The finger of blame?

DB1904

Jenni_D said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Jenni_D said:

I guess that's one I'd need to see ... I can't visualise how the cyclist could turn across the lorry's path (without looking) to go into a side road, and then be hit from behind? (Coming out of a side road - yes, but not to go into one).

Unlike you, I don't really want to see it as it sounds messy

I was meaning figuratively - but I'm sure you knew that.  

However your description still doesn't make things any clearer - what you've described would have the truck already behind the cyclist, so whether the cyclist turned right or not should be immaterial.

If you meant the truck was coming the other way and the cyclist turned across, then how did the truck hit the cyclist from behind?

Truck following cycle and about to pass it when cycle swerves into the path of the truck?

born_again

Jenni_D said:

I guess that's one I'd need to see ... I can't visualise how the cyclist could turn across the lorry's path (without looking) to go into a side road, and then be hit from behind? (Coming out of a side road - yes, but not to go into one).

Quite easy. Bike in front of lorry. Rider does not look when turning right, very easy to visualise. Goes straight across in front of lorry. Squish....

Remember side roads can be at either side of the road. 👍

Jenni_D

born_again said:

Jenni_D said:

I guess that's one I'd need to see ... I can't visualise how the cyclist could turn across the lorry's path (without looking) to go into a side road, and then be hit from behind? (Coming out of a side road - yes, but not to go into one).

Quite easy. Bike in front of lorry. Rider does not look when turning right, very easy to visualise. Goes straight across in front of lorry. Squish....

Remember side roads can be at either side of the road. 👍

Ah - so the lorry was coming up behind the cyclist and made to overtake them, but the cyclist then turned to the right to take a side road without indicating and without checking.

That makes sense, but then again it is not advisable to pass another "vehicle" whilst also passing a junction. The comment was that the lorry driver couldn't do anything to avoid the collision - IF this was the scenario then they could have; they could have waited until they were past the junction to make the pass.

Richard53

Sorry if my description was unclear. Cyclist is bimbling along a 2-lane road (not a lane) on his daily commute that he has done for years. Lorry comes up behind him, moves out to overtake. Cyclist wants to turn into side road on the right. Without looking behind (the old 'lifesaver') or making an indication, indeed any warning at all, he turns to his right across the road, the lorry driver slams on, but the cyclist is hit. Nothing messy - they stopped the video before the impact. As a cyclist for 60 years, I have to say I thought the cyclist's actions were stupid and suicidal. I can only think that he had made the same manoeuvre a million times before and didn't think anyone would be behind him. Possibly listening to music, but as it was an older chap perhaps slightly deaf. Anyway, the police considered the driver in no way to blame. On the evidence, I can't disagree. A simple shoulder check would have saved the cyclist a world of grief. Lorry driver was not doing excessive speed or passing too close, and was showing all the signs of being a careful and considerate road user.

As to not passing while crossing a junction - I agree totally. The cyclist hadn't reached the junction, but cut across the road diagonally as a kind of short cut to his exit so it all happened before the junction. I probably wouldn't have passed the cyclist at that point, but I can't say the lorry driver was reckless in passing where he did.

If you want to see it, it's on iPlayer, Crash Detectives, series 3 episode 4.

[Deleted User]

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

Wow. Just overly ageist now, not even embarrassed.

JustAnotherSaver

Car_54 said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Car_54 said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

If you read the Highway Code instead of relying on 2nd-hand reports you’d know that NO-ONE has “right of way”.

Knowing is irrelevant. Thinking is what goes on in the real world.

And every man on his dog thinks that they have right of way so proceed based on that - and then accidents happen.

You're underestimating the dog. A guide dog has a better grasp of the rules than most human pedestrians.

Then I'd say we are in agreement! 

I prefer animals to people, by far  

JustAnotherSaver

[Deleted User] said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

Wow. Just overly ageist now, not even embarrassed.

Oops, my bad, I forgot its 2022.

You one of these that no longer use words like him & her? Men can be pregnant & all that? 

Oops sorry, I said men. Not sure what they're called these days. 

[Deleted User]

JustAnotherSaver said:

[Deleted User] said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

Wow. Just overly ageist now, not even embarrassed.

Oops, my bad, I forgot its 2022.

You one of these that no longer use words like him & her? Men can be pregnant & all that? 

Oops sorry, I said men. Not sure what they're called these days. 

What a lovely person.

JustAnotherSaver

[Deleted User] said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

[Deleted User] said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

Wow. Just overly ageist now, not even embarrassed.

Oops, my bad, I forgot its 2022.

You one of these that no longer use words like him & her? Men can be pregnant & all that? 

Oops sorry, I said men. Not sure what they're called these days. 

What a lovely person.

Thank you for the compliment.