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



## semislickstick (3 Jul 2012)

Not mine...
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxEquA2dVoU


....and discuss.


(or is it the drain covers fault as the insurance company are trying to claim)


----------



## HovR (3 Jul 2012)

Not a great piece of cycling (shouldn't have filtered down the lhs of the lorry), on a cycle lane that appears too narrow and is littered with drains and leaves - Poorly designed and maintained.

Hard to tell what really happened in the incident, but with the cyclist being fairly close to the lorry at all times after he filtered past it, it's possible that he was in the drivers blind spot.


----------



## classic33 (3 Jul 2012)

Have to ask, where was the cycle lane at the time of the incident. Markings seem to have ended.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Jul 2012)

HovR said:


> Not a great piece of cycling (shouldn't have filtered down the lhs of the lorry), on a cycle lane that appears too narrow and is littered with drains and leaves - Poorly designed and maintained.
> 
> Hard to tell what really happened in the incident, but with the cyclist being fairly close to the lorry at all times after he filtered past it, it's possible that he was in the drivers blind spot.


 

This ^^^, A mix of very poor cycling. And very poor lorry driving. Undertaking a lorry, very silly move. And not taking primary when in front which gave the lorry driver the chance to try his luck.


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

that doesn't look like a good lane in the early part

and with benefit of perfect riding hindsight and not wanting to be accused of victim blaming

how far in front of the lorry were they?

why didn't they use the off road lane thats shown at 1:28 ?

undertaking - called that for one reason IMHO


----------



## ianrauk (3 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> that doesn't look like a good lane in the early part
> 
> and with benefit of perfect riding hindsight and not wanting to be accused of victim blaming
> 
> ...


 

It's not the OP's video


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

ianrauk said:


> It's not the OP's video


 
i know. thats why it was edited as i read and hit send as realised i had answered if it was


----------



## martint235 (3 Jul 2012)

Watched the actual incident several times. My thoughts are:

1. Why undertake the truck when the rider has no clear vision of the situation in front of the truck?
2. Why ride in a cycle lane that is so covered in slippy sh**e? 
3. As above, the cyclist never really cleared the truck as you can see from the location of the 4x4 so possibly in the blind spot. Poor cycling. I think you'd need to be right up behind the 4x4 to guarantee you're in the truck driver's sight.
4. Rather than take primary (could be bad if the driver can't see you), why not duck into the bus stop when the cyclist hears the truck about to overtake?


----------



## Hawk (3 Jul 2012)

Undertaking (in whatever lane) at that speed because you "don't want to slow to traffic speed" on your way to work, as the uploader explains, is downright stupid. Yes, the cycle lane is a big problem but it's not something we can control every time we go out on the road - we can control our speed and direction and speeding past a lorry with a 5cm gap is just suicidal.



ianrauk said:


> This ^^^, A mix of very poor cycling. And very poor lorry driving. Undertaking a lorry, very silly move. And not taking primary when in front which gave the lorry driver the chance to try his luck.


 
I don't think he will have even have cleared the front of the lorry with his back wheel - I reckon he is definitely in the blindspot the whole time... If he had attempted to go to primary he'd have gone under the lorry in this case, no doubt


----------



## Hawk (3 Jul 2012)

One more thought - the cycle lane actually turns off the road and on to the pavement at 1:27 and then turns in to a shared use path BEHIND the bus stop (where the collision was). So effectively he was in a left turn lane and then decided to continue straight on where the 3 lanes (cycle-vehicle-vehicle) became 2 (vehicle-vehicle). I suspect he will lose his day in court


----------



## Ian Cooper (3 Jul 2012)

I'd say all three play a role. One thing is certain, the truck driver could not claim he had no room. Looks like plenty of room to the right to give the cyclist enough room. In the lorry driver's defence, I can only speculate that the cyclist never got far enough ahead of the lorry to get out of the driver's blind spot.

In terms of the 'bike lane' - so called - it's simply not a bike lane. Whoever inspected or agreed to that gutter lane death trap should be shot.

The cyclist wasn't exactly behaving too safely either. He should have been much farther into the main traffic lane. He should never have used that 'suicide lane', and I think he was crazy for filtering on the left. But none of those things are illegal and none of them can be used to find fault - at least not in any legal sense.

Personally, if I wrote the law and got to make up my own laws and sentences, I'd give the lorry driver a month in jail and ban him from driving for a year; I'd give the person or persons who decided to make that gutter into a bike lane six months in jail for endangering numerous cyclists' lives (prior sentence of shooting commuted because I'm not really a monster), and I'd fine the cyclist a month's pay for suicidal cycling.

Oh, and the idiots who made the gutter into a bike lane would have to paint over every inch of it during rush hour. Let's see how they like using it in traffic.


----------



## HovR (3 Jul 2012)

Is the guy on the pavement at 1:03 holding a bike wheel?


----------



## MrJamie (3 Jul 2012)

I think its one of those videos where you can both be in the right legally and still be putting yourself in danger unnecessarily, ie. he's got every right to use the cycle lane and lay blame on motorists who run him off the road, but its a dangerous looking facility and I wouldnt be going anywhere near that lorry.

The cycle lane is tiny, theres double lines painted down it and drains which probably make braking more exciting and it looks like it might be damp. Nothing against roadies, but isnt a gutter path like that very dangerous particularly with skinny road tyres?


----------



## Ian Cooper (3 Jul 2012)

Hawk said:


> One more thought - the cycle lane actually turns off the road and on to the pavement at 1:27 and then turns in to a shared use path BEHIND the bus stop (where the collision was). So effectively he was in a left turn lane and then decided to continue straight on where the 3 lanes (cycle-vehicle-vehicle) became 2 (vehicle-vehicle). I suspect he will lose his day in court


 
Cyclists are not required to use bike lanes. A bike lane that turns left is not a 'left turn only lane'. The cyclist had every right to merge onto the road, which he did.


----------



## Hawk (3 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Cyclists are not required to use bike lanes. A bike lane that turns left is not a 'left turn only lane'. The cyclist had every right to use the road.


 
Comparable situation - three lanes of vehicle traffic, left lane turns in to a side road. Someone from left lane decides to continue straight on instead and a collision occurs with vehicle in middle lane. Who is to blame?

The vehicle in the left lane had every right to use the road and the middle lane, but didn't. So it can't then expect other motorists to accommodate its disregard of the road markings?


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> I think its one of those videos where you can both be in the right legally and still be putting yourself in danger unnecessarily, ie. he's got every right to use the cycle lane and lay blame on motorists who run him off the road, but its a dangerous looking facility and I wouldnt be going anywhere near that lorry.
> 
> The cycle lane is tiny, theres double lines painted down it and drains which probably make braking more exciting and it looks like it might be damp. Nothing against roadies, but isnt a gutter path like that very dangerous particularly with skinny road tyres?


 
I have a legal gas oven in my kitchen , I could unnecesarily stick my head in it and turn the gas on . would the gas board or the oven mker be responsible for my actions . NO. poor cyclecraft , and as i posted earlier thats with benefit of hndsight. looking at some of my cam footage after the rides makes me cringe with stupid things i did , but was lucky.

I have learnt from them though.

cycle lane doesn't look like it meets DfT guidelines at all.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (3 Jul 2012)

Ultimately I would say the lorry driver is to blame.

It's clear (to me atleast) thr cyclist was pretty reckless...but, it also seems that he was so far ahead of the lorry that the lorry should have seen him. So regardless of his suspect cycling upto that point I do believe the driver should have seen him.

I don't believe the drain was the issue as he started yelling at the lorry prior to the drain, it's very likely that the lorry pushed him into the drain though, but the lorry (to me) was the element that started it all.

In addition...technically shouldn't you give vulnerable road users atleast 6ft space when overtaking? Is that not a valid argument for laying blame on the driver? 

Kind of a pointless cycling lane though, seems so narrow it might as well not be there.


----------



## marzjennings (3 Jul 2012)

As mentioned it's hard to tell from video whether the cyclist ever cleared the driver's blind spot or not and the rider may be in error.

The truck seems to continue on a very straight line as and after the rider falls, oblivious to the rider, again indicating that the cyclist was never seen.

The cycle lane is ridiculously narrow and almost useless.


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Ultimately I would say the lorry driver is to blame.
> 
> It's clear (to me atleast) thr cyclist was pretty reckless...but, it also seems that he was so far ahead of the lorry that the lorry should have seen him. So regardless of his suspect cycling upto that point I do believe the driver should have seen him.
> 
> ...


 

so why the urgency to pass the lorry. we all complain about the must get past mentality of drivers but the same logic applies to us.

hang back for a moment and asses the situation, the road ahead and then pass the lorry when the road conditions are more favourable. its possible with cameras doing strange things to perspective , that the rider hadn't cleared the lorry fully and was in the forward blind spot. which no rear view mirrors will help you see into no matter how well adjusted the mirors are !!


----------



## HovR (3 Jul 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> but, it also seems that he was so far ahead of the lorry that the lorry should have seen him. So regardless of his suspect cycling upto that point I do believe the driver should have seen him.


 
I'm not sure though.. When listening to the video, as soon as the lorry goes out of sight the engine noise doesn't get much quieter, indicating that he may not have gotten that much further in front of it.


----------



## MrJamie (3 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> I have a legal gas oven in my kitchen , I could unnecesarily stick my head in it and turn the gas on . would the gas board or the oven mker be responsible for my actions . NO. poor cyclecraft , and as i posted earlier thats with benefit of hndsight. looking at some of my cam footage after the rides makes me cringe with stupid things i did , but was lucky.
> 
> I have learnt from them though.


 He seems to be defending his cycling on youtube rather than acknowledging it was risky.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (3 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> so why the urgency to pass the lorry. we all complain about the must get past mentality of drivers but the same logic applies to us.



I agree that it was very silly of him to try and get ahead - not something I would have done, but that's irrelevant. Being stupid or negligent prior to being knocked of your bike by a lorry does not mean the lorry driver is somehow without blame.

The idea of the blind spot is valid though. And for that one I guess we will never know. Intresting that the insurance company has not mentioned the same thing (only going of what the OP said)

But I 100% agree that he should have hung back. If that where me I would have just kept at the speed of the traffic untill the traffic was sub 10mph.


----------



## daSmirnov (3 Jul 2012)

Not the best bit of cycling. Granted. Not the best painted gutter I've seen. Could probably be made into a video of how not to cycle through traffic. And how cycle infrastructure shouldn't be designed.

But at the end of the day the truck failed to overtake another road user properly. An attentive truck driver should have seen the cyclist move along side him, and remained very cautious if he wasn't sure where he was - he doesn't have to keep track of several cyclists moving along both sides of him like in heavy London traffic, just one, although granted he might have been watching his right-mirror due to the motorcyclists, but he still had what 4-5 seconds to see the cyclist coming up his inside. Was he thinking where's the cyclist? No.

Either way I reckon the cyclist was carrying enough speed to be visible in front of the cab.

The insurance company claiming it was the cyclist's fault for avoiding a wet drain cover is insane. This is one of the main reasons cyclists need plenty of space, because they may need to suddenly change direction. /facepalm


----------



## Ian Cooper (3 Jul 2012)

Hawk said:


> Comparable situation - three lanes of vehicle traffic, left lane turns in to a side road. Someone from left lane decides to continue straight on instead and a collision occurs with vehicle in middle lane. Who is to blame?


 
I understand your point, but the cyclist merged safely into the general traffic lane. The argument that he didn't merge safely would bear more weight if filtering was illegal, or if the accident happened immediately upon merging, but neither of those apply.

As for the road markings, cycle lanes always have a solid line, but this doesn't mean they have to stay within that line. The law generally allows them to exit the lane at will, and the cyclist could easily make a case that turning with the bike lane (which turns sharply left and then sharply right) was dangerous at that speed.

I completely agree that the cyclist was incredibly stupid in many of the (perfectly legal) choices he made, but the question is not whether he was stupid, but whether he was to blame. As I intimated in my earlier posts, I think the main portion of blame resides with the morons who decided that striping a 12 inch bike lane in the gutter was a good idea. Such a bike lane encourages both cyclists and motorists to behave in ways that will get cyclists killed.


