Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

HGV Versus Cyclist Road Rage

Options
1246710

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,498 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    And if he tells the motorist to Harvey Smith ?. Grounds there to make insurance mandatory I'd say.

    You'd be very wrong there. I fear this thread is going down the locked route as you and a few others have gone and just started to derail it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭Fian


    To the posters reveling in sneering above:

    If you don't realise how revealing that is of you, your personality and your personal success in life I see no reason to bother enlightening you.

    You might at least try to find something more important to get irrationally excited about. Still I suppose we should let you get your solitary pleasures where you can, it is not as if it harms anyone else I suppose. Reminds me of another solitary activity in that way actually.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    And if he tells the motorist to Harvey Smith ?. Grounds there to make insurance mandatory I'd say.

    MOD VOICE: Discussed to death elsewhere. I fear you don't understand why motor insurance is mandatory, and also the huge issues with your suggestion for multiple reasons. No more discussion in thread about insurance. The next person to do so can take a holiday from the thread.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,498 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Fian wrote: »
    To the posters reveling in sneering above:

    If you don't realise how revealing that is of you, your personality and your personal success in life I see no reason to bother enlightening you.

    You might at least try to find something more important to get irrationally excited about. Still I suppose we should let you get your solitary pleasures where you can, it is not as if it harms anyone else I suppose. Reminds me of another solitary activity in that way actually.

    It's the usual posters too. The hover around it seems until they see a thread that can be turned into a cars v cyclists, or a cyclists and insurance/tax stupid type thread and then leave to go back to something that they might actually have a clue about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Did you read my post at all? He could have easily merged to the right to make space and just continued. The road merges into a single lane after the junction which is far wider.

    Yes I did.
    You said that he should have known there were more bikes and implied that he shouldn't have proceeded. That he made an assumption there were no bikes.
    You also said that legally he was on dodgy legal grounds.

    Hence my question, how long should he wait for the rest of the bikes to pass him illegally?
    Any chance you could answer it rather than deflect?

    You believe he should wait for them all to pass....
    How long should he wait?
    Where should he wait?
    What about all the traffic behind him?

    If he is only allowed to progress when he is 100% sure that there are no bikes illegally moving through his various blind spots, how do you expect him to make progress?

    As for expecting him to merge to his right all while being buzzed by illegal cyclists...would you like him to do some juggling also?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Y

    If he is only allowed to progress when he is 100% sure that there are no bikes illegally moving through his various blind spots, how do you expect him to make progress?

    With due care and attention. As opposed to knowingly proceeding forward knowing that there is a very good chance that there is a stupid human being on a bike that may end up under the wheels of his truck! IMO he made no attempt to avoid hitting the cyclist.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Yes I did.
    You said that he should have known there were more bikes and implied that he shouldn't have proceeded. That he made an assumption there were no bikes.
    You also said that legally he was on dodgy legal grounds.
    Driving without due care and attention could be a possible argument. A solicitor would proposition that being able to see the cyclists further back he could naturally assume there were others in between. He was still in the right but he could find that he is not found 100% in the right
    Hence my question, how long should he wait for the rest of the bikes to pass him illegally?
    Any chance you could answer it rather than deflect?
    I have answered it twice already, does no one read my posts anymore. Last time. there is ample space for him to move to his right as he moves across the junction. There is only one lane on the far side as the two lanes merge. But please, I am clearly deflecting. I am clearly taking the side of all the lemmings on bikes, I am clearly finding 100% fault with the driver. Does this site have a sarcastic font, or maybe something in a droll font.
    You believe he should wait for them all to pass....
    How long should he wait?
    Where should he wait?
    What about all the traffic behind him?
    See my previous posts
    If he is only allowed to progress when he is 100% sure that there are no bikes illegally moving through his various blind spots, how do you expect him to make progress?
    I never said that. He should progress with a reasonable assumption on the possible risks. He cold see the cyclists in front, he could see the ones behind. A reasonable assumption is there are a few dingbats beside him. Moving forward but also merging to his right would solve this.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Driving without due care and attention could be a possible argument. A solicitor would proposition that being able to see the cyclists further back he could naturally assume there were others in between. He was still in the right but he could find that he is not found 100% in the right

    I have answered it twice already, does no one read my posts anymore. Last time. there is ample space for him to move to his right as he moves across the junction. There is only one lane on the far side as the two lanes merge. But please, I am clearly deflecting. I am clearly taking the side of all the lemmings on bikes, I am clearly finding 100% fault with the driver. Does this site have a sarcastic font, or maybe something in a droll font.

