Will he face prosecution?

[ComedyPilot]

Interesting.........?

Does the driver of 32 tonnes of metal not need to have any responsibility for the mass they are in charge of?

 

[ComedyPilot]

Yeah, yeah, but it's a great picture :0)

Although doubtless livid at the time, I bet even the cyclist thinks it's a great picture.

It is a great picture. If it had been me I'd want it framed - and signed by the driver In fact, I'd be getting in touch and meeting him to get a picture with him shaking his hand and having a laugh about it.

I aren't doubting it is a great picture, my problem is a daily papers use of it.

They are demonstrating to an already cycle-phobic populus exactly what contempt two-wheeled road users should be shown.

 

[Noodley]

I aren't doubting it is a great picture, my problem is a daily papers use of it.

They are demonstrating to an already cycle-phobic populus exactly what contempt two-wheeled road users should be shown.

Fair enough, but he should have been on the road. That would show we are proper traffic.

Anyway, it's the Daily Mail - read by morons who seek to find difference and point fingers.

 

[longers]

Do the words 'due care and attention' mean anything to you?

Some could have been applied by the cyclist too, puddle ahead, lorry approaching from behind, what's likely to happen if they reach the corner at the same time?

Do we know the photo isn't staged?

 

[ufkacbln]

THe more I look att that picture the more I wonder how "deliberate" it actually was.

This is a corner where swinging wide to avoid that large a puddle is not looking safe. Secondly there is also a possibility that if the view round the corner enabled hm to see the cyclist.

Pure assumption and conjecture, but.......

 

[lukesdad]

Good photo. While I sympathise with the cyclist (and I'd have slowed down if I'd been driving the truck), he wouldn't have got wet if he'd been on the road riding around the puddle, as he should really have been.

What was the truck driver sposed to do hit the brakes, couldnt that have been far more serious ?

 

[Noodley]

What was the truck driver sposed to do hit the brakes, couldnt that have been far more serious ?

I think RT is saying he would have slowed down, and as he is a lorry driver he'd have experience of this.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I think RT is saying he would have slowed down, and as he is a lorry driver he'd have experience of this.

Yes. When you drive a truck you tend to think further ahead that the average car driver. The driver in that picture should have been able to see the cyclist and the puddle ahead and ease off, possibly dropping a gear and using the exhaust brake, and either hit the puddle after the cyclist was clear or go through without sending up that huge wall of water. No hitting the brakes necessary.

 

[Piemaster]

Looks like the cyclist was in a fairly deep puddle himself and would have had to be pretty much on the central white line to avoid getting wet feet. Or wear wellies, not a path I would have wanted to walk on anyway.
Good photo but sends the wrong message.

 

[Browser]

Fair enough, but he should have been on the road. That would show we are proper traffic.

Possibly, or maybe he had just come onto the path/was just about to turn off?

Anyway, it's the Daily Mail - read by morons who seek to find difference and point fingers.

I don't point, it's rude
Signed Browser, the finger-pointing moronic Daily Mail reader

 

[Fnaar]

I was cycling through a humungous puddle across the road last weekend, and I saw the thought cross the oncoming van-driver's face... he went for it, I knew he was going to... but it was quite funny really... He was laughing and so was I

 

[Noodley]

Possibly, or maybe he had just come onto the path/was just about to turn off?



I don't point, it's rude
Signed Browser, the finger-pointing moronic Daily Mail reader

Err, yes, apologies for my, err, slight generalisation re all DM readers. I'm sure you're not like all the rest

Anyway, it makes no difference if he had just turned onto the pavement or was just about to turn off it - he's still on it. He should be on the road; he is traffic. And if he had been on the road he'd be a lot less wet traffic

 

[PK99]

I am correct in thinking that if a motorist drives through a puddle and in doing so gets a pedestrian wet it is an offence?
If so, do you think this berk can be prosecuted for this little trick?

This picture appeared in todays Daily Mail, and since his number plate and the name of his employer is clearly visible, it shouldn't be too hard to track him down, should it?

in that situation there is not much that the lorry driver can do to mittigate the effects: The flood extends most of the way across the land and across the cycle path, the lorry is WELL out from the kerb, the event is on a bend on a slope.

My actions as a cyclist in that situation, is to check the traffic behind me as i approach a flood.

the "prosecution" in such cases is for "without due care and attention" - it would be very difficult to argue that in those circumstances

 

[colly]

My first thought was that the cyclist was on a cyclepath. Might be a footpath but from the photo, we can't tell.

As for the driver not being able to do much about it. B*ll*cks.

You can see a flooded road from a long way ahead if you are paying attention. I drive a piffling van and being higher up you have plenty of warning.

In a rainstorm like that a deep puddle or flooded section of road is something you should be looking out for anyway.

Still a good picture though.

 

[postman]

i wonder how long the photographer waited for a large lorry to come just at the same time as the cyclist.

Bit phoney to me.If i was him i would go and buy a lottery ticket tonight.His luck just might be in .