----------



## marinyork (3 Jul 2012)

Hawk said:


> One more thought - the cycle lane actually turns off the road and on to the pavement at 1:27 and then turns in to a shared use path BEHIND the bus stop (where the collision was). So effectively he was in a left turn lane and then decided to continue straight on where the 3 lanes (cycle-vehicle-vehicle) became 2 (vehicle-vehicle). I suspect he will lose his day in court


 
It doesn't have much to do with it. The cycle lane peels off the road well before 1 road lane becomes 2 road lanes. In actual fact were there 2 lanes at the same time it would be an invitation for other road users to use it (signs and markings permitting - not actually as the case may be, but safer than a collision).

Whether the rights or wrongs of the situation I have an alternative theory. The lorry driver was watching the motorbike(s) that overtook the lorry on his other side from around 1min19 to around 1min 31. If you watch it the second motorbike is roughly the same distance ahead of the bicycle or may even have been level at some point when both went past the lorry.


----------



## mr_cellophane (3 Jul 2012)

The cyclist says that this is part of his commute so he should know what is coming up. He should therefore have known about the drain and adjusted his speed/cycling accordingly.
100% the cyclists fault. I would like to think I would never ride like that.


----------



## Ian Cooper (3 Jul 2012)

Having watched the video again, I seriously doubt that the cyclist ever emerged from the lorry driver's blind spot. If you look at the vehicle ahead of the cyclist, it's clear that the cyclist is maintaining the same distance from it until it starts to accelerate, which is the point where the collision happens. I suggest that the lorry driver was probably just behind the cyclist, maintaining that same distance from the vehicle in front, and he accelerated at the same point the vehicle in front did.

Not that this absolves the lorry driver from fault. He knew that a filtering cyclist was somewhere to his immediate left, and he should have made sure there was enough room in case he got undertaken again by that same cyclist. He had enough room to his right to move right to ensure safety, but he didn't.


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> I agree that it was very silly of him to try and get ahead - not something I would have done, but that's irrelevant. Being stupid or negligent prior to being knocked of your bike by a lorry does not mean the lorry driver is somehow without blame.
> 
> The idea of the blind spot is valid though. And for that one I guess we will never know. Intresting that the insurance company has not mentioned the same thing (only going of what the OP said)
> 
> But I 100% agree that he should have hung back. If that where me I would have just kept at the speed of the traffic untill the traffic was sub 10mph.


 

maybe the motorcycles on the offside were why the lorry was over to the left. the lane they use seems to be clear from before the undertake up to the impact.


----------



## marinyork (3 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Having watched the video again, I seriously doubt that the cyclist ever emerged from the lorry driver's blind spot. If you look at the vehicle ahead of the cyclist, it's clear that the cyclist is maintaining the same distance from it until it starts to accelerate, which is the point where the collision happens. I suggest that the lorry driver was probably just behind the cyclist, maintaining that same distance from the vehicle in front, and he accelerated at the same point the vehicle in front did.
> 
> Not that this absolves the lorry driver from fault. He knew that a filtering cyclist was somewhere to his immediate left, and he should have made sure there was enough room in case he got undertaken again by that same cyclist. He had enough room to his right to move right to ensure safety, but he didn't.


 
I read it differently. The lorry was watching the two motorcyclists - especially the second one - and accelerated as soon as they were clear safe in the other lane. There was a fair old gap for some time (no particular need to floor it until things went safely on their way after all lorry drivers have to drive more smoothly). I suspect the lorry driver knew that the right hand lane and bollard/divider before the lanes split off was coming up as a 'tempter' which was why he didn't accelerate. To be even clearer than my previous post and the one directly above the lorry driver was watching the motorcycles for 12-13 seconds.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> *Personally, if I wrote the law and got to make up my own laws and sentence*s, I'd give the lorry driver a month in jail and ban him from driving for a year; I'd give the person or persons who decided to make that gutter into a bike lane six months in jail for endangering numerous cyclists' lives (prior sentence of shooting commuted because I'm not really a monster), and I'd fine the cyclist a month's pay for suicidal cycling.


 
Thank god you don't.

You''re going on igonre for a bit, sick of your inane babble.


----------



## gambatte (3 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Having watched the video again, I seriously doubt that the cyclist ever emerged from the lorry driver's blind spot. If you look at the vehicle ahead of the cyclist, it's clear that the cyclist is maintaining the same distance from it until it starts to accelerate, which is the point where the collision happens. I suggest that the lorry driver was probably just behind the cyclist, maintaining that same distance from the vehicle in front, and he accelerated at the same point the vehicle in front did.
> 
> Not that this absolves the lorry driver from fault. He knew that a filtering cyclist was somewhere to his immediate left, and he should have made sure there was enough room in case he got undertaken again by that same cyclist. He had enough room to his right to move right to ensure safety, but he didn't.


 
I don't see how he knew there was "a filtering cyclist was somewhere to his immediate left". I don't think he ever got into the drivers field of vision.
Quite possible the cycle lane met guidelines when it was installed, but not since? I think the guidelines were altered?

My $0.02... Pretty similar to whats already been said. I'd have ignored the cycle lane, too narrow and all that nasty slippy paint on the road - one of the first things I was told to avoid when I did my motorbike training. I'd have slipped in behind the wagon, probably ridden on the offside corner of the wagon, so the drivers got a chance of seeing me down his offside, waited for the next bottleneck and passed on the outside.


----------



## Tynan (3 Jul 2012)

usual proviso about the camera angle etc but I wouldn;t have been comfortable on that road at any point, the space on the left always looks narrow and I winced when he went up the side of the truck, it must have been an unpleasant accident by the looks of things, that truck seems to accelerate quite quickly, he had no business being that close to it at any point

bad riding imho


----------



## gambatte (3 Jul 2012)

Now if the insurance company gets this thread or the original youtube clip and comments, it might not go too good for the cyclist?
But then again, he put it up there and allowed comments.....


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (3 Jul 2012)

To be fair to the lorry driver, the left lane he is going to take/stay in narrows there (or appears to) as the lane to the right begins with the chevrons getting wider – I should think that’s why he moved to the left – he was possibly also looking out for motorcyclists overtaking. I doubt he knew there was a bike on the left of him/or would have seen him in his mirrors. A very good illustration of shite cycle lane design (well done tfl – another winner) and why undertaking lorries is suicidal – that’s certainly not how I would tackle that stretch of road.


----------



## marinyork (3 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> Now if the insurance company gets this thread or the original youtube clip and comments, it might not go too good for the cyclist?
> But then again, he put it up there and allowed comments.....


 
What, you mean because they might get sensible ideas? The insurance company arguing about the drain cover or 'swerve' is the worst possible defence they could use. It's almost farcical if that is what they are arguing.


----------



## subaqua (3 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> Now if the insurance company gets this thread or the original youtube clip and comments, it might not go too good for the cyclist?
> But then again, he put it up there and allowed comments.....


 

good. why should stupidity be rewarded financially. its not as if nobody knows its not sensible or safe to ride up the inside of a lorry. its a known known.


----------



## martint235 (3 Jul 2012)

There's two issues here:

1. The law. Is any court of law going to convict the truck driver of driving without due care and attention? I wouldn't have thought so myself.
2. The insurance company. I think the truck driver's insurance company would be laughing about this without reading this thread. It's never going to be worse than a 50/50 imho and that's all an insurance company really needs. The cyclist knowingly puts himself in danger by undertaking the truck, he then proceeds to cycle in its blind spot and doesn't get out of the way when he could have done (he has no legal obligation to do so but we're now talking insurance). Also how many times does the cyclist check behind himself to see what's going on?


----------



## gambatte (3 Jul 2012)

martint235 said:


> Also how many times does the cyclist check behind himself to see what's going on?


I agree with you, don't think he does. I often wonder about this though. The cameras fixed. A slight movement of the head doesn't equate to the amount your eys can swivel sideways.
The camera doesn't always show how much of your surroundings you're aware of?


----------



## gambatte (3 Jul 2012)

marinyork said:


> What, you mean because they might get sensible ideas? .


yep... and the evidence of the guys peers opinions


----------



## gaz (3 Jul 2012)

Poor cycling in my opinion. Perhaps poor driving by the driver, but how can we tell without any shoulder checks?

As vulnerable road users, we need to take care, if that means slowing to traffic speed, then so be it!


----------



## HLaB (3 Jul 2012)

ianrauk said:


> This ^^^, A mix of very poor cycling. And very poor lorry driving. Undertaking a lorry, very silly move. And not taking primary when in front which gave the lorry driver the chance to try his luck.


I couldn't say 100% it was poor lorry driving however, if the cyclist was always in their blind spot. Its hard to tell but it doesn't look like the cyclist got far enough forward to get out of it, if he did it was poor driving


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (4 Jul 2012)

I don't think it was a very good idea to filter up the inside of that lorry, you were in his blind spot. The cycle lane goes onto the pavement just as you pass him, so you could have gone up there if you wanted to pass.


----------



## Buddfox (4 Jul 2012)

100% cyclist's fault - had no business filtering up the inside of the truck. Bad reading of the road and the traffic, lucky to be alive.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jul 2012)

have let my bikeability 2 trained daughter who is 11 look at it. 1st thing she said was "why has he gone up the inside of the lorry, thats just dumb."


----------



## BentMikey (4 Jul 2012)

Like the others, I think very poor cycling. I'm not sure that he got far enough in front of the lorry to be out of its blind spot. Far too narrow a gap to be taken at that speed, and past moving traffic. Stupid stupid cycling.


----------



## snorri (4 Jul 2012)

The comment from the cyclist "if I slow down it will take me two hours to get to work", suggests to me he should be rethinking his priorities between journey time and personal safety.


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> The comment from the cyclist "if I slow down it will take me two hours to get to work", suggests to me he should be rethinking his priorities between journey time and personal safety.


 +1. I tend to see commuting as having the primary aim of getting to work. If you end up in hospital, it doesn't really matter how long it took you to get there.


----------



## benb (4 Jul 2012)

I agree completely that the cycle lane is awful, and whoever designed it is putting cyclists at risk. However, not everyone knows how to tell when a cycle lane is crap, and there's frequently a significant amount of pressure on cyclists to use whatever crap "facilities" are there. So I don't think we should be too harsh on the cyclist for using the lane in first place. I think we forget sometimes that not everyone is as clued up as us (god that sounds smug, but you get my point)

I also agree that the cyclist was foolish to go up the inside like that. I would have got in primary and overtaken on the right when I could.

However, the blind spot argument doesn't seem to hold water for me.

The lorry driver was (or should be) aware that there is a cycle lane immediately to their left
They should also have been aware that the cyclist was coming up the left. The blind spot only appears after the cyclist has gone forward of the left mirror, so the driver should have been aware that there was a cyclist there, if they had been checking their mirrors properly.
The driver, even if they had not seen the cyclist filtering up, should have been aware of the _possibility_ of a filtering cyclist (given the proximity of the cycle lane) and adjusted their road positioning accordingly.
Poor cycling, going up the inside like that.
Even worse driving, and poor observation.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jul 2012)

The driver of the lorry failed to notice another road user who would have been in plain sight in his mirrors for ages. The lorry driver didn't have a clue what was going on around him.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jul 2012)

Another one back on ignore


----------



## dawesome (4 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Thank god you don't.
> 
> You''re going on igonre for a bit, sick of your inane babble.