    See my previous posts

    I never said that. He should progress with a reasonable assumption on the possible risks. He cold see the cyclists in front, he could see the ones behind. A reasonable assumption is there are a few dingbats beside him. Moving forward but also merging to his right would solve this.

    I'm trying to see where he had room to his right, and I'm just not seeing it. All I can see is several other cars in the lane next to him, who all come driving past after the incident.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I'm trying to see where he had room to his right, and I'm just not seeing it. All I can see is several other cars in the lane next to him, who all come driving past after the incident.

    If you look at the junction, the two lanes merge into one on the other side. If he progresses with due care and attention, he could have indicated and merged over as the lane was about to make him do anyway. The vehicles would have been zipping together regardless, all he would be doing is making the move slightly earlier and considering the size of his vehicle, it would make sense anyway, rather than having smaller vehicles pull up beside him when he has to merge over and they both get stuck.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    CramCycle wrote: »
    If you look at the junction, the two lanes merge into one on the other side. If he progresses with due care and attention, he could have indicated and merged over as the lane was about to make him do anyway. The vehicles would have been zipping together regardless, all he would be doing is making the move slightly earlier and considering the size of his vehicle, it would make sense anyway, rather than having smaller vehicles pull up beside him when he has to merge over and they both get stuck.

    See the white van in the lane on the right? There's two more vehicles behind that van that are in front of him before he can merge. At that point, there is an HGV-sized gap for him to get across into.

    I guess him moving across earlier could have forced one of the cars alongside him out onto (I'm assuming) the wrong side of the road, rather than almost running over the cyclist. Either way, it's a rock and a hard place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Driving without due care and attention could be a possible argument. A solicitor would proposition that being able to see the cyclists further back he could naturally assume there were others in between. He was still in the right but he could find that he is not found 100% in the right

    I have answered it twice already, does no one read my posts anymore. Last time. there is ample space for him to move to his right as he moves across the junction. There is only one lane on the far side as the two lanes merge. But please, I am clearly deflecting. I am clearly taking the side of all the lemmings on bikes, I am clearly finding 100% fault with the driver. Does this site have a sarcastic font, or maybe something in a droll font.
    Seriously?
    She he also check that someone isnt clinging to his front bumper?
    Or perhaps that a light plane isnt just about to land in front of him?

    The bikes are turning a 2 lane merge into a 3 lane merge with a HGV in the middle and you believe that its his responsibility to manage all of this, along with the multi tonne vehicle he is responsible for?
    CramCycle wrote: »


    I never said that. He should progress with a reasonable assumption on the possible risks. He cold see the cyclists in front, he could see the ones behind. A reasonable assumption is there are a few dingbats beside him. Moving forward but also merging to his right would solve this.

    Again, how many dingbats does he have to assume is the correct amount?
    Its reasonable to assume that idiotic cyclists are going to get the hell out of the way of a HGV, its not reasonable to assume they are going to attempt to shimmy up a 2foot gap inches from his wheels.
    07Lapierre wrote: »
    With due care and attention. As opposed to knowingly proceeding forward knowing that there is a very good chance that there is a stupid human being on a bike that may end up under the wheels of his truck! IMO he made no attempt to avoid hitting the cyclist.

    So basically all drivers should inch forward incase of kamikaze cyclists?

    It really is no wonder that motorists have such an issue with bikes.

    What they did was indefensible. The truck driver did everything right and got the absolute sh1te frightened out of himself and was met with a bunch of cyclists abusing him.

    He made no attempt to avoid hitting the cyclist that he knew nothing about since it was in his blindspot that was attempting to pass him on the left coming from a left turn only lane.

    Yep, what an ass he was.
    Seems omniscience is a new requirement for driving a HGV.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    GreeBo wrote: »




    So basically all drivers should inch forward incase of kamikaze cyclists?


    thats not what we said and you know it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭flatty


    I'm 100% a cyclist and a motorbiker, rarely drive a car, and have little love for them, but that was the fault of the cyclist and not the driver.
    The cyclist needs to be taught about blind spots. There is actually an argument for provision of cycling training, even just an hour, on this topic alone. I think 80% of cycling fatalities are cyclists caught on the inside of a HGV. Just don't go there. I feel sorry for the driver.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    flatty wrote: »
    ... I think 80% of cycling fatalities are cyclists caught on the inside of a HGV...

