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

[dawesome]

The lorry didn't stop. The cyclist was 3metres in front of the lorry, barely deviated, the lorry overtook far too closely, knocked the cyclist over and then drove away. Now the insurance company have just admitted the lorry driver was far too close.

 

[Mugshot]

The lorry didn't stop. The cyclist was 3metres in front of the lorry, barely deviated, the lorry overtook far too closely, knocked the cyclist over and then drove away. Now the insurance company have just admitted the lorry driver was far too close.

Please believe me when I say that I am honestly confused by what you are saying, I'm not being deliberately stupid. Are you saying that you know that the driver could see the cyclist, and that you know this because of something the insurance company have said? Where have they said that the driver could see the cyclist, hit him then drove off?

 

[gambatte]

The lorry didn't stop. The cyclist was 3metres in front of the lorry, barely deviated, the lorry overtook far too closely, knocked the cyclist over and then drove away. Now the insurance company have just admitted the lorry driver was far too close.

Or the insurers line is from the vid and not the driver. If the driver said "I don't know anything about it, I never saw or heard anything"... They could've looked at the video and thats the line they've come up with. They then argue 'How could they be driving too close if they didn't know he was there and just continued up the road"?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The lorry didn't stop. The cyclist was 3metres in front of the lorry, barely deviated, the lorry overtook far too closely, knocked the cyclist over and then drove away. Now the insurance company have just admitted the lorry driver was far too close.

Are you in possession of the full facts of the incident, including witness statements and measurements?: 'the cyclist was 3 metres in front'. How long did it take you to examine the scene and interview everyone involved?

I mean, you couldn't just be making blinkered assumptions based on brief video on YouTube, surely?


GC

 

[dawesome]

That's what the cyclist says. Either the lorry driver saw the cyclist, hit him and drove off, or didn't see the cyclist, hit him and drove off. Either way, the driver's culpable.

The elephant in the room is why we allow vehicles on the roads that we know are the single most dangerous vehicle, involved in a wildly disproportionate number of fatalities, often driven by neanderthal thugs and drunkards that have blind spots that can be eliminated by mirrors that cost £30.

 

[Mugshot]

The elephant in the room is why we allow vehicles on the roads that we know are the single most dangerous vehicle, involved in a wildly disproportionate number of fatalities, often driven by neanderthal thugs and drunkards that have blind spots that can be eliminated by mirrors that cost £30.

I may be mistaken but I think the elephant in the room is that fact that you have just made a load of assumptions and accusations about an incident you have little to no knowledge of based on prejudices which you continue to display in the post above.

 

[dawesome]

What prejudice is that?The lorry driver that killed Catriona Patel was described as having the "hangover from hell". Mr Lopes who killed Miss Cairns and Miss Guttman had eyesight that would have disqualified him from driving a car and had falsified his tachograph. Are you saying these deaths didn't happen and the drivers were innocent of any wrong doing?

 

[DRHysted]

The elephant in the room is why we allow vehicles on the roads that we know are the single most dangerous vehicle, involved in a wildly disproportionate number of fatalities, often driven by neanderthal thugs and drunkards that have blind spots that can be eliminated by mirrors that cost £30.

Wow, you have just become the most popular person at work.
Those neanderthal drunkard thugs, seem to (for some unknown reason) taken an instant dislike to you. They would like me to point out that none of their mirrors are anywhere near as cheap as £30, and that now they have so many mirrors because of the other idiots on the road, that their mirrors are now causeing blind spots.
They also pointed out that if you bought it (doesn't matter what it is) one of the neanderthal drunkard thugs brought it.
There was some other comments that I will leave untyped.

 

[dawesome]

Wow, you have just become the most popular person at work.
Those neanderthal drunkard thugs, seem to (for some unknown reason) taken an instant dislike to you. They would like me to point out that none of their mirrors are anywhere near as cheap as £30, and that now they have so many mirrors because of the other idiots on the road, that their mirrors are now causeing blind spots.
They also pointed out that if you bought it (doesn't matter what it is) one of the neanderthal drunkard thugs brought it.
There was some other comments that I will leave untyped.

Your colleagues are claiming that the mirrors on their vehicles cause blind spots? What's the company called?

 

[Mugshot]

Are you saying these deaths didn't happen and the drivers were innocent of any wrong doing?

Yes, I can see where my post lead you to that conclusion
Often, commonly, regularly etc etc Your 3 examples, as horrific and unacceptable as they are do not automatically suggest that the population of HGV drivers in the UK are often drunkards or thugs, nor do they give you the right to suggest they are

 

[dawesome]

Your 3 examples, as horrific and unacceptable as they are do not automatically suggest that the population of HGV drivers in the UK are often drunkards or thugs, nor do they give you the right to suggest they are

How about 170 examples?

http://www.speedingsolicitor.co.uk/blog/?tag=mobile-phone-offences

That's in just 5 days in one county. Operation Mermaid is repeated country-wide and the results are depressingly similar where ever the police operation takes place, HGV drivers are often lawless and dangerous. That's not to say there are some professional firms, the flat bed trucks and scaffolding lorries often seem to be driven by sociopaths. That's not prejudice, it's my own personal experience backed upby police reports.

Mr Putz, who killed Miss Patel, had three driving bans for drink driving and 20 (twenty) for driving whilst disqualified and STILL got a job as an HGV driver:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...utz-crushes-cyclist-talking-mobile-phone.html

 

[gambatte]

The elephant in the room is why we allow vehicles on the roads that we know are the single most dangerous vehicle, involved in a wildly disproportionate number of fatalities, often driven by neanderthal thugs and drunkards that have blind spots that can be eliminated by mirrors that cost £30.

Andrej Schipka... all those cyclists are red light jumping pschopaths.... They'll try to kill you rather than stop!

 

[dawesome]

Andrej Schipka... all those cyclists are red light jumping pschopaths.... They'll try to kill you rather than stop!

Now that's prejudice based on no evidence. I've offered an opinion backed upby evidence.

 

[Hector]

You cite seatbelt offences?!

What is the elephant in the room is your blatent warped prejudices against lorry drivers and the sad inconceivable fact that you allow this viewsto discredit a whole profession.

In addition your back tracking in this thread is pathetic to say the least.

 

[gambatte]

1 cyclist out of the 1 I looked at.....