 
Telling people you're ignoring them is kind of missing the point.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> In the lorry driver's defence, I can only speculate that the cyclist never got far enough ahead of the lorry to get out of the driver's blind spot.
> 
> I'd give the lorry driver a month in jail and ban him from driving for a year;


 
Well that seems fair then.



benb said:


> I agree completely that the cycle lane is awful, and whoever designed it is putting cyclists at risk. However, not everyone knows how to tell when a cycle lane is crap, and there's frequently a significant amount of pressure on cyclists to use whatever crap "facilities" are there. So I don't think we should be too harsh on the cyclist for using the lane in first place. I think we forget sometimes that not everyone is as clued up as us (god that sounds smug, but you get my point)


 
I sort of agree with this, the cycle lane is atrocious, but to use your example of the smug cyclist, I wonder how often totally unsuitable facilities such as these are used by cyclists who feel very smug and safe in their personal space whilst they race up the side of lorries rather than taking a moment to consider there suitability.



benb said:


> However, the blind spot argument doesn't seem to hold water for me.
> 
> The lorry driver was (or should be) aware that there is a cycle lane immediately to their left
> They should also have been aware that the cyclist was coming up the left. The blind spot only appears after the cyclist has gone forward of the left mirror, so the driver should have been aware that there was a cyclist there, if they had been checking their mirrors properly.


The cyclist takes approximately 5 seconds to get from the back of the truck to the front, that does not mean it takes 5 seconds for the cyclist to get into his blind spot, at precisely the same time the driver has two motorcycles overtaking him and he's approaching a crossing. Maybe he could/should have been looking out for a cyclist, maybe the cyclist could/should have been looking out for himself at the same time.



benb said:


> The driver, even if they had not seen the cyclist filtering up, should have been aware of the _possibility_ of a filtering cyclist (given the proximity of the cycle lane) and adjusted their road positioning accordingly.


Are you suggesting that the driver should have driven as far over to the right as possible just in case a cyclist decided to ride up the inside of him?


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> The driver of the lorry failed to notice another road user who would have been in plain sight in his mirrors for ages. The lorry driver didn't have a clue what was going on around him.


 
This sort of rhetoric may not help and may not be based on knowledge of the wider environment or the driver's view from a truck cab.

The lorry driver had just been passed on its offside by two motorcycles (or scooters). This will have taken a fair bit of his or her attention. 

There is no guarantee that a cyclist passing on the nearside would even have been seen by the driver, never mind being_ "in plain sight in his mirrors for ages". _Real life doesn't offer drivers pause, rewind or edit buttons.

The cyclist appears (by voice) to be an adult. Riding like that is something I'd expect most adults to have grown out of. We all have a duty of care towards other road users, but I think it would be a bad day for UK roads if that driver were to be prosecuted. I say that only on the limited evidence of the footage and in the belief that thecyclist at no time cleared the front of the truck in a way that would mak him visible.

The outcome was ultimately a relatively happy one. He didn't go under the wheels, which must be a good thing.


----------



## gambatte (4 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> at precisely the same time the driver has two motorcycles overtaking him and he's approaching a crossing. Maybe he could/should have been looking out for a cyclist, maybe the cyclist could/should have been looking out for himself at the same time.


 
Sounds like the guys a regular commuter on that stretch.
Which IMO means he should be more aware of any dangers.


----------



## BSRU (4 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> Sounds like the guys a regular commuter on that stretch.
> Which IMO means he should be more aware of any dangers.


Could also mean they have become complacent, the old "familiarity breeds contempt" saying may be justified


----------



## benb (4 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I sort of agree with this, the cycle lane is atrocious, but to use your example of the smug cyclist, I wonder how often totally unsuitable facilities such as these are used by cyclists who feel very smug and safe in their personal space whilst they race up the side of lorries rather than taking a moment to consider there suitability.


I think that's a valid point, but I don't think we should automatically criticise people for using facilities that are there. _We_ can all see that the cycle lane is crap, but not everyone has our collective level of experience.



> The cyclist takes approximately 5 seconds to get from the back of the truck to the front, that does not mean it takes 5 seconds for the cyclist to get into his blind spot, at precisely the same time the driver has two motorcycles overtaking him and he's approaching a crossing. Maybe he could/should have been looking out for a cyclist, maybe the cyclist could/should have been looking out for himself at the same time.


The cyclist absolutely should not have gone up the inside - we are all agreed on that. But it's the responsibility of every road user to be aware of the traffic around him, and the truck driver failed in that responsibility - he should have been aware of the specific cyclist, or at the very least aware of the _possibility_ of a cyclist being there.



> Are you suggesting that the driver should have driven as far over to the right as possible just in case a cyclist decided to ride up the inside of him?


When he has just been driving alongside a cycle lane, he should have borne in mind the possibility of a cyclist being there and adjusted his road positioning accordingly.


----------



## gambatte (4 Jul 2012)

BSRU said:


> Could also mean they have become complacent, the old "familiarity breeds contempt" saying may be justified


TBH, that was the second line of my comment, which I decided to delete, just before posting!


----------



## Hector (4 Jul 2012)

The cyclist.

Let this be a lesson, if you cannot successfully complete an overtake or undertake then don't do it.

Undertaking a truck on a blind right hander is just asking for trouble.


----------



## gaz (4 Jul 2012)

I recall my driving instructor saying to me


> You may know the road but you don't know what is around the corner.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> I think that's a valid point, but I don't think we should automatically criticise people for using facilities that are there. _We_ can all see that the cycle lane is crap, but not everyone has our collective level of experience.


I hope I'm not automatically criticising people for using facilities which are there, what I hope I'm doing is criticising people for automatically using facilities which are there.



benb said:


> The cyclist absolutely should not have gone up the inside - we are all agreed on that. But it's the responsibility of every road user to be aware of the traffic around him, and the truck driver failed in that responsibility - he should have been aware of the specific cyclist, or at the very least aware of the _possibility_ of a cyclist being there.


I have been trying this out this morning whilst driving, I have been trying to imagine myself in a situation where I had two motorcycles coming past on my right whilst I was travelling forwards towards a crossing with another vehicle infront of me, whilst at the same time being aware of a cycle lane to my left. I gave myself varying amounts of time up to 10 seconds to check my offside mirror to keep an eye on _both_ motorcycles, to continually check forward in case the lights changed or the vehicle in front stopped and also to keep an eye on the cycle lane to my left. I was like some sort of lunatic nodding back and forth between mirrors, I should also point out I was in a van, I have no rear view mirror. I'm going to hang my head in shame because I couldn't guarantee that I would have spotted everything that was going on around me everytime I tried it, and I was really trying. Give it a go benb and we'll compare results 



benb said:


> When he has just been driving alongside a cycle lane, he should have borne in mind the possibility of a cyclist being there and adjusted his road positioning accordingly.


But what precisely does this mean?


----------



## cd365 (4 Jul 2012)

The cyclist's fault in my opinion. To go flying up the inside of a lorry like that when you know that the cycle lane is disappearing is suicidal.

benb, have you ever driven a car? If you are having to watch for motorcyclists overtaking you on the right the last thing you will be thinking about or expecting is some loon undertaking you


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (4 Jul 2012)

Poor cycling, driving and layout.

Personally, like thew other posters, I would not have been in that cycle lane and given the width of the road and heavy traffic, definite primary position especially after passing the lorry which he must have given the rate it passed him before he fell.
Te design of the cycle lane is atrocious with the lane probably narrower than the bars at times, and where is suddenly veers left to a parrallel lane woiuld require fast braking to turn in causing further possible issues.


----------



## benb (4 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I hope I'm not automatically criticising people for using facilities which are there, what I hope I'm doing is criticising people for automatically using facilities which are there.


Yes, I agree with this, but we should try and understand that not everyone is as good as us at identifying when a cycle lane is crap.



> I have been trying this out this morning whilst driving, I have been trying to imagine myself in a situation where I had two motorcycles coming past on my right whilst I was travelling forwards towards a crossing with another vehicle infront of me, whilst at the same time being aware of a cycle lane to my left. I gave myself varying amounts of time up to 10 seconds to check my offside mirror to keep an eye on _both_ motorcycles, to continually check forward in case the lights changed or the vehicle in front stopped and also to keep an eye on the cycle lane to my left. I was like some sort of lunatic nodding back and forth between mirrors, I should also point out I was in a van, I have no rear view mirror. I'm going to hang my head in shame because I couldn't guarantee that I would have spotted everything that was going on around me everytime I tried it, and I was really trying. Give it a go benb and we'll compare results


Well that's the responsibility you take when you bring a dangerous vehicle onto the public highway.



> benb said:
> 
> 
> > When he has just been driving alongside a cycle lane, he should have borne in mind the possibility of a cyclist being there and adjusted his road positioning accordingly.
> ...


It means that in this situation, where he knew (at least I hope he knew; he certainly should have done) that he had just driven past a long section of cycle lane, he should have kept further to the right to take account of the possibility that a bicycle had come up the inside without him noticing.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> Yes, I agree with this, but we should try and understand that not everyone is as good as us at identifying when a cycle lane is crap.


 Maybe that's a responsibilty one should have when taking a bicycle onto the public highway. But's lets not keep batting this back and forth, I think we're agreed that particular path is crap 




benb said:


> Well that's the responsibility you take when you bring a dangerous vehicle onto the public highway.


 Will you try it for me, and post your honest findings? 




benb said:


> It means that in this situation, where he knew (at least I hope he knew; he certainly should have done) that he had just driven past a long section of cycle lane, he should have kept further to the right to take account of the possibility that a bicycle had come up the inside without him noticing.


I've got to keep going with this. How far to the right? I'd have to watch again but I don't believe the truck enters the cycle lane. Ideally the cycle lane would be better, however given what we've got do you think the truck driver should be an extra foot or two to the right or treat that section as if he were performing an ideal overtake on a cyclist whether there is one there or not?


----------



## evo456 (4 Jul 2012)

Hi just joined up the forum. I wouldn't like to conclude who was at fault here. The cycle lane is narrow - not helped by the painted double red lines, it looks fairly wet. As a road user of any vehicle, you should take into consideration the prevailing road conditions. Personally if it was me, depending on my judgement I may pulled back my speed and allowed for more reaction/braking time. What strikes me the most in this clip is, the cyclist decided to undertake when there are steel railings on his left side. Call it reading the road or whatever, but I would think the risk of getting sandwiched between the railing and a moving lorry to make it not worth trying to undertake. At least on other stretches, if he did get pinched he could fall to his left and onto the payment in 'relative' safety.


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (4 Jul 2012)

I don't see how anyone can blame the lorry driver for not having x-ray vision.

Even if the cycle lane was 20 feet wide, it's still silly to expect a HGV to see you when you're alongside its door or barely ahead of its cab.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Jul 2012)

evo456 said:


> Hi just joined up the forum.


Welcome evo


----------



## Mugshot (4 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> I don't see how anyone can blame the lorry driver for not having x-ray vision.
> 
> Even if the cycle lane was 20 feet wide, it's still silly to expect a HGV to see you when you're alongside its door or barely ahead of its cab.



That's pretty scary isn't it. It's like a David Copperfield magic trick, I had to watch it twice to make sure he didn't leap out at the end.


----------



## evo456 (4 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Welcome evo


 
Thanks


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (4 Jul 2012)

subaqua said:


> that doesn't look like a good lane in the early part
> 
> and with benefit of perfect riding hindsight and not wanting to be accused of victim blaming
> 
> ...


 
Because there is no requirement to?


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jul 2012)

It's hard to tell who is to blame, but I'm relieved the cyclist came away with his life. Personally I'd never have undertaken the lorry in that situaiton. The people who designed that cycle lane want shooting. About 6 inches wide and strewn with grids and debris.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jul 2012)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Because there is no requirement to?


 
i am fully aware that there is no requirement to. but if you don't use it then ride primary so this sort of thing doesn't happen. its what i do along ruckholt road past Eton Manor

I wondered how long it would take for a in plain view of the mirrors comment . 4 seconds the bike is alongside the lory, do people check mirrors every 4 seconds ? if they do then they are not looking forwards that often .

you can argue that the cyclist was visible behind the lorry for a few seconds but that would take a long stare in the mirror to see. not whats taught when driving.

but i will probably get accused of victim blaming here when the cyclist is clearly a numpty for going up the inside when its not a safe place to be.

better to be 2 minutes late than never arrive at all.


----------



## gaz (4 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> I don't see how anyone can blame the lorry driver for not having x-ray vision.
> 
> Even if the cycle lane was 20 feet wide, it's still silly to expect a HGV to see you when you're alongside its door or barely ahead of its cab.



Technically the blind spot on that lorry is increased because the cab is angled slightly for the start of a turn.