    They've done stats on it.
    HGVs are involved in 57 per cent of London cyclist deaths despite making up just 3.5 per cent of traffic...More than three-quarters of crashes were at junctions, while two in every five were at traffic lights — with none involving cyclists jumping a red light.

    Of the deaths at traffic lights, 62 per cent involved lorries turning left or moving off, with the cyclist being struck by the front or near-side of the vehicle.
    Lorries are involved in more than half the cycling deaths on London’s roads, and more than a fifth of pedestrian deaths, despite making up only 4% of motor traffic.

    Khan’s plans, immediately welcomed by cycling groups, will give construction trucks and other HGVs a star-based safety rating from zero to five, based on the amount of vision the driver has.

    By January 2020, those with a zero rating – primarily construction trucks with a high cab and big clearance under the wheels – will be banned. By 2024, only trucks rated three stars – “good” – or above will be allowed in the city.

    From the next financial year, Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority will not sign any contracts that involve the use of zero-starred trucks.

    Khan’s office said there were currently about 35,000 zero-rated trucks operating in London, and that over the past three years they had been involved in about 70% of the cyclist deaths involving HGVs.
    nisations have sought to design lorries with significantly better surrounding visibility. The European parliament has passed a law obliging the use of such trucks, although the new standards will not come into force until 2022...

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/30/lorries-face-london-ban-plans-improve-safety-cyclists


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    GreeBo wrote: »
    ..Its reasonable to assume that idiotic cyclists are going to get the hell out of the way of a HGV, its not reasonable to assume they are going to attempt to shimmy up a 2foot gap inches from his wheels.....

    Either its a common issue then you should expect it.

    or its not a common issue then its not something to expect as it will rarely happen.

    (That's ignoring the group that just undertook you and you can still see ahead of you. )


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Ultimately the easiest way to determine who is legally in the right here is to remove the ambiguity.

    That is, imagine it's two cars. The car in the left turning-lane attempts to merge right but misjudges the distance and collides with the vehicle already in that lane.

    Who's at fault? The car on the left because he failed to yield. Simple as. The cyclist in this case is legally in the wrong, no question about it.

    Now, one can argue defensive/advanced driving techniques, hierarchies of responsibility, duties of care, shouldve/couldve/wouldve till the cows come home and come to the realisation that everyone in this case needs to take a good look at themselves.

    But legally there's no question that the cyclist is the one who fncked up.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Basil3 wrote: »
    See the white van in the lane on the right? There's two more vehicles behind that van that are in front of him before he can merge. At that point, there is an HGV-sized gap for him to get across into.

    I guess him moving across earlier could have forced one of the cars alongside him out onto (I'm assuming) the wrong side of the road, rather than almost running over the cyclist. Either way, it's a rock and a hard place.
    I presume you don't drive? Can you explain how the HGV would merge in the next 10m? As he would be required too. It is a very basic skill.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Seriously?
    She he also check that someone isnt clinging to his front bumper?
    Or perhaps that a light plane isnt just about to land in front of him?

    The bikes are turning a 2 lane merge into a 3 lane merge with a HGV in the middle and you believe that its his responsibility to manage all of this, along with the multi tonne vehicle he is responsible for?
    Facetious much? Not what I said and you know it. I have repeatedly said the cyclists were in the wrong, every last one of them in that group, not some, not a few but all of them. Nonetheless, being wrong and stupid doesn't mean the driver should not take reasonable steps to avoid an accident if possible. I thought his reactions when he heard the shout were perfect. All I said was, despite their stupidity, he probably could have reasonably deduced there might be cyclists there as some were still in his rear view mirror (camera dude was for nearly the whole time), he might merge over to the lane beside him, as he would have to do mere meters down the road anyway. Since he is in such a large vehicle, it would be reasonable that he would be doing this ahead of time anyway. but please, keep spouting whatever you want without engaging in the discussion.


