Negative BBC Radio Segment on Cycling

[yello]

IMHO there's no point debating the details of the roundabout issue, you only hear one (biased) side of it.

Of course it can be debated! That's what the forum is for! Don't let a simple thing like the facts get in the way

But seriously, there's no harm in debating the general principles. For what it's worth, I can see what User3143 is saying, I just don't think it's quite the point here (btw, I don't think he's trolling either, just rather insistent!)

Yes, a cyclist should shoulder check before changing lane. I think that's basic road safety and I doubt anyone would disagree - but I think that misses the point. I think what's in contention here is whether a driver on a roundabout should, having seen a cyclist, take just a little more care... especially when nearing exits. The situation shouldn't have arisen that a cyclist gets knocked over regardless of what they have or haven't done, not where there's good cause to expect the unexpected!

 

[Cab]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. My feeling is that Lee is getting some undeserved stick simply for saying that perhaps the cyclist is not entirely blameless here

You should refresh your memory of the last time he was so critical, when he admitted trolling.

 

[dondare]

'All overtaking on roundabouts is wrong'. Wot a load of rubbish. For example: we have a local roundabout with four lanes around it, there are four dual crarriageways feeding onto and off it as well as three other roads. Are you (Dondare) suggesting that no lane around the roundabout is permitted to travel faster than another lane. You are also suggesting that it is absolutely fine to cycle around the entire roundabout (probably about 250 yards) in the nearside lane at 5mph, whilst all the traffic crawls around behind you. Exactly what kind of a dream world do you live and cycle in?

The cyclist who was hit by the lorry should:

a) Have looked.
Have indicated.
c) Have been in the correct lane.
d) Get the bus in future as he is patently a complete t1t to take on a lorry and expect to win.

We have the driver's version of events only, and he doesn't say whether the roundabout in question was a massive giratory system, a mini-roundabout or something in between. (I would guess that it was something in between, and did not have four lanes of traffic all going at different speeds and a 250 yard perimeter.)
My main point is that a roundabout is quite different to a simple junction or cross-roads, where you might turn to the left or right or go straight on. Once on the roundabout every exit is a left turn and therefore it is incorrect to overtake and then exit, even if the exit is in line with the road that you came in on. I also pointed out that cyclists are sometimes instructed or directed to keep to the outside lane of roundabouts whatever exit they're leaving at. (It isn't advice that I'd follow myself.)
I will also repeat here (and then stop because I know that those who don't agree with me never will) that the responsibility for keeping the roads safe lies most heavily with those who's presence brings the greatest danger; a lorry driver has to be more skillful, careful and considerate than a cyclist. My main objection to lorries is that the restricted view from the cab means that the driver cannot always see a cyclist that is in the danger area; but in this instance the driver did see the cyclist but still managed to hit him. It's hardly a case of the cyclist "taking on" the lorry, it's a case of the driver choosing to overtake when he should have waited.

 

[yello]

the responsibility for keeping the roads safe lies most heavily with those who's presence brings the greatest danger; a lorry driver has to be more skillful, careful and considerate than a cyclist

I'm inclined to agree with that, realising full well it's putting an onus on such drivers.

I'd also say that, in general, I agree with your pov on this dondare.

 

[yello]

User3143, I'm not sure it's useful to look at the matter from a perspective of blame. As I say in my post above, I think that there's a duty of care placed upon the truck driver courtesy of the damage potential of the vehicle.... and I say that realising that it does seem perhaps not right. I mean, why should I look out for someone else's safety? The simple answer is because I'm the one that can do the damage - and therefore ultimately prevent it from happening.

 

[dondare]

Do you not agree though dondare, that if the cyclist would have checked, they would seen the truck and then rode in respect of what the truck will do? After all the cyclist is intially at fault for being in the incorrect lane.

Not having been there or seen the roundabout in question I can't say for sure, but my suspicion is that the driver wasn't in the outside lane, which would have been correct if he was leaving at the next exit. Large or fast-moving vehicles tend to take the shortest line across roundabouts and if this was the case the lorry would have been in the inside lane. Since cyclists keep to the left of whichever lane they're in then as the cyclist continued round he would have moved across the front of the lorry which would have been moving from the inside lane to the exit. Pure conjecture, but also very probable.

 

[HF2300]

However without knowing how big the roundabout was, or if there was designated lanes for going right or straight on, ... it is hard to say what line he would have taken.

We have the driver's version of events only, and he doesn't say whether the roundabout in question was a massive giratory system, a mini-roundabout or something in between.

Not having been there or seen the roundabout in question I can't say for sure

Pure conjecture

...and so forth. Can't believe there's so many pages of (relatively OT) argument about something which no-one has any real idea about. We only have the driver's sketchy description to go on, which may be played down, exaggerated or misremembered. There just isn't enough information here to interpret this incident - unless, of course, you let your own prejudices inform the interpretation.

Incidentally, the driver said he was driving a 7.5 [tonner], which isn't an LGV / HGV, doesn't need a vocational licence, will have different visibility and sight lines, and may well be taking a different line and speed through the roundabout.

 

[just jim]

...and so forth. Can't believe there's so many pages of (relatively OT) argument about something which no-one has any real idea about. We only have the driver's sketchy description to go on, which may be played down, exaggerated or misremembered. There just isn't enough information here to interpret this incident - unless, of course, you let your own prejudices inform the interpretation.

Incidentally, the driver said he was driving a 7.5 [tonner], which isn't an LGV / HGV, doesn't need a vocational licence, will have different visibility and sight lines, and may well be taking a different line and speed through the roundabout.

+ONE

 

[mickle]

.....However we also expect cyclists that use the roads to have a certain amount of road sense and know what they are doing.

And this is precisely the point you're missing, a driver who expects every cyclist to 'have a certain amount of road sense and know what they are doing' will kill someone eventually because they haven't allowed any margin of error. HGVs are the safest vehicles on the road from the point of view of the driver but the most dangerous to other road users.

It beggars belief that the driver of such a dangerous vehicle should drive so close to a road user as vulnerable as a cyclist that they cannot avoid a collision, whether the cyclist was in the right or not. We are allowed to make mistakes and the punishment for making a mistake should not, in a civilized country, be the the threat of a potentially lethal collision.

The lorry driver was travelling to close to the vehicle in front. End of.

 

[snapper_37]

I understand and agree with you here, but in my view the cyclist could have done more to protect themselves by checking where the traffic was.

What has got me is, a lot of people seem to have jumped on the bandwagon and had a go at the truck driver for not watching where they are going. Yet no one it seems will contemplate that (what I think) most of the blame rests with the cyclist for being in the wrong lane and not checking behind them before moving across.

There is no 'blame' because no one knows what happened - it's all hearsay. I'd like to think that if when I make some f*ck ups when cycling, there is someone paying attention to me in their car/lorry/whatever behind/adjacent/whatever. We all make mistakes/lose concentration etc etc. But ...

+ONE

Exactly.

 

[snapper_37]

We are allowed to make mistakes and the punishment for making a mistake should not, in a civilized country, be the the threat of a potentially lethal collision.

The lorry driver was travelling to close to the vehicle in front. End of.

You beat me to it Mickle!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

... Incidentally, the driver said he was driving a 7.5 [tonner] ...

Oh, well, say no more then. A car driver in a truck.

 

[HF2300]

Yes and Yes(depending on when he took his cat b driving test)

Well OK, I couldn't be bothered to explain the fine distinction and the driver sounded as though he'd probably passed long before 1997 anyway.

 

[yello]

Can't believe there's so many pages of (relatively OT) argument about something which no-one has any real idea about. We only have the driver's sketchy description to go on, which may be played down, exaggerated or misremembered. There just isn't enough information here to interpret this incident - unless, of course, you let your own prejudices inform the interpretation.

I think general opinions were being offered and discussed in relation to the incident rather than the incident itself which, as you quoted, everyone involved acknowledged they didn't have sufficient detail on. And that, for me, is fine and entirely consistent with the purposes of this forum. But, tell you what, next time we'll bounce it off of you first just to see if it's ok!

But, more to the point, it helped to pass the time on a day when it was housing down outside!

 

[Amanda P]

What a pointless debate!

It seems to me that it's impossible to make out what happened or much about the circumstances of the incident the lorry driver describes from his incoherent ramblings. Plus, he will of course be biased - he's trotting out this story to make a point.

You're probably all visualising this happening on a roundabout you know; the actual events were probably nothing like what you're imagining, and nothing like what the driver attempts to describe.

Some fair points have come out, but squabbling over the details of who should have done what in a largely imaginary scenario for 80+ posts....

I don't know who's dafter - you lot for writing them or me for reading (most of) them.