----------



## mustang1 (4 Jul 2012)

Undertaking, not a good idea. But that's not where the incident took place.
I've only watched the video once (I got side tracked with the post videos, there's a clip of a shark attack ), but seems to be more the lorry driver's fault if passing too close, and I cant tell quite how close because bike cameras have a bit of fish-eye to them so distorts distances.
It doesn't matter what state the bike lane was in nor does it matter if the cyclist took the middle of the lane after the bike lane ended... it does look like the truck driver got too close, that's the truck driver to blame.


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (4 Jul 2012)

mustang1 said:


> Undertaking, not a good idea. But that's not where the incident took place.
> I've only watched the video once (I got side tracked with the post videos, there's a clip of a shark attack ), but seems to be more the lorry driver's fault if passing too close, and I cant tell quite how close because bike cameras have a bit of fish-eye to them so distorts distances.
> It doesn't matter what state the bike lane was in nor does it matter if the cyclist took the middle of the lane after the bike lane ended... it does look like the truck driver got too close, that's the truck driver to blame.


 
To blame for passing too closely to a cyclist whose presence he was completely unaware of?


----------



## gaz (5 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> To blame for passing too closely to a cyclist *whose presence he was completely unaware of*?


We don't know that for sure.


----------



## subaqua (5 Jul 2012)

gaz said:


> We don't know that for sure.


 
Either way


----------



## gambatte (5 Jul 2012)

mustang1 said:


> Undertaking, not a good idea. But that's not where the incident took place.
> I've only watched the video once (I got side tracked with the post videos, there's a clip of a shark attack ), but seems to be more the lorry driver's fault if passing too close, and I cant tell quite how close because bike cameras have a bit of fish-eye to them so distorts distances.
> It doesn't matter what state the bike lane was in nor does it matter if the cyclist took the middle of the lane after the bike lane ended... it does look like the truck driver got too close, that's the truck driver to blame.


 
We don't know if he got ahead of the wagon.
What we do know is that by the time the cycle lane vanished, he hadn't passed the wagon.
Undertake/overtake if you haven't got time/space to do it safely, don't do it.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> We don't know if he got ahead of the wagon.
> What we do know is that by the time the cycle lane vanished, he hadn't passed the wagon.
> Undertake/overtake if you haven't got time/space to do it safely, don't do it.


 
It's not rocket science is it.


----------



## benb (5 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Maybe that's a responsibilty one should have when taking a bicycle onto the public highway. But's lets not keep batting this back and forth, I think we're agreed that particular path is crap
> 
> Will you try it for me, and post your honest findings?
> 
> I've got to keep going with this. How far to the right? I'd have to watch again but I don't believe the truck enters the cycle lane. Ideally the cycle lane would be better, however given what we've got do you think the truck driver should be an extra foot or two to the right or treat that section as if he were performing an ideal overtake on a cyclist whether there is one there or not?


 
I had a go today, and it's not easy, keeping observation in all mirrors and ahead. I think you only need to be extra vigilant about your left mirror when there is a cycle lane there, or having just cleared one, or when turning or pulling left. So yes, it's hard to keep proper observation, but that's what we expect when you drive on the roads.

The lorry had been travelling fairly slowly, alongside a cycle lane, so I think the driver should have considered the strong possibility that a bicycle was in that position, regardless of whether he actually saw the bicycle. I personally think that he should have been aware of the bicycle's presence and should have been more vigilant about checking his left mirrors, given the cycle lane.

IMO, the lorry driver should have been further to the right, just in case there was a cycle there. I can't answer how much without seeing the road layout, but enough not to clip the cyclist.


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> IMO, the lorry driver should have been further to the right, just in case there was a cycle there. I can't answer how much without seeing the road layout, but enough not to clip the cyclist.


 
And the two motorcyclists who'd just overtaken him?

The HGV driver is utterly blameless.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> I had a go today, and it's not easy, keeping observation in all mirrors and ahead.
> .


 
I've enjoyed this debate. It's been largely good humoured and the views given have been presented in a thoughtful way.

I see much more convergence than divergence in the opimnions of benb and Mugshot.

However, I find something in the nuance of the above (edited) quote quite interesting. It may be just how I choose to read it - and I apologise if I've fallen into that trap:

Mugshot had invited benb to have a go at covering a variety of mirrors while in the situation of the lorry driver. I've quoted benb's response above. He 'had a go today' and found that it wasn't easy.

This seems slightly to suggest that it is not how benb (and many others) normally drive. Many things we do when driving are not easy. I've recently taught my eldest to drive and had forgotten quite how hard and (sometimes) counterintuitive many of the actions are.

But if someone told me to check my mirror and blindspots before changing lane and I came back and said "I had a go and it's not easy", I might give the impression that I do not normally do it.

I'm absolutely not having a go at benb here. I think he is one of the more switched-on contributors here despite our disagreement on some things. 

Nonetheless, the language I quote above seems pregnant with the possibility (likelihood?) that this is a mode of urban driving that is outside the norm for the author.

Do I have a smidgin of a point there?


----------



## benb (5 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I've enjoyed this debate. It's been largely good humoured and the views given have been presented in a thoughtful way.
> 
> I see much more convergence than divergence in the opimnions of benb and Mugshot.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I'm not a lorry driver and don't have a long vehicle. I certainly do keep a closer eye on the left mirror when in the vicinity of cycle lanes, but the point of my experiment above was to imagine I was in a lorry, with the additional observational difficulties that brings.


----------



## benb (5 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> And the two motorcyclists who'd just overtaken him?
> 
> The HGV driver is utterly blameless.


 
What about them? Are you saying that someone overtaking on the right removes your duty to be observant on the left?

I'm not sure how you can come to the definite conclusion that the driver was utterly blameless.


----------



## DRHysted (5 Jul 2012)

I have just spent some time watching that a few times. The truck doesn't have a kerb mirror, and it appears that there is no blind spot mirror either. So unless the driver was looking in his mirror at the precise moment he was in view (about 1 second, and I doubt it as he was probably looking at the overtaking traffic), or unless the cyclist had managed to get far enougth in front to be in view (aim for about 8 feet). Then the driver never knew that a bike was there. 
Does that put him at fault, or the cyclist who failed to safely complete an overtake manouvere?

Personally I'd blame the cyclist, it was a dangerous move, the highway code does state (I can't recall the exact wording) you should give way to avoid an accident. 
Personally I think it's best to arrive late, rather than never.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> Well, I'm not a lorry driver and don't have a long vehicle. I certainly do keep a closer eye on the left mirror when in the vicinity of cycle lanes, but the point of my experiment above was* to imagine I was in a lorry*, with the additional observational difficulties that brings.


 
What are we saying here?

That covering all our mirrors while observing the road ahead is easy, but that doing so while imagining one is in a raised cab at the front of a longer vehicle is difficult?

Believe me, there are no extra observational difficulties to driving a truck in that situation that can helpfully be imagined to any productive end. In many ways a truck driver enjoys advantages a car driver lacks. He/she can often reverse onto a loading bay and get it right to within a inch, despite the absence of a central mirror; this because the door mirrors are pretty wonderful. I used to watch the wheel nuts coming into view in the door-top mirror and use them to judge my reversing. A car driver has far fewer visible clues as to the position and location of the road wheels.

The vehicle is longer. But I'm not sure how imagining a longer vehicle makes peprception of difficulty or (as you imply) difficulty itself any more likely.

The view is different, but I'm not sure how sitting in a car and imagining how different the view might be makes it in any way difficult or suggests any increased difficulty in the imagined scenario.

Lorry drivers do face some difficulty with blindspots (as do almost all drivers). They have larger mirrors (often dual-aspest) and additional mirrors to mitigate in this area. I'm really not sure how (with the best imagination in the world) you might helpfully drive a car whilst imagining you were in a lorry and find the experiment conclusive of anything other than the enormous fun we had as children pretending a shopping trolley was a pantechnicon.

I fear your earlier observation is now rather more exposed than it was before being adorned with this eccentric explanation.

I'm just off on my bicycle to re-create the re-entry of Apollo 13 in an experiment. On a bicycle it is easy and I do it as a matter of course. Imagining I'm doing it in Apollo 13 is going to be difficult. Wish me luck!


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Lorry drivers do face some difficulty with blindspots


 
And they have trouble with being drunk, like the lorry driver that killed Catriona Patel, or they have trouble with being unable to see and falsifying their tacho like the lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns, or they have trouble with indicating or encroaching the asl, like the lorry driver who killed Daniel Cox.


----------



## Hector (5 Jul 2012)

Undertaking is illegal for a reason. Granted it can be done in slow moving traffic but I'd hardly call the speed in the vid ''slow moving''.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Undertaking isn't illegal, it's called "filtering". Besides, there was a cycle lane there, the driver failed to notice a cyclist alongside him for nearly 30 seconds.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Telling people you're ignoring them is kind of missing the point.


 Quite satisfying tho' as another nobber dissapears from view


----------



## Hector (5 Jul 2012)

Undertaking is illegal, ''filtering'' is what occurs in slow moving traffic. And in the vid beside the truck I'd estimate that the cyclist was doing more then 20 mph. I'd hardly state this as slow moving.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> Undertaking is illegal,


 
Source?


----------



## gaz (5 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> And the two motorcyclists who'd just overtaken him?
> 
> The HGV driver is utterly blameless.


Hold on.. we don't know if the cyclists got fully in front of the HGV or not. We can't say he is blameless.


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> What about them? Are you saying that someone overtaking on the right removes your duty to be observant on the left?
> 
> I'm not sure how you can come to the definite conclusion that the driver was utterly blameless.


 
I don't know about you but I have only one pair of eyes.

Cyclist undertakes HGV. Cyclist barely gets ahead of HGV, if at all. Road narrows. Cyclist almost becomes mincemeat.

In case you need to be reminded of just how poor visibility can be on such vehicles:


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (5 Jul 2012)

gaz said:


> Hold on.. we don't know if the cyclists got fully in front of the HGV or not. We can't say he is blameless.


 
I'm going to arrive at the obvious conclusion that he didn't. He took about 4 seconds to traverse the length of the lorry and just as he passes the cab you can hear its engine increasing revs. The driver was probably watching the two motorcyclists that had just squeezed through his offside and was completely unaware of the idiotic (yes, idiotic) cyclist who decided to nip up the inside of 30 tonnes of lorry.

I'm as passionate about road safety as most, moreso in fact, but I can at least recognise when someone's done something utterly stupid and can refrain from blaming someone obviously innocent.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> And they have trouble with being drunk, like the lorry driver that killed Catriona Patel, or they have trouble with being unable to see and falsifying their tacho like the lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns, or they have trouble with indicating or encroaching the asl, like the lorry driver who killed Daniel Cox.


 
I'm not sure what this post adds to the debate. Are you linking the behaviour of drivers proved in court to be driving drunk or otherwise illegally or inattentively to the situation in this thread?

If so, what is the link? If not, are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?

There is no ASL in the clip, no suggestion the driver was drinking or falsifying his tacho records and no need to have used indicators.

Wider society has trouble with alcohol. There was an amusing thread here some days ago seeking advice and anecdotes about cycling home drunk in the evening. There were many admissions from cyclists. Lorry drivers are not the only section of society who drink.

A cynic might wonder whether you just wanted to make morbid mention of some tragic deaths in traffic. I am not a cynic, but I would see their point if they made it.

I'm sure the cases you cite are as tragic as they were horrific and needless. We've all lost someone in horrid circumstances and it stains the soul. I'm not sure it dignifies the tragedies to trawl them up in threads where they seems to have no place.


----------



## gaz (5 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> I'm going to arrive at the obvious conclusion that he didn't. He took about 4 seconds to traverse the length of the lorry and just as he passes the cab you can hear its engine increasing revs. The driver was probably watching the two motorcyclists that had just squeezed through his offside and was completely unaware of the idiotic (yes, idiotic) cyclist who decided to nip up the inside of 30 tonnes of lorry.
> 
> I'm as passionate about road safety as most, moreso in fact, but I can at least recognise when someone's done something utterly stupid and can refrain from blaming someone obviously innocent.