    Again, how many dingbats does he have to assume is the correct amount?
    Its reasonable to assume that idiotic cyclists are going to get the hell out of the way of a HGV, its not reasonable to assume they are going to attempt to shimmy up a 2foot gap inches from his wheels.
    It's reasonable to assume as a small number of them are actually in his rear view mirror. Assuming people are intelligent on the road is a thought process, bit of a catch 22 if you will. If they are smart enough to get out of the way, they are probably smart enough not to go up there in the first place. If they are stupid enough to be there, they are probably stupid enough not to get out of the way.
    So basically all drivers should inch forward incase of kamikaze cyclists?
    Said no one anywhere
    It really is no wonder that motorists have such an issue with bikes.
    This is not a forum for motorists vs cyclists. In the real world you will find both coexist for the majority of the time quite happily.
    What they did was indefensible. The truck driver did everything right and got the absolute sh1te frightened out of himself and was met with a bunch of cyclists abusing him.
    And they were prats as well as idiots, the guy who was hit would have been pumping on adrenaline but the camera man was a tosspot.
    He made no attempt to avoid hitting the cyclist that he knew nothing about since it was in his blindspot that was attempting to pass him on the left coming from a left turn only lane.
    He actually swerved out as soon as he heard the guy shout. the only thing he done wrong was assume that the behaviour of other road users would make sense.
    Seems omniscience is a new requirement for driving a HGV.
    reasonable judgement of scenarios, sin e.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I presume you don't drive? Can you explain how the HGV would merge in the next 10m? As he would be required too. It is a very basic skill.

    I drive, and ride both bike and motorbike. I'm explaining to you why he couldn't move across to the right earlier than he did (because he had cars alongside him to the right). He still would have merged without any issues, but what he didn't allow for was what the cyclists did on his left.

    I don't think anyone could argue with the fact that if the cyclist didn't do what he did, then all of the cars would have happily merged without incident.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    thats not what we said and you know it.

    Well you said that he shouldnt knowingly proceed forward if there is a good chance there is some other stupid human nearby.
    There are always stupid humans nearby, just look at the lads cycling into stopped vehicles.

    If you cant move forward, unless you are advocating reverse, all thats left is for him to inch forward? Unless he has one of them new levitating HGVs?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I drive, and ride both bike and motorbike. I'm explaining to you why he couldn't move across to the right earlier than he did (because he had cars alongside him to the right). He still would have merged without any issues, but what he didn't allow for was what the cyclists did on his left.
    Said cars and vans took off far quicker than him, indicate and move over when safe to do so. It was more than possible to do while progressing through the junction
    I don't think anyone could argue with the fact that if the cyclist didn't do what he did, then all of the cars would have happily merged without incident.
    +1, the cyclist was an idiot, the camera man was also an idiot


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    beauf wrote: »
    Either its a common issue then you should expect it...

    That can taken two ways:

    Either that "its a common issue" and the HGV driver should expect cyclists gambling to go for gaps that do to do not exist.

    or

    That "its a common issue" and cyclists should expect that its a potentially fatal move to shoot up the inside of a vehicle, especially in a blind spot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Basil3 wrote: »
    See the white van in the lane on the right? There's two more vehicles behind that van that are in front of him before he can merge. At that point, there is an HGV-sized gap for him to get across into.

    I guess him moving across earlier could have forced one of the cars alongside him out onto (I'm assuming) the wrong side of the road, rather than almost running over the cyclist. Either way, it's a rock and a hard place.

    Actually it's a Rock (the white van) and a "Soft" place ( Human being on a bike). ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    CramCycle wrote: »

    Not what I said and you know it. I have repeatedly said the cyclists were in the wrong, every last one of them in that group, not some, not a few but all of them. Nonetheless, being wrong and stupid doesn't mean the driver should not take reasonable steps to avoid an accident if possible. I thought his reactions when he heard the shout were perfect. All I said was, despite their stupidity, he probably could have reasonably deduced there might be cyclists there as some were still in his rear view mirror (camera dude was for nearly the whole time), he might merge over to the lane beside him, as he would have to do mere meters down the road anyway.
    And as I have repeatedly asked, how long should he hang around reasonably assuming there are more idiotic cyclist, all the while sitting in the middle of the road?
    CramCycle wrote: »
    Since he is in such a large vehicle, it would be reasonable that he would be doing this ahead of time anyway. but please, keep spouting whatever you want without engaging in the discussion.
    Not engaging in the discussion? Really, strawman arguments now?
    I'm pretty sure he was already working on handling the upcoming merge, what he wasnt planning was a line of lemmings.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    It's reasonable to assume as a small number of them are actually in his rear view mirror. Assuming people are intelligent on the road is a thought process, bit of a catch 22 if you will. If they are smart enough to get out of the way, they are probably smart enough not to go up there in the first place. If they are stupid enough to be there, they are probably stupid enough not to get out of the way.
    So again, how long does he wait?
    He saw some in his mirror and he saw some pass him by...when does he know its safe to proceed?
    CramCycle wrote: »
    reasonable judgement of scenarios, sin e.

