HGV Fatality

[Origamist]

"Mayor and TfL announce ambitious plans for improving cycle safety" (my bolds):

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/pres...nounce-ambitious-plans-improving-cycle-safety

 

[Origamist]

"Cyclist killed in Tower Bridge Road lorry collision"

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4337

Obituary here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/11/david-vilaseca-obituary

 

[Origamist]

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/con...=newshkyg&itemid=WeED10 Mar 2010 10:49:31:683

More detail here:

"The family of a singer crushed to death by a skip lorry as she cycled to work paid tribute today to the “vibrant and creative” musician.

Shivon Watson, 28, was killed at a roundabout in east London after being trapped between the lorry and railings as they both turned left..."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ight-say-family-of-cyclist-killed-by-lorry.do

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4401

More detail here:

"Friends of a medical student who was crushed to death in a collision with a tipper truck while cycling to lectures paid tribute to an “incredibly talented” young man today.

Muhammad “Haris” Ahmed, 21, died instantly in the collision near London Bridge on Tuesday morning."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...n-cyclist-killed-on-bike-safety-launch-day.do

 

[Origamist]

"Mayor and TfL announce ambitious plans for improving cycle safety" (my bolds):

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/pres...nounce-ambitious-plans-improving-cycle-safety

CTC response to the above TFL strategy:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0912_CTC-TfL_CSAP_con.pdf

 

[Origamist]

Deaths sound alarm bells for London's 'Year of Cycling'

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/deaths-sound-alarm-bells-for-londons-year-of-cycling-25393

 

[Origamist]

Captain Jonathan Allen, 29, was cycling home from his base when he was hit by a lorry as he swerved to avoid the 15ft long "crater" on the A338 on Salisbury Plain, Wilts.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...led-by-pothole-on-the-A338.html#ixzz0jl0xRmOz

 

[Origamist]

He should have checked over his shoulder

How do you know he didn't?

 

[Origamist]

How do you know that he did?

I don't know what he did or didn't do, but it is you who is speculating that he did not look over his shoulder. If you do not have evidence to support such conjecture, I'd retract those comments as it is both unhelpful and hurtful to the family of the deceased.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

How do you know he didn't?

It's a reasonable supposition, given that he "swerved" to avoid a pothole and was then hit by the truck. But if no one knows either way, a series of posts saying "did" "didn't" "did" "didn't" etc is unlikely to help us reach a conclusion.

 

[Origamist]

But if no one knows either way, a series of posts saying "did" "didn't" "did" "didn't" etc is unlikely to help us reach a conclusion.

Indeed - then why this:

It's a reasonable supposition, given that he "swerved" to avoid a pothole and was then hit by the truck.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Looking at that picture (I know, I visited the website... the shame!) I'd say the HGV driver had no business trying to overtake there anyway - the road's not wide enough and has double solid lines down the middle. Unless the cyclist was doing less than 10mph it was an illegal manoeuvre.

RIP.

 

[Origamist]

Looking at that picture (I know, I visited the website... the shame!) I'd say the HGV driver had no business trying to overtake there anyway - the road's not wide enough and has double solid lines down the middle. Unless the cyclist was doing less than 10mph it was an illegal manoeuvre.

RIP.

As we do not know the speed of the cyclist, we do not know if the HGV driver was legally allowed to overtake or not.

As always in these cases, we will never know the full picture.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

But if no one knows either way, a series of posts saying "did" "didn't" "did" "didn't" etc is unlikely to help us reach a conclusion.

Indeed - then why this:

It's a reasonable supposition, given that he "swerved" to avoid a pothole and was then hit by the truck.

Because I was answering this post:

How do you know he didn't?

Which was made in response to this post:

He should have checked over his shoulder

My point being that, given the use of the word "swerved" in the description of the cyclist avoiding a pothole - and who knows how accurate that is, but never mind that for now - it is a reasonable supposition that the cyclist should have looked over his shoulder. Note that "reasonable supposition" means just that, not "this was all the cyclist's fault". And, as I thought I'd made clear, we don't know what happened and there's likely to be little profit in spending pages and pages arguing about it.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

As we do not know the speed of the cyclist, we do not know if the HGV driver was legally allowed to overtake or not.

As always in these cases, we will never know the full picture.

True, hence me saying "unless the cyclist etc.". However, if the overtake was legal, how much room was the HGV driver not giving in order that a swerving cyclist (and not swerving too far judging from the width of the pothole and assuming he wasn't almost touching the verge) ended up under his wheels?

 

[Origamist]

My point being that, given the use of the word "swerved" in the description of the cyclist avoiding a pothole - and who knows how accurate that is, but never mind that for now - it is a reasonable supposition that the cyclist should have looked over his shoulder. Note that "reasonable supposition" means just that, not "this was all the cyclist's fault". And, as I thought I'd made clear, we don't know what happened and there's likely to be little profit in spending pages and pages arguing about it.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking you to desist with your so called "reasonable supposition" line which is little more than a fancy linguistic wrapper for speculation and second guessing.

I think you would do better to heed your own advice about unnecessarily prolonging this line of unilluminating and unedifying debate.