Whilst it may be an obvious conclusion. It is still an assumption.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?
> 
> .


 
You betcha:



> Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police.
> 
> Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics.
> 
> ...


 
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ticle/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum


----------



## Hector (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Source?


 
Road traffic act classes undertaking as careless/dangerous driving.

And tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush is exactly the narrow minded view 'we' don't need.

After all it's not like cyclists complain about motorists classing them as RLJing lycra louts. Pot, kettle black, another HGV incident down the tube because of some narrow minded individual.

Rule number one when out riding a bike:

You are utterly blameless for anything and everything that happens to you despite how you may ride.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Do HGVs form a relatively small part of road traffic?

Yep.

Are HGVs involved in a disporportinate number of fatalities?

Yep.

Do HGVs have an appalling record of dangerous driving and illegal vehicles?

Yep.


----------



## gaz (5 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> Road traffic act classes undertaking as careless/dangerous driving.


Does it really? Then you won't have a problem telling us which section of the road traffic act that comes under.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

Would you like a ladder?


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> Road traffic act classes undertaking as careless/dangerous driving.
> 
> .


 
Source?


----------



## subaqua (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> And they have trouble with being drunk, like the lorry driver that killed Catriona Patel, or they have trouble with being unable to see and falsifying their tacho like the lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns, or they have trouble with indicating or encroaching the asl, like the lorry driver who killed Daniel Cox.


 

do all lorry drivers do this? No didn't think so. bet the figure that 100% of vehicles stopped in the city had a legal defect gets trotted out. did the police release what the legal defects were. I could go out and pick 100 vehicles with a defect that are on the road so who is to say they didn't justy pick the ones that they knew they would get a result from and ignore the others that they knew would pass.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

> The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).


 
These aren't trivial offences.


----------



## benb (5 Jul 2012)

Peowpeowpeowlasers said:


> I'm going to arrive at the obvious conclusion that he didn't. He took about 4 seconds to traverse the length of the lorry and just as he passes the cab you can hear its engine increasing revs. *The driver was probably watching the two motorcyclists that had just squeezed through his offside and was completely unaware of the idiotic (yes, idiotic) cyclist who decided to nip up the inside of 30 tonnes of lorry.*
> 
> I'm as passionate about road safety as most, moreso in fact, but I can at least recognise when someone's done something utterly stupid and can refrain from blaming someone obviously innocent.


 
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.


----------



## Mugshot (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

DRHysted said:


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


 
Twaddle.


----------



## DRHysted (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Twaddle.


Rubbish


----------



## gaz (5 Jul 2012)

DRHysted said:


> Rubbish


Recycling?


----------



## gaz (5 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> 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


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

DRHysted said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

Hector said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


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


1.35 - 1.36


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> [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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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?


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

DRHysted said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> 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 (5 Jul 2012)

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 (5 Jul 2012)

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


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

Operation Mermaid in Yorkshire, 41 HGVs stopped, 27 offences:

http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6786

Essex, 41 hgvs stopped, 28 offences:

http://www.activchelmsford.com/news...llegallorrydriversinChelmsfordagain-4532.html

Warwickshire, 42 HGVs stopped,nine offences detected with two vehicles considered too dangerous to continue using the roads:

http://news.warwickshire.police.uk/press-releases/2007312Lorrieschecked

Are you seriously arguing a major problem doesn't exist with this class of vehicle?


----------



## gambatte (5 Jul 2012)

Darren Hall, another one. Be better off staying inside, they're all out to get you if you're not on 2 wheels!​


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

> Cambridgeshire Police have criticised the large number of commercial vehicles that are committing offences after dozens were stopped in a multi-agency operation. Operation Mermaid saw 45 LGVs stopped on the A1 in Sawtry, of which 21 - almost 50% - were issued with prohibition and defect notices. Seven immediate prohibitions were issued for light, tyre and brake offences. Other results from the police-led operation include:
> 
> seven prohibitions for tachograph/hours offences
> two delayed prohibitions
> ...


 
http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/operation-mermaid-targets-lgvs-in-cambridgeshire

It seems to be a rough-and-ready rule of thumb that more than 50% of HGVs on the roads are breaking the law in some way, with many considered in too dangerous a state to continue their journey. That doesn't worry you?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> What prejudice is that?




Boris Bajic said: ↑
are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?



dawesome said:


> You betcha:




There's your prejudice.


GC


----------



## gambatte (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/operation-mermaid-targets-lgvs-in-cambridgeshire
> 
> It seems to be a rough-and-ready rule of thumb that more than 50% of HGVs on the roads are breaking the law in some way, with many considered in too dangerous a state to continue their journey. That doesn't worry you?


Yes it does, but it seems a lot of this is more operator than driver problems


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Boris Bajic said: ↑
> are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?
> 
> 
> ...


 
Um, you've snipped the bit out of my post that showed that of the random HGVs stopped in London 100% were breaking the law.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

gambatte said:


> Yes it does, but it seems a lot of this is more operator than driver problems


 
Possibly, I have no idea how a man who's been banned from driving three times can get a job driving lorries unless the company checks are worthless.


----------



## Hawk (5 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Um, you've snipped the bit out of my post that showed that of the random HGVs stopped in London 100% were breaking the law.


 
How do you know they were random? They are more likely to have just stopped HGVs that looked dodgy... for example, mobile phone offences? Officers don't stop a random HGV to THEN find a mobile phone offence has been committed, they observe it in progress THEN stop the vehicle. So you might well only have a 100% criminality rate amongst HGVs that officers thought were breaking the law as they went by. Not quite so bad..?


----------



## dawesome (5 Jul 2012)

> Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way. Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).


 
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum


----------



## GrasB (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> 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.


The lorry driver is in a tight urban environment. He was traveling at lowish speed (which makes it probable a cyclists could be keeping pace with him), there was a cycle lane which means a cyclist may have used the lane to come up his inside. Now here's the thing, as the driver was accelerating he has now made a situation where a clean pass by a cyclists, in the cycle lane, is no longer possible & has not compensated for this by being more cautious about his road positon. Here we have your huge observation fail, despite the advantage of unlimited replays! The lane to his right isn't one with on coming traffic & the motorcyclists can't be blocked by the lorry as they are infront of it. So the lorry driver has moved the goal posts for the cyclist & not compensated for this. This is why he should have been more cautious about his road positon.

If we take this to trunk roads; Cars are overtaking a lorry on the offside. Traffic slows down in the offside lane to about the same speed as the nearside lane leaving two cars beside the lorry, pacing it. About 25-30 seconds latter the traffic slows down in further, & the offside traffic is relatively faster than the nearside traffic. The lorry driver decides to pull into offside lane. However there's a car there, both cars sound their horns but the lorry keeps on moving into the offside lane. This forces the cars into the gap between the edge of the motorway & the crash barrier. The rear ward car makes the mistake of trying to brake, the car slides wedging it between the crash barrier & all hell breaks lose. The lorry driver prosecuted for driving without due care & attention despite the cars were in his blind spot for 60-90 seconds.


----------



## subaqua (6 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/city-of-london-police-road-safety-forum


 

sometimes you really are too stupid be on the internet . how can you randomly stop a mobile phone offence. its a witnessed offence. that isn't random.

the police say its random, but is it . its not like a copper has never lied when asked a question ( sorry to all you decent coppers , wouldn't want to tar you all with the same brush)

I asked you to provide the list of the offences as the linky was broken , but you didn't you just got shirty with people.

one final point if you can't see somebody and don't know they are there you won't be prosecuted for it, it was tried and got thrown out by a decent set of magistrates. This i know as i have read case papers of my fathers when a scooter followed him down the A10 towards Stoke Newington Gyratory in his blind spot behind the trailer and then tried to cut up the left when he turned into Northwold rd. as the lorry turned in the trailer clipped him and knocked him off. the 1st my dad knew about it was back at the yard in N Wales as the police had been in touch and wanted a statement. Highbury Magistrates threw all bar one of the charges out which was for a defective rear lamp which was discovered on inspection of the unit by the police back in N Wales .

I never ceased to be amazed by the number of people including car drivers and pedestrians who put themsleves in blind spots of vehicles. even the banksmen on site do it without realising and they are trained to know where to be !!


----------



## cd365 (6 Jul 2012)

GrasB said:


> The lorry driver is in a tight urban environment. He was traveling at lowish speed (which makes it probable a cyclists could be keeping pace with him), there was a cycle lane which means a cyclist may have used the lane to come up his inside. Now here's the thing, as the driver was accelerating he has now made a situation where a clean pass by a cyclists, in the cycle lane, is no longer possible & has not compensated for this by being more cautious about his road positon. .


 
So he should have been more cautious with his road position just in case a cyclist with a death wish decides to try and beat him to the end of the cycle lane? Surely what he should have expected was that the cyclist would have followed the cycle lane and not just try and join the road in front of him executing a very dangerous maneuver in front of him. That is what road planners wanted the cyclist to do so why shouldn't the lorry driver have expected this? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's the "just in case" argument.

I've put £2 on tonight's EuroMillions, I think I will go out today and hammer my credit card just in case I win.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> 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.


 
This is a rational and thoughtful piece of writing, demonstrating the reasoned and detached analysis to which it has clearly been subjected by its author. It fits well with all the other posts by the same author, in that it is not based upon a massive and irrational presupposition that all lorries are horrid and yucky killer-machines. I admire that.

I have to admit that the calm, measured approach of Mr Dawesome has resulted in my going through something like a Damascene _volta face _in this matter_._

I now find that all lorries are horrid, nasty and dangerous. I too tar all lorries with the same brush - and let me tell you, my brush is by no means short of tar. Tar, tar, tar! Bad, naughty lorries! Good, kind Dawesome!

I share Dawesome's strong beliefs and convictions in this area and will join him in what I imagine is his boycott of all goods transported by lorry. With immediate effect. Bad, naughty lorries!

From now on I will buy only goods that are transported from source to retailer by a bicycle with a trailer. I fear my retail choices will be limited, but a principle is a principle.

Further, after the tragic spifflication of a frog while mowing my lawn, from now on I will mow only with nail scissors.

No wonder our jails are so full!


----------



## 400bhp (6 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is a rational and thoughtful piece of writing, demonstrating the reasoned and detached analysis to which it has clearly been subjected by its author. It fits well with all the other posts by the same author, in that it is not based upon a massive and irrational presupposition that all lorries are horrid and yucky killer-machines. I admire that.
> 
> I have to admit that the calm, measured approach of Mr Dawesome has resulted in my going through something like a Damascene _volta face _in this matter_._
> 
> ...


 
Sometimes when reading certain threads I get confused by posts that don't seem to follow the previous one. Then I remember that I have people on ignore.


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> How about 170 examples?
> 
> http://www.speedingsolicitor.co.uk/blog/?tag=mobile-phone-offences
> 
> ...


Whoa Nelly, this is a delectable attempt at a side step worthy of Shane Williams in his prime. Let's go back a just a little.
You have repeatedly made statements in this thread which seriously question the character of a number of people and made spurious claims, please see posts #125, #128, #131, #133, #135, #137 for examples, each has been presented as fact, you may of course be right, but as you clearly know nothing as yet try to show some human decency and humility and hold your hands up and admit that they were all made in your very humble opinion and could therefore be wrong


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way. Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).​


Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present dawesome, the last man in the UK that accepts 100% of police statements and 100% of police reports, 100% of the time 
Unless of course he's cherry picking


----------



## GrasB (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> So he should have been more cautious with his road position just in case a cyclist with a death wish decides to try and beat him to the end of the cycle lane? Surely what he should have expected was that the cyclist would have followed the cycle lane and not just try and join the road in front of him executing a very dangerous maneuver in front of him. That is what road planners wanted the cyclist to do so why shouldn't the lorry driver have expected this? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's the "just in case" argument.
> 
> I've put £2 on tonight's EuroMillions, I think I will go out today and hammer my credit card just in case I win.