    No, you clearly and distinctly have said that he should have reasonably expected that there would be more bikes.
    Yet you wont answer the simple question of when is it reasonable for him to assume that there are no more bikes hiding in his blind spots?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Said cars and vans took off far quicker than him, indicate and move over when safe to do so. It was more than possible to do while progressing through the junction


    +1, the cyclist was an idiot, the camera man was also an idiot

    The HGV also has to know that the gap behind the 3 cars to the right is enough for him to come across. We just don't know, but it's pretty rough to assume that he deliberately didn't merge to the right when he could have.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Basil3 wrote: »
    The HGV also has to know that the gap behind the 3 cars to the right is enough for him to come across. We just don't know, but it's pretty rough to assume that he deliberately didn't merge to the right when he could have.

    Do we know where the road is?
    Perhaps its the lane to his right that merges, rather than an equal/zip merge?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well you said that he shouldnt knowingly proceed forward if there is a good chance there is some other stupid human nearby.
    There are always stupid humans nearby, just look at the lads cycling into stopped vehicles.

    If you cant move forward, unless you are advocating reverse, all thats left is for him to inch forward? Unless he has one of them new levitating HGVs?

    Thats correct. Watch the video again...its clear the cyclist are going to cycle straight ahead. Its also clear that the HGV driver moved forward in a manner in which contact with a cyclist was inevitable...he wanted a confrontation and he got one.

    Of course all the cyclists shouldn't have put themselves in that position and its clear to me, that there was no way all of them were going to get in front of the truck.

    Both cyclists and driver were numpty's, but only one was in danger of serious injury.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GreeBo wrote: »
    And as I have repeatedly asked, how long should he hang around reasonably assuming there are more idiotic cyclist, all the while sitting in the middle of the road?
    And I have answered you multiple times, he should proceed and indicate right to merge over as he proceeds and how a driver of such a vehicle normally would considering the lane merge that is imminent ahead.

    I am not blaming him for the accident, I am saying that he could have helped avoid it with a little bit of common sense that was absent from the cyclists.
    Not engaging in the discussion? Really, strawman arguments now?
    I answered your question in no less than 4 posts, and you still keep asking it as if I hadn't.
    No, you clearly and distinctly have said that he should have reasonably expected that there would be more bikes.
    Yet you wont answer the simple question of when is it reasonable for him to assume that there are no more bikes hiding in his blind spots?
    Either they were there before he arrived or they moved into the position while he waited. I understand he may have forgotten the number or just missed them because he wasn't staying alert while stopped. The guy with the camera is still in his rear view mirror. The road pinches just there (presumably the need for the lane merge). The driver was not at fault, I was simply outlining a reasonable and acceptable way to handle the situation.
    Basil3 wrote: »
    The HGV also has to know that the gap behind the 3 cars to the right is enough for him to come across. We just don't know, but it's pretty rough to assume that he deliberately didn't merge to the right when he could have.
    I don't think it was deliberate at all, I think it was just a possible solution to the problem the cyclists caused and that he missed. I had thought it was deliberate in my first post but on looking at the video again, I don't think it was at all.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Do we know where the road is?
    Perhaps its the lane to his right that merges, rather than an equal/zip merge?

    Its an equal zip/merge


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,612 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i keep reading this thread title as 'HGV Versus Cyclist Road Race'.
    that would be an interesting undertaking.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    i keep reading this thread title as 'HGV Versus Cyclist Road Race'.
    that would be an interesting undertaking.

    You would have them on the start but probably have to drop into draft. A straight flat on the motorway, you might keep up with big enough gearing in the draft but you'd never come around. On a city street though, with the technicality, my money is on the cyclist.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement