Who's at fault....Lorry driver, cyclist or the cycle lane designer?

[Mugshot]

We all agree the cyclist shouldn't have gone up the inside. I'm saying the lorry driver should have either been aware of it anyway (by not fixating only on the motorcycles) or at the very least properly considered the possibility of a bicycle being there, as he had been driving alongside a cycle lane for some distance.

This is what I'm struggling with. We (I think) all agree that the cyclist was a bit daft to go alongside the truck, we also (I think) all agree that the cycle lane is worse than useless, there is debate over whether the driver could see the cyclist or not and this we will probably never know. It's the doing A on the off chance that B may happen which I have a problem with.
The driver of the truck as far as we can see did not enter the cycle lane so he's done nothing wrong on that count. You have said yourself that we should not assume that a cyclist can tell the difference between a good cycle facility and a bad one, yet you appear to expect somebody that may not cycle at all to know the difference and adjust his road positioning accordingly.
How often and in how many circumstances should we or expect others not to do A (despite A being perfectly legitimate) just in case B may happen?

 

[subaqua]

These aren't trivial offences.

http://thebikeshow.net/2008/10/14/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum/

the page seems to be missing

do you have the details of the mechanical breaches. technicallly a mudguard bolt missing is a breach .

 

[DRHysted]

the driver failed to notice a cyclist alongside him for nearly 30 seconds.

You are now presuming that the driver can see through metal.

How many times do the blind spots of lorries have to be shown before people realise that they need to be treated with respect. Those stickers on the back that say "if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you". Or the ones warning about cycling up the left hand side of trucks. Do people think they are just decoration. They are there in the hope that they can educate car drivers and cyclists, and yet you get an idiot try a dangerous undertake, without enougth room to complete it. If it was a car driver people would be calling for blood.


With regard to HGVs having more accidents, i believe youll find it's preportional to their mileage.

 

[benb]

This is what I'm struggling with. We (I think) all agree that the cyclist was a bit daft to alongside the truck, we also (I think) all agree that the cycle lane is worse than useless, there is debate over whether the driver could see the cyclist or not and this we will probably never know. It's the doing A on the off chance that B may happen which I have a problem with.
The driver of the truck as far as we can see did not enter the cycle lane so he's done nothing wrong on that count. You have said yourself that we should not assume that a cyclist can tell the difference between a good cycle facility and a bad one, yet you appear to expect somebody that may not cycle at all to know the difference and adjust his road positioning accordingly.
How often and in how many circumstances should we or expect others not to do A (despite A being perfectly legitimate) just in case B may happen?

Frequently. We slow down at crossings in case a pedestrian unexpectedly leaps out, for example.

I guess I just think that he should have thought that there might have been a bicycle there, and adjusted a bit to the right just in case. And obviously he didn't encroach on the bicycle lane, as it had disappeared by the time of the incident, but the previous existence of the cycle lane should, IMO, have set off a warning bell in the driver's mind that a cyclist may have come up the inside.

 

[GrasB]

Like most incidents it occurs due to a compound set of errors from multiple parties & as such trying to say one person or the other is to blame is getting the wrong end of the stick.

In this case the lorry driver wasn't as on the ball as he could have been & the cyclist wasn't exactly showing good judgement in his actions. If either one had been close to optimal on obs & behaviour then this wouldn't have happened but neither were so it did. The cycle lane here looks to be one of the worst set of road markings the council could have put on the road. So they also get a portion of blame for bad road marking.

 

[Mugshot]

Frequently. We slow down at crossings in case a pedestrian unexpectedly leaps out, for example.

Not quite the same, the highway code tells us we should look out for peds and be ready to slow down or stop. So the legitimate expectation is that we at the very least are ready to slow down.
What I'm referring to is the expectation that despite an action being legitimate we should modify our behaviour just in case something happens which is quite likely beyond our control.
For example, to draw on two recent threads, if I'm using the cycle path should I not disappear into my own little world just incase somebody decides to come past me at 20mph or should I not cross the road in case a lunatic has decided to RLJ?
But, I also don't want this to become "Yeah....but....what if" between us

 

[benb]

But, I also don't want this to become "Yeah....but....what if" between us

It won't. I'm not saying I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong, just what my opinion is.

Seem to be going round in circles, so may as well agree to disagree.

 

[cd365]

I still can’t get my head around the suggestion that the lorry driver should have given (what was to him) an empty cycle lane more room. That he should have moved further over to the other side of the road making himself a risk to every car coming towards him and being further out making it harder for the motorcyclists coming past him; he would then have been accused on a motorbike forum of doing a blocking manoeuvre. He should have done this just in case an idiot on a bike decides to blast up the inside of him.

I find it that some cyclists seem to see bad driving when the cyclist has been at fault and their usual argument is “well they are driving around a 1 ton vehicle and so they are protected”. It is even funnier when cyclists making these sort of comments have never driven a car so are not in any position to really judge. Whenever I am driving a car I try to be as fully aware of my surroundings as I can be, watching out for pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists and animals plus all of the other hazards that could appear any second and I know for full well that I would rather avoid killing or hurting anyone and would do everything in power so I didn’t; I put my car into a ditch once to avoid a pheasant that appeared before me and before you ask (or accuse) I was not speeding and it was impossible to stop in time.

Every time I get on my bicycle I know that I have no protection between me and another vehicle so I cycle to try and mitigate any risks as best I can; I know sometimes I haven’t always managed to do this and have made stupid decisions but I have never flew up the inside of a lorry like that especially knowing that the cycle lane was about to run out. That cyclist has a death wish.

 

[dawesome]

With regard to HGVs having more accidents, i believe youll find it's preportional to their mileage.

Twaddle.

 

[DRHysted]

Twaddle.

Rubbish

 

[gaz]

Rubbish

Recycling?

 

[gaz]

I still can’t get my head around the suggestion that the lorry driver should have given (what was to him) an empty cycle lane more room. That he should have moved further over to the other side of the road making himself a risk to every car coming towards him and being further out making it harder for the motorcyclists coming past him; he would then have been accused on a motorbike forum of doing a blocking manoeuvre. He should have done this just in case an idiot on a bike decides to blast up the inside of him.

Is anyone suggesting that?

 

[Hector]

Don't need to. Road Wars on Sky 1 had a copper nick someone for undertaking. Classed it as dangerous driving.

The same applies to bikes 'riding dangerously'.

 

[gambatte]

Don't need to. Road Wars on Sky 1 had a copper nick someone for undertaking. Classed it as dangerous driving.

The same applies to bikes 'riding dangerously'.

'Riding dangerously' is an offence? where'd you get that from?
Yeah, I guess that'd be 3 points on my bike licence then......

 

[Mugshot]

It won't. I'm not saying I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong, just what my opinion is.

Cool, if that's the case, let's get going again then
I refer you back to my last post #112