Both my Lotus & Alfa have large blind spots to the rear quater area, I can easily lose a transit van in them. So when I change speed & want to make a manoeuvre I double check the blind spot specifically because I know I can lose a transit van in that blind spot. I also regularly check that blind spot & when I want to pull tight into the nearside or turn left when pulling away I double check the blind spot for cyclists as a matter of routine, just in case.

The lory drive by accelerating moved the goal posts & didn't consider the consequences of that of the vehicles which potentially were around him & within his blind spot. So yes this is 'a just in case' scenario. That doesn't mean the lorry driver is entirely to blame but only that there were things he could & possibly should have anticipated & didn't.

If you don't understand why this is a just in case scenario then please do everyone on the road a favor before you cause undue danger to those on the road around you & do one of these things:
1) surrender your driving licence
2 a) buy a copy of road craft, read it, understand it & practice it
2 b) get your self enrolled on an IAM or RoSPA training program & get your AD certificate


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).


How do these findings tie in with the statement below?


dawesome said:


> often driven by neanderthal thugs and drunkards


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Um, you've snipped the bit out of my post that showed that of the random HGVs stopped in London 100% were breaking the law.


 
It's a fairly straightforward question and answer that I quoted.
You were asked by Boris Bajic: _"are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?"_
You replied: _"You betcha"._

That's not a maybe, it's a reinforced affirmation.

Are you now taking a different stance?


GC


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> are you somehow tarring all lorry drivers with the same brush?


 


dawesome said:


> You betcha:
> 
> Turning to the issues of lorries, Inspector Aspinall told the meeting about a day of City of London spot checks on HGVs, carried out on 30 September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid, which is intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in relation to lorries. On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. ​Five of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012 Olympics. ​All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way.​Repeat: a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of HGVs on the streets of central London. ​The offences range included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).​


I have a number of emails from some kind people offering me a share of millions of pounds, unfortunately I've been told that these emails were a scam from people that are not kind at all. I've noticed that all these emails seem to be linked in someway to Nigeria, I have therefore come to the following conclusions;
All my scam emails are linked to Nigeria, therefore;
All Nigerians are scammers, therefore;
All Africans are scammers, therefore;
All black people are scammers.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Jul 2012)

Thank Gawd all cyclists aren't


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jul 2012)

There's a significant lack of being excellent to one another in the later stages of this topic, folks.


----------



## gambatte (6 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> There's a significant lack of being excellent to one another in the later stages of this topic, folks.


 
yeah, I'm not feeling the love, dood...


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> There's a significant lack of being excellent to one another in the later stages of this topic, folks.


 
There is. I fear I may be guilty.

Until recently there was disagreement (sometimes profound disagreement) but it was cordial and comments were largely relevant.

Then a poster waded in with negative, unhelpful and insulting generalistations damning all lorry drivers. He gilded the lily of his input with morbid, unhelpful and unrelated mentions of road deaths. Farce entered, stage left, in clown shoes and a purple top hat. 

After that it descended into something of a bun fight. The start of the descent can be plotted with some accuracy. Prior to that there was plenty of give & take and a very polite arrangement between Mugshot and benb to agree to disagree.

I enjoyed the debate until that point and now I think it best if I withdraw. Dawesome has brought out the schoolboy in me. Thanks to all who contributed positively - even those with whom I disagree (that's most of you, by the way).


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jul 2012)

I wouldn't like to blame any particular person more than any other. I think it's just a case of different types of sixes and half dozens all over the show. I also think that amongst the unkindness, there have been good points made by almost everyone, but they've been ignored in favour of focusing on the petty point scoring and sniping.


----------



## dawesome (6 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Then a poster waded in with negative, unhelpful and insulting generalistations damning all lorry drivers.


 


dawesome said:


> 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.


 
I've explained that there are some professional HGV drivers. I've also said that random stops of lorries reveal some vehicles considered too dangerous to continue using the roads. You can check this for yourself if you like and look up Operation Mermaid in your county, all the reports are available.


----------



## cd365 (6 Jul 2012)

GrasB said:


> If you don't understand why this is a just in case scenario then please do everyone on the road a favor before you cause undue danger to those on the road around you & do one of these things:
> 1) surrender your driving licence
> 2 a) buy a copy of road craft, read it, understand it & practice it
> 2 b) get your self enrolled on an IAM or RoSPA training program & get your AD certificate


 

So "just in case" a pedestrian runs out in front of me I should drive down a road in an urban environment at 10mph, even at 3am in the morning? No what I should be is be aware of my surroundings and look for any pedestrians. I would also expect a pedestrian to be aware of the dangers whilst trying to cross a road so should help himself to stay alive by also looking and being aware of his surroundings. In my opinion the cyclist did not put himself in a situation where he was looking out for his own safety and wellbeing, I think he was in some sort of “must get in front of the lorry” mode putting himself at risk. Maybe he should give up his cyclist licence because he is a risk to other road users around him.

I have a full driving licence which I have held for nearly 25 years and a full motorcycle licence that I have held for 20 years so I have actually been tested twice as to my ability to use a public highway. I am also tested every year by the company to ensure I am up to standard to use a company vehicle. Being a motorcyclist I am far more aware of what is around me because being knocked off at speed is likely to cause serious injury if not death. I have made a few dodgy overtakes in my time but nothing as stupid as that undertake.

Maybe you should point the idiot cyclist to read road craft because he wasn’t following it and you can guarantee that the lorry driver has not read it or even knows about it.


----------



## dawesome (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> Maybe he should give up his cyclist licence because he is a risk to other road users around him.


 
Who was placed at risk by the cyclist, the lorry driver? Do you feel the duty of care is the same for a 200 pound cyclist is the same for a driver in a four ton lorry? The law disagrees with you, because there is no such thing as a "cycling licence". There are a number of regulations that are attached to taking an HGV on the roads, regulations that are routinely flouted by around half of all lorries on the road, and it is these vehicles that are killing people.


----------



## cd365 (6 Jul 2012)

I said the cyclist is a risk to other road users, not just the lorry.
So no cycling licence then, so anyone can just get on a bike and cycle without knowing what signs mean, what road positioning they should use etc. Surely that is a risk to other road users?


----------



## Scoosh (6 Jul 2012)

<Mod hat on>

This thread has probably run its course.

There have been some good points raised and, hopefully, we can all learn something from what has been posted.

Now is a good time to cease any further 'point-scoring'.


----------



## benb (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> I said the cyclist is a risk to other road users, not just the lorry.
> So no cycling licence then, so anyone can just get on a bike and cycle without knowing what signs mean, what road positioning they should use etc. Surely that is a risk to other road users?


 
How many other road users are KSI by dangerous cyclists?


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> How many other road users are KSI by dangerous cyclists?


What's KSI please benb?


----------



## benb (6 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> What's KSI please benb?


 
Killed or Seriously Injured.


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> Killed or Seriously Injured.


Thank you.
OT, when I was employed in retail rather than being self employed in retail, within the company I worked for a KSI meant KEY STAGE INDICATOR which referred to training modules and how the trainee was progressing through them at particular points.


----------



## cd365 (6 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> How many other road users are KSI by dangerous cyclists?


 
Even if the figure was 1 then 1 is too many. The point is everyone should take care on the road, they have a responsibility to themselves and everyone around them. Too many times the finger is wagged at the motorist cause they are in the bigger vehicle. When I'm out and about the person primary responsible to make sure I'm not hurt in any way is me. The maneuver the cyclist made was dangerous to him but he still did it and got hurt. If he hadn't made that dangerous maneuver he wouldn't have got hurt, simples!


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jul 2012)

From my point of view, and speaking generally, the finger isn't pointed at motorists nearly enough. Look at the kill rate:

As a point of comparison: since 2001, 576 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; 1,275 cyclists died on British streets. The latest data shows there were 1,850 deaths or serious injuries in the first half of 2011, a 12 per cent rise on the year before.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306502.ece

On the other hand, here in this incident specifically, I'm finding it hard to blame the lorry driver to any large degree.


----------



## cd365 (6 Jul 2012)

I agree, if a motorist maims or kills then they should be punished just as much as an attacker with a knife would be. Especially those who drink and drive.


----------



## benb (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> Even if the figure was 1 then 1 is too many. The point is everyone should take care on the road, they have a responsibility to themselves and everyone around them. Too many times the finger is wagged at the motorist cause they are in the bigger vehicle. When I'm out and about the person primary responsible to make sure I'm not hurt in any way is me. The maneuver the cyclist made was dangerous to him but he still did it and got hurt. If he hadn't made that dangerous maneuver he wouldn't have got hurt, simples!


 
Well, OK, but if you are trying to make the roads safer, then it's obvious where you should be concentrating your efforts.


----------



## subaqua (6 Jul 2012)

I blame John Terry


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> I agree, if a motorist maims or kills then they should be punished just as much as an attacker with a knife would be. Especially those who drink and drive.


 
I'd extend it to all road users. A death is a death regardless of your weapon.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (6 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> I agree, if a motorist maims or kills then they should be punished just as much as an attacker with a knife would be. Especially those who drink and drive.



Are you assuming then that premeditated murder should carry the same charge as accidental murder, or murder by recklessness?
If that's the case I strongly disagree.


----------



## dawesome (6 Jul 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Are you assuming then that premeditated murder should carry the same charge as accidental murder, or murder by recklessness?
> If that's the case I strongly disagree.


 

No such thing as "accidental murder" but if a lorry driver is drunk,speeding, chatting on a mobile, has fiddled the tacho or knowingly taken an unsafe, illegal vehicle on the roads it is no more an "accident" than a death caused by firing a gun along a crowded high street.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> No such thing as "accidental murder" but if a lorry driver is drunk,speeding, chatting on a mobile, has fiddled the tacho or knowingly taken an unsafe, illegal vehicle on the roads it is no more an "accident" than a death caused by firing a gun along a crowded high street.




Manslaughter is the definition of accidental murder.


----------



## cd365 (7 Jul 2012)

benb said:


> Well, OK, but if you are trying to make the roads safer, then it's obvious where you should be concentrating your efforts.


Where is this, having never met me you seem to know my driving and riding skills. Being the perfect road user I'm surprised you are not a special adviser to the Government.


----------



## benb (7 Jul 2012)

cd365 said:


> Where is this, having never met me you seem to know my driving and riding skills. Being the perfect road user I'm surprised you are not a special adviser to the Government.



What? 
What I wrote made no comment on your, or my, riding or driving skills.


----------



## al78 (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> No such thing as "accidental murder" but if a lorry driver is drunk,speeding, chatting on a mobile, has fiddled the tacho or knowingly taken an unsafe, illegal vehicle on the roads it is no more an "accident" than a death caused by firing a gun along a crowded high street.


 
I disagree. I think there needs to be a distinction between those cases where someone made a mistake which happened to result in a death/injury, those situations where someone did something reckless, but not intending to put someone in danger, but which resulted in a death/injury, and those cases where someone was deliberately trying to cause death/injury.

It is important to consider the mindset of the perpetrator, not just the final outcome, as the ultimate future threat to the public is dependent on that mindset.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

How do you get drunk, chat on a mobile or take an unsafe vehicle on the roads "accidentally"? If a driver acts recklessly it's no good saying "I didn't mean to hurt anyone!".


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> How do you get drunk, chat on a mobile or take an unsafe vehicle on the roads "accidentally"? If a driver acts recklessly it's no good saying "I didn't mean to hurt anyone!".


Especially when they are taking a motorised vehicle surrounded by metal that can seriously injure someone if not careful, basically a weapon.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

It's the gun analogy again, fire a gun down a busy high street then try the excuse "I didn't mean to hurt anyone!".

If you take a dangerous vehicle on the roads or distract yourself with a phone, drugs, alcohol, whatever, calling the almost inevitable death or injury an "accident" is stupid.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's the gun analogy again, fire a gun down a busy high street then try the excuse "I didn't mean to hurt anyone!".
> 
> If you take a dangerous vehicle on the roads or distract yourself with a phone, drugs, alcohol, whatever, calling the almost inevitable death or injury an "accident" is stupid.


'almost inevitable death or injury'?


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

This nitpicking over the word 'accident' is tiresome. Unless someone deliberately intends to have a collision, then the collision is an accident, regardless of how careless they may have been.

