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

[dawesome]

Rubbish

Okey dokey, most miles travelled by HGVs are on motorways, where cyclists are prohibited, so citing mileage as "proof" that HGVs are safe around cyclists is nonsensical. You may as well say it's safe to fire guns at kittens since so few kittens get killed by guns.

And the word is "proportional".

 

[Norm]

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.

I guess my concern, on top of your professed difficulty in using mirrors like an HGV, is that they are 10 seconds past the cycle lane at the time of the collision. Should a vehicle allow extra room for a possible errant cyclist compared to the actual visible risks of the motorbikes.

I don't see that the chap in the tipper did much wrong.

 

[gaz]

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'.

So it's not in the road traffic act? What a surprise...

 

[dawesome]

There's an update on the youtube channel, sorry if already posted:

Wooldridge promised to email me the result of their "investigation" (They take safety seriously, you know.) Got a call from Axa, their insurer today. Apparently I swerved to avoid a drain, so they're going to contest my claim. See you in court, Axa. You c***s.​

So the lorry driver failed to notice the cyclist but has now suddenly remembered he DID see the cyclist and even noticed he'd swerved (he hadn't). The driver's come up with a pack of lies to get out of trouble.

 

[Mugshot]

There's an update on the youtube channel, sorry if already posted:



So the lorry driver failed to notice the cyclist but has now suddenly remembered he DID see the cyclist and even noticed he'd swerved (he hadn't). The driver's come up with a pack of lies to get out of trouble.

Is that the whole quote, does it say somewhere that the driver said he saw the cyclist swerve or is this the insurers saying this from viewing the video, sorry if I've missed something obvious.

 

[Hector]

Wow. If this is the above is a representation of this site, then it ain't too good.

 

[dawesome]

If their defence is the "swerve" it sounds like an admission of fault to me - "the driver hit him because he deviated by less than a foot from a straight line"​

= "the driver was passing him with less than a foot clearance"​

 

[gambatte]

There's an update on the youtube channel, sorry if already posted:



So the lorry driver failed to notice the cyclist but has now suddenly remembered he DID see the cyclist and even noticed he'd swerved (he hadn't). The driver's come up with a pack of lies to get out of trouble.

Thats the 1st posted comment? not an update?
It doesn't say that when he complained he didn't supply the vid and that the insurers opinion is from that as opposed to the drivers recollection?

 

[gambatte]

Wow. If this is the above is a representation of this site, then it ain't too good.

Pretty standard. Preference is for real case law over reality tv

 

[dawesome]

Thats the 1st posted comment? not an update?
It doesn't say that when he complained he didn't supply the vid and that the insurers opinion is from that as opposed to the drivers recollection?

I suspect Mr Nicholls took the opportunity to complain without mentioning the footage in which case Axa have just incriminated themselves.

 

[Mugshot]

I suspect Mr Nicholls took the opportunity to complain without mentioning the footage in which case Axa have just incriminated themselves.

So has the driver come up with a pack of lies? Do we know that yet?

 

[dawesome]

So has the driver come up with a pack of lies? Do we know that yet?

I'm not sure where Axa would have got that information from if not the driver. I can't see either a drain or a swerve in the video, I guess Axa are acting blind and relying on the driver's version, I may be wrong, we'll see when it gets to court. If the driver is maintaining that the cyclist swerved because of a drain then he's just admitted leaving the scene of an accident.

 

[Mugshot]

I can't see either a drain or a swerve in the video

1.35 - 1.36

 

[dawesome]

[quote="dawesome, post: 1921046, member: 17741" I can't see either a drain or a swerve in the video

1.35 - 1.36[/quote]

So, the driver HAD seen the cyclist and overtook with less than a foot's clearance, then committed a hit-and-run. Not looking good for that driver.

 

[Mugshot]

1.35 - 1.36

So, the driver HAD seen the cyclist and overtook with less than a foot's clearance, then committed a hit-and-run. Not looking good for that driver.[/quote]
I'm sorry I don't understand. If Axa have seen the video and decided the cyclist swerved round a drain how does that give conclusive proof of a hit and run, what am I missing?