on previous occasions.
Nowhere does it state that the cycle lanes as so poor there that this could have been avoided completely! That's the real misjustice in my mind. Anyone disagree?
All witnesses agree that he mounted the kerb and then failed to "Stop, Look and Listen" as he crossed the highway. The latter being evident that he was wearing headphones, albeit impossible to say whether they were on or the volume level if they were.
Driver admitted to seeing him mount the kerb and pointing as if moving left. Also admits that she then did not see him again until they collided. No witnesses argue otherwise. Drive behind, with arguably the best position, said he was not alarmed by the way the lorry was driven and suggests that it was a mistake all round.
Guardian of the cyclist said that Callum regularly said that he had been nearly knocked down there on multiple occasions. We do not know if this is down to Callum or each and every driver who nearly knocked him down on previous occasions.
Nowhere does it state that the cycle lanes as so poor there that this could have been avoided completely! That's the real misjustice in my mind. Anyone disagree?
Yes. See above.
[QUOTE 3398988, member: 9609"]For me this is the blatantly obvious warning sign that the lorry driver missed. Child on a bike alternating between road and path, to me this has all the signs that the child does not know what they are doing, isn't concentrating or is playing silly buggers. By all means give them a taste of your air horns, but you can't let them out of your sight, even if it means stopping.[/QUOTE]
As I have said above, this proves that there are mistakes by both parties. I can see the point about the driver having the option of stopping though. No argument there. Doesn't exonerate the cyclist nonetheless.
As I have said above, this proves that there are mistakes by both parties. I can see the point about the driver having the option of stopping though. No argument there. Doesn't exonerate the cyclist nonetheless.