I rear-ended someone at a junction once. It was an accident because I didn't mean it to happen.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

An accident is unavoidable. You could have avoided your collision.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

I suggest you consult a dictionary.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I suggest you consult a dictionary.


 I even posted a link to one for the last person to make that mistake.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

I can understand differences of opinion on internet fora, but I can't understand the need to argue over established facts. Trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'accident', as dawesome insists on doing, is futile.

You may as well argue that the word orange means a long, curved, yellow fruit.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's the gun analogy again, fire a gun down a busy high street then try the excuse "I didn't mean to hurt anyone!".
> 
> If you take a dangerous vehicle on the roads or distract yourself with a phone, drugs, alcohol, whatever, calling the almost inevitable death or injury an "accident" is stupid.


 
Certainly something here is stupid. It may be as you have it.

On the other hand, it may be your unusual attempt to change the definition of the word 'accident'.

I'm not as young as I was and not as bright as I ought to be. 

I fear you may lack either access to a dictionary or the ability to use one. Keep trying. It will come. We're all right behind you.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

> An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.


 
If you get drunk and crash into someone it's not an accident, because you didn't get drunk by accident, and driving whilst drunk means it's more likely you will make a mistake, because alcohol impairs judgement.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

Who needs a dictionary when you can attempt to prove whatever you want through blind arrogance and proud ignorance.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

This is vitally important, people need to understand why using seemingly innocuous words can be critical. A traffic accident is now called a road traffic crash or incident. The word "accident" implies that there was no one at fault whereas at least 97% of incidents involve driver error. If a driver drinks seven pints of Stella and crashes into a cyclist then calling it an "accident" is dangerous- it was a collision caused by driver neglect and/or incompetence .Somehow the use of the word "accident" neutralises it, and that seems to me to be wrong, and the same reason why the emergency response crews use RTC, not RTA.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> This is vitally important, people need to understand why using seemingly innocuous words can be critical. A traffic accident is now called a road traffic crash or incident. The word "accident" implies that there was no one at fault whereas at least 97% of incidents involve driver error. If a driver drinks seven pints of Stella and crashes into a cyclist then calling it an "accident" is dangerous- it was a collision caused by driver neglect and/or incompetence .Somehow the use of the word "accident" neutralises it, and that seems to me to be wrong, and the same reason why the emergency response crews use RTC, not RTA.


 
The word accident doesn't imply a lack of fault in my mind. When I had my collisiont, it was definitely my fault, but it was still an accident.

If someone drinks seven pints of Stella and crashes into a cyclist then they should be severely punished for causing an accident by driving under the influence.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

Listen to what the cops say, the ones who have to hose down the blood after RTCS:



> On this holiday weekend in Canada, it is a given that cars will crash and people will die.​But according to police, there will be no car accidents this Labour Day weekend.​In police-speak, car crashes are not accidents. To describe them as such is considered inaccurate by traffic police and some others who are increasingly looking to the media to stop labelling the bad things that happen on our roads and highways as “accidents.”​​​​Why is this so? Isn’t “car accident” the way most of us commonly think about motor vehicle collisions? Certainly after my own car was totalled last year, I thought many times about how thankful I was that my teenage son, who was driving, had walked away unscathed from this frightening “accident” in which another driver ran a red light and crashed into him.​​​I had given no thought whatsoever to this word usage until recently, when I was speaking to a North American-wide organization of police communications officers. In my talk, I mentioned some reader criticism of the _Star_’s coverage of a tragic “car accident” in which the _Star_ had reported the driving records of the three youths killed.​​​At the end of the session, Sgt. Tim Burrows of Toronto Police’s traffic services communications office implored me to _please_ stop using the word accident.​Burrows argues with much passion and conviction, in person, on his blog and via Twitter, that there are no accidents on our roads.​“A crash never happens without apparent cause or chance,” he says. “When we use the word accident, we give people an out from the responsibility that needs to be felt, as if what happened was some kind of ‘oops.’” It allows people to think that it was something unforeseen and unavoidable.​​​​​​“Nothing on the road just all of a sudden happens,” ​
> says Burrows, who has worked in traffic services for the past 15 years.​
> “Collisions are predictable and preventable.”​


 
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/publiceditor/article/856651--english-is-a-car-crash-an-accident

A tree falling on the road may cause an accident. Virtually all RTCs involve driver error. No accident.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

When you've finished with that dictionary, forward it on to Sgt Burrows.

I'd also make the somewhat obvious point that a single member of Toronto's traffic police does not represent the views of 'the cops' as a whole.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jul 2012)

I'm afraid you guys are wrong about accident being the right word. It's collision, and that's why police forces don't call them accidents any more. Perhaps you ought to show victims the same sort of respect, yes?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Somehow the use of the word "accident" neutralises it, and that seems to me to be wrong, and the same reason why the emergency response crews use RTC, not RTA.



Someone who does a hit & run will be charged by the police with failing to stop after an accident, not an incident or collision. 

I think there must be very few people who, in relation to road accidents, automatically interpret the phrase as implying the situation to being blame free. Certainly the the police and the courts have no trouble in holding people responsible for road accidents.



GC


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Someone who does a hit & run will be charged by the police with failing to stop after an accident, not an incident or collision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sure. But the press, and witnesses, may use the word "accident" when it's nothing of the kind. Exactly as you've just done. Can you really defend the notion that firing a gun down a crowded street and killing someone is an "accident"? It's no different with vehicles, calling something an "accident" after a speeding, drunk or drugged driver kills someone is insulting the victim's families.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

Sorry, Mickey, but that sort of faux-emotional bs is no better than quoting a Toronto policeman as validation for throwing out every English-language dictionary. 

Calling it an accident shows no more disrespect to the victims than an inability to distinguish between intention and blame and shows considerably more respect than starting some political argument about the perfectly correct use of the word accident.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jul 2012)

You're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it. Accident removes the possibility of blame, which is why police forces don't use it any more. You're in the minority.

Collision is the correct word, and you have yet to present a single reason why you can't use it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> . Accident removes the possibility of blame, which is why police forces don't use it any more.


 
Hmmm...








GC


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

The emergency services use RTC for collisions between vehicles and RTI for incidences on the road not involving collisions (broken down cars etc...)

The police avoid using accident at first because they have not investigated what happened.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

Police forces are not the majority, some police forces still use the word accident, intention and blame are separable for most levels of intelligence and there is no reason not to use it, other than accident being a more accurate word. 

Which is one more reason than can be offered for not using the word accident, other than a continued aversion to English dictionaries. As said, people don't have an issue with 'collision', the frothing comes from those who struggle with the word accident.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

> *The head of the Metropolitan Police’s Road Death Investigation Unit has echoed the sentiment of many cyclists by issuing an appeal for motorists who cause death while driving to face tougher sentences, including life imprisonment in some circumstances.*​
> As many cases reported here on road.cc testify – we’ve highlighted some at the end of this article – all too often there is a perception that drivers benefit from a lenient approach from the courts, with a number of motorists found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving escaping custodial sentences.​According to Detective Chief Inspector John Oldham of the Metropolitan Police believes that the families of victims of road traffic incidents, including pedestrians and other road users besides cyclists are resentful of what he calls “very small” sentences imposed in cases where there has been recklessness on the motorist’s part.​He added that the common description of such incidents as “accidents” was often misleading, since human intervention had contributed to the tragic outcome.​Currently, causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison, although that is seldom imposed; Dennis Putz, the lorry driver convicted of killing Catriona Patel while drunk and on his mobile phone, who had a string of previous driving-related convictions, ​received seven years in jail​
> .​“The sentences are very small, and the families hate that,” explained DCI Oldham. “In my particular world we get very upset by the word ‘accident’,” he added.​
> “For families there is no accident about it. An accident on the road is the result of the decisions people make.”​


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

I recall something being said before that RTA was avoided by emergency services due to one person arguing in court that because the police officer has used accident in his notes, that it was such and he could not be blamed for it.
Let me see if I can find something to back that up.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

It's a loaded word, it reinforces the judicial "shrug" with which road deaths are often treated.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's a loaded word, it implies a judicial "shrug" with which road deaths are often treated.


In your mind and, possibly, Mickey's mind, but not in my mind. 

Then again, I will admit to being unduly influenced by things like dictionaries and accepted / common usage when considering the meanings of words, rather than prejudicial blinkers.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I'm afraid you guys are wrong about accident being the right word. It's collision, and that's why police forces don't call them accidents any more. Perhaps you ought to show victims the same sort of respect, yes?


 
That is sentimental nonsense Mikey.

Mangling the English language makes you no more respectful to those who have lost their lives in accidents than I.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I'm afraid you guys are wrong about accident being the right word. It's collision, and that's why police forces don't call them accidents any more. Perhaps you ought to show victims the same sort of respect, yes?


 
BM, many police forces in the English-speaking world are moving away from the word 'accident'. This does not alter the definition of the word. Those police forces who choose not to use the word 'accident' in official documents do so for their own reasons. 

It's not a matter of respect or absence thereof. Nobody is showing any victims any lack of respect by questioning the insitence on hyperbolic jargonese outside its own very limited professional usage. 

Those who eschew the term 'accident' when describing collisions have their own reasons, but they still lack the powers to alter the definition of a word. 

There is simply no sense in which the word accident _'removes the possibility of blame' _(your phrase above). I have a great deal of respect for your contributions to this forum, but if you think this you are wrong.

This is not a matter of opinion, rather of definition. My source is not a speech by a traffic officer in Toronto; it is every reputable dictionary of the English language.

Collision is a perfectly acceptable word to use when describing a collision. Accident is a perfectly acceptable word to use when describing an accident, which may be a collision or one of myriad other possible incidents.

Neither is a synonym for the other.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

As Gaz says, the police prefer the word collision prior to investigation, because sometimes a collision is caused deliberatetely.

There was a nasty head-on crash in Newcastle a few years back, causing a fatality. It turned out the crash was caused deliberately by a third party pushing one of the cars into the opposite lane, motivated by road rage. In this case, the word accident would've been incorrect.


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> There was a nasty head-on crash in Newcastle a few years back.


 
And one yesterday, it seems:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-head-on-purpose-lose-unborn-baby-son.html

Would you really use the word "accident" for that, if what's claimed is true?


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> And one yesterday, it seems:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-head-on-purpose-lose-unborn-baby-son.html
> 
> Would you really use the word "accident" for that, if what's claimed is true?


 
No, I wouldn't. If you'd read my post properly, you'd know that.


----------



## Norm (7 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> No, I wouldn't. If you'd read my post properly, you'd know that.


Then again, if reading and comprehension hadn't proved such an issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jul 2012)

gaz said:


> I recall something being said before that RTA was avoided by emergency services due to one person arguing in court that because the police officer has used accident in his notes, that it was such and he could not be blamed for it.
> Let me see if I can find something to back that up.



I'll bet you the court did not accept his argument.

Take a look at Section 170 RTA 1988 (duty of driver to stop) and see if you can find incident or collision used anywhere in place of accident.N

Accident does not mean free from fault.

GC


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

There are also legal implications, as Spen of this parish noted:



> The police in saying this is not an RTA, but is an RTC, present a serious problem in prosecuting someone for fail to stop/ fail to report.
> 
> If they say it is not an RTA but an RTC, then they would be arguing against themselves if they later try to prosecute someone for failing to stop/ report an accident.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jul 2012)

I agree entirely with that contribution, which seems to support my view that trying to alter the meaning of the long-established word 'accident' is futile.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> There are also legal implications, as Spen of this parish noted:




Have you quoted that as something that supports your argument that accidents should be called collisions?


GC


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'll bet you the court did not accept his argument.
> 
> Take a look at Section 170 RTA 1988 (duty of driver to stop) and see if you can find incident or collision used anywhere in place of accident.N
> 
> ...


Don't worry, i know what it is in the law. Read my comments, and you will see that I only mention what the police use at first (before they know any details of what happened), and not what it may be described as at a later date.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> Police forces are not the majority, some police forces still use the word accident,.


 
Which ones?


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Certainly something here is stupid. It may be as you have it.
> 
> On the other hand, it may be your unusual attempt to change the definition of the word 'accident'.
> 
> ...


 

I am explaining why a word can be misused, I'm not attacking anyone personally, if you are unable to debate the point without personal abuse then please stay out of the debate.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I have a number of emails from some kind people offering me a share of millions of pounds, unfortunately I've been told that these emails were a scam from people that are not kind at all. I've noticed that all these emails seem to be linked in someway to Nigeria, I have therefore come to the following conclusions;
> All my scam emails are linked to Nigeria, therefore;
> All Nigerians are scammers, therefore;
> All Africans are scammers, therefore;
> ...


 
I'm not sure what your racist views about Nigerians have to do with anything. You think all black people are criminals?


----------



## Norm (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> I'm not sure what your racist views about Nigerians have to do with anything.


Somehow, that wilful misunderstanding doesn't surprise me.  TVP, for one, mentions the word a few times.


----------



## al78 (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Sure. But the press, and witnesses, may use the word "accident" when it's nothing of the kind. Exactly as you've just done. Can you really defend the notion that firing a gun down a crowded street and killing someone is an "accident"? It's no different with vehicles, calling something an "accident" after a speeding, drunk or drugged driver kills someone is insulting the victim's families.


 
What would be the motivation for firing a gun down a crowded street, if not to kill someone?

It is entirely possible that a driver can think they can pull off a manoeuvre without incident only to find out (too late) that they can't. It is not possible for someone to think that firing a gun down a crowded street wouldn't likely result in death/injury. The two situations are not comparable.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

If a drunk person fired a gun down a high street you wouldn't call any injury caused an "accident", it's the same with a drunk driver. Virtually all collisions on the roads have driver error as the cause. You shouldn't suggest it was nobody's fault if a drunk driver hurts someone.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> I'm not sure what your racist views about Nigerians have to do with anything. You think all black people are criminals?


Thank you dawesome, I have to say I really didn't expect you to cave so easily but I'm glad you've seen sense and recognised that you were being rather foolish and sweeping with your generalisations and I accept your apology, thanks again


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> If a drunk person fired a gun down a high street you wouldn't call any injury caused an "accident", it's the same with a drunk driver. Virtually all collisions on the roads have driver error as the cause. You shouldn't suggest it was nobody's fault if a drunk driver hurts someone.



A drunk person could have hold of a gun (why he has/does is irrelevant, but for argument sake lets assume someone just hands it to him), due to his drunkenness he slips and falls In the process he pulls the trigger, the gun fires into a crowd of people and kills a person. 

Accident or murder?


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> You shouldn't suggest it was nobody's fault if a drunk driver hurts someone.



Nobody is suggesting that. This is what is known as a straw man argument. Only you and one or two others seem to believe that 'accident' means 'without fault'. And you are factually incorrect.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Manslaughter. No intent.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Only you and one or two others seem to believe that 'accident' means 'without fault'.


 
That isn't what I've said. It's nothing to do with fault, it's to do with culpability.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> That isn't what I've said. It's nothing to do with fault, it's to do with culpability.


 
Okay.

Only you and one or two others seem to believe that the word 'accident' implies that nobody is culpable. I hate to bring up my own motoring faux pas again, but when I had my accident, I was certainly 100% culpable and it was my fault. But it was an accident.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Nope. Because accidents are unavoidable. Had you been paying attention you wouldn't have made such a silly mistake.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Because accidents are unavoidable.


 
Factually incorrect drivel.

When you've found a dictionary, any dictionary, that supports your definition of the word 'accident' and contradicts mine, please let me know.

Good luck!


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

You can take it to extreme positions to reinforce what is really a very basic principle. If someone drinks eight pints of wife beater and decides to juggle chainsaws and severs his own foot it's certainly stretching it a bit to call it an "accident", right? The pissed-up juggler certainly didn't mean to hack his own foot off but he took part in an activity that made the possibility likely. If it was an accident there would have been no way to avoid it but I avoid hacking my foot off every day by avoiding juggling chain saws after a gallon of Stella.

Now, apply that to the roads and drivers trying to control half a ton of machinery whilst texting, say. It doesn't form intent; it doesn't make you evil; I don't believe anyone wants to cause crashes. But the fact remains that if you make errors and cause a collision, it is not an accident. It could have been prevented.


----------



## subaqua (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Nope. Because accidents are unavoidable. Had you been paying attention you wouldn't have made such a silly mistake.


 
maybe the cyclist should have paid attention to the road then and ridden accordingly,and not gone up the inside putting himself in danger. maybe if he had hung back a little, maybe if he had ridden primary. but no it must be the lorry drivers fault as he is a lorry driver and therefore in Dawesomes mind a murdering scumbag.

heres some news. i can provide figures that a certain percentage of cyclist jump red lights and 100% of cyclists stopped at random by the police for RLJing RLJed . by your logic all cyclists must be red light jumpers.

BTW you still haven't confirmed the mechanical defects , which makes you a hypocrite as well as badly in a hole form which you keep digging down, rather than digging steps to get out.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> But the fact remains that if you make errors and cause a collision, it is not an accident. It could have been prevented.


 
You don't understand what 'accident' means.
You don't understand what 'fact' means.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Why do you think relatives of the victim of a drunk driver get annoyed at the use of the word "accident"?


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> You can take it to extreme positions to reinforce what is really a very basic principle. If someone drinks eight pints of wife beater and decides to juggle chainsaws and severs his own foot it's certainly stretching it a bit to call it an "accident", right? The pissed-up juggler certainly didn't mean to hack his own foot off but he took part in an activity that made the possibility likely.


 
Well if he didn't mean to hack his foot off, but did hack his foot off, then it was an accident. But he only has himself to blame, because he was foolishly juggling chainsaws whilst bladdered.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Why do you think relatives of the victim of a drunk driver get annoyed at the use of the word "accident"?


 
Because they're letting their emotions cloud their judgement. Understandable, given the circumstances. What's your excuse?


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

The wonderful Cynthia Barlow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1331_testimonies/page10.shtml



> Alex Jane McVitty, killed June 2000
> 
> 
> "My daughter was killed in June 2000. She was cycling to work in the City of London, when she was knocked from her bike and run over by the driver of a concrete mixer lorry turning left across her path. She was my only child and the most precious person in my life. Then she was dead.
> ...


 
Road deaths are not ‘accidents’ - unavoidable, unforeseeable, inevitable, unpreventable sequences of events. They have causes and they are all avoidable. 
Cynthis Barlow, Alex's mother.


----------



## Norm (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Boris thinks all black people are criminals based on some emails he got. I can demonstrate with evidence that HGV drivers are frequently lawless, reckless and lethal. See the difference?


It's ok, dawesome, you don't need to spell it out quite so blatantly, everyone has already picked up your inadequacy at comprehension.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Road deaths are not ‘accidents’ - unavoidable, unforeseeable, inevitable, unpreventable sequences of events. They have causes and they are all avoidable.
> Cynthis Barlow, Alex's mother.


 
She's making the same errors in comprehension as you. Her daughter's death was undoubtedly avoidable, foreseeable, preventable and had causes, but it was still an accident, unless the lorry driver did it deliberately.

Drivers who kill should face harsher penalties, for sure. They're in charge of potentially dangerous vehicles and should face the consequences of their mistakes.

But trying to redefine the word 'accident' is a waste of time and effot.


----------



## subaqua (8 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> She's making the same errors in comprehension as you. Her daughter's death was undoubtedly avoidable, foreseeable, preventable and had causes, but it was still an accident, unless the lorry driver did it deliberately.


 
in Dawesomes mind , the lorry driver probably did


----------



## HLaB (8 Jul 2012)

So who was at fault, the Lorry driver, cyclist or the cycle lane designer and was it an accident or attempted manslaughter/murder and was the cyclist wearing a helmet


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

The lorry driver deliberately overtook a cyclist and turned left.

​


> ​Alex was an experienced cyclist on a familiar route along London Wall, and she was wearing a high-visibility sash. She was alongside the lorry for a considerable distance and the police evidence found that she was visible in at least one of the driver’s mirrors the whole time. He pulled out to the right at a junction in order to turn sharp left, cutting across her path. He didn’t know he’d run her down. The noise of passers-by alerted him and he stopped.​


 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ca1fca5e-9f6c-11df-8732-00144feabdc0.html#axzz203Pj8mpg

An accident is an uncontrolled event. The driver caused a death by being careless. He could have prevented the death of Alex. He didn't.No accident.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Boris thinks all black people are criminals based on some emails he got.


I assume that this refers to me as it was my post about the emails and stuff, but you've blamed Boris, this seems rather clumsy and demonstrates a lack of attention on your part, I do hope it was an accident.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> An accident is an uncontrolled event.


 
No, it isn't. You are factually incorrect. We can continue with this futile debate for as long as you wish, but until the dictionaries are re-written, you are wrong.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

> An accident may be defined as:
> “An unplanned, uncontrolled event which has led to or could have led to injury to people, damage to plant, machinery or the environment and/or some other loss


 
http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=255


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

Safety Management - ACCIDENTS An accident can be defined as "any unplanned, uncontrolled, unwanted, or undesirable event, or sudden mishap that interrupts an activity or function."

http://www.writework.com/essay/safety-management-accidents-accident-can-defined-any-unpla

It's actually enshrined in HSE legislation:



> *Accident​*
> An unplanned, uncontrolled event that has resulted in an injury or damage to property.​


 
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/SHE/Codes/20797.aspx


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

The OED trumps that oddly-written definition from ROSPA

Keep googling!


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> any unplanned, uncontrolled, unwanted, or undesirable event,


 
And surely in the case you site, the death of the cyclist was certainly unplanned, unwanted and undesirable. And possibly uncontrolled too, depending on how the use of that word is intended by the HSE.


----------



## Norm (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Safety Management - ACCIDENTS An accident can be defined as "any unplanned, uncontrolled, unwanted, or undesirable event, or sudden mishap that interrupts an activity or function."
> 
> http://www.writework.com/essay/safety-management-accidents-accident-can-defined-any-unpla
> 
> ...


Now you aren't even understanding what you are quoting yourself.

However you may want to play with the text sizes to hide it, they both say unplanned and neither mentions blame, so that's not exactly adding anything to the thread or justifying your continued inabilities at comprehension.


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> Boris thinks all black people are criminals based on some emails he got. I can demonstrate with evidence that HGV drivers are frequently lawless, reckless and lethal. See the difference?


 
The above reads like bunkum and if the Boris referred to is me, it is offensive and wrong.

Just for the record, I do not think all black people are criminals. I have never received any emails suggesting they are.

There are (as far as I am aware) no criminals in my extended family.

Dawesome, was this a reference to me and can you please explain it if it was.


----------



## DRHysted (8 Jul 2012)

dawesome said:


> I can demonstrate with evidence that HGV drivers are frequently lawless, reckless and lethal.


 
And yet my actual experiance with lorry drivers contradicts everything you have typed. I'd say it must be a regional thing, but the products come from all over the world, and we export all over the world. Which means I have contact with various foreign drivers as well as domestic, most of which know mutil languages, with full ADR knowledge, and would never take a risk with their trucks.
I can fully understand their dislike of yourself after you called them drunken neanderthals, especially as they have to attend medicals, and regular ADR training after getting a license to use the Queens highway. When in all truth a cyclist can just get out and ride without no knowledge of the highway code, or any training.

At the end of the day this accident was fully avoidable by the cyclist not attempting to undertake the lorry without enougth room to complete saftely, the proof of this is that he got hit. It's a manouver I would never consider safe, and never attempt FULL STOP.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The above reads like bunkum and if the Boris referred to is me, it is offensive and wrong.
> 
> Just for the record, I do not think all black people are criminals. I have never received any emails suggesting they are.
> 
> ...


 
Dawesome's comments refer to a post made by Mugshot (which wasn't meant in the way he suggests), but he used your name by collision.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Jul 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> but he used your name by collision.


----------



## Moderators (8 Jul 2012)

Enough is Enough !

[in this case, it is too much]

Thread Locked.


----------

