HGV Versus Cyclist Road Rage

ThisRegard

What's hilarious is that right from the start of this thread, and the previous one a week or two ago, posters have been pretty much unanimous that cyclists were in the wrong.

And yet you still get posters posting against cyclists just for the sake of argument it appears.

Slattsy

What clowns think that's anything but the cyclists fault.

ThisRegard

Slattsy wrote: »

What clowns think that's anything but the cyclists fault.

Probably none, but it doesn't stop other clowns looking for an argument and trotting out how cyclists play the victim, and the normal crap such things attract.

Falcon L

I'm all for losing the "us V them" attitude. It's going to be hard to lose though when you see the cyclists in that video rallying round the clown who put his life in danger. Why didn't the camera owner approach the truck driver and offer him the video? Why did he go to the other cyclist and say he has it all captured?

Until cyclists support motorists when they are in the right, and vice versa, nothing will change. I believe most motorists would call out another driver if they made a mistake involving a cyclist. I wouldn't be confident it would work the other way.

ThisRegard

I haven't watched it in ages, but I think it was just 1 cyclist who 'rallied' around, the rest left.

But you're yet another poster holding up the actions of the 1 cyclist as a yardstick to all others. If you really want to know why the cyclist with the camera did what he did, contact him via the YouTube page.

Why do you think anyone here can answer for him?

CramCycle

dense wrote: »

Unfortunately, many, (not all) cyclists act as if they're playing the vulnerable card mingling with fast moving traffifc hoping the high moral ground will save their ass - I'll do what I want, everyones going to do everything to avoid hitting me even if I pull stupid stunts like in the video.

MOD VOICE: Using the word many does not get you around the generalisations rule for this forum. As far as I can tell, every poster bar one has decried the cyclists as being 100% in the wrong. Any questions via PM.

amcalester

Falcon L wrote: »

I'm all for losing the "us V them" attitude. It's going to be hard to lose though when you see the cyclists in that video rallying round the clown who put his life in danger. Why didn't the camera owner approach the truck driver and offer him the video? Why did he go to the other cyclist and say he has it all captured?

Until cyclists support motorists when they are in the right, and vice versa, nothing will change. I believe most motorists would call out another driver if they made a mistake involving a cyclist. I wouldn't be confident it would work the other way.

I think all you can infer from that clip is that the cam-cyclist is just as much of an idiot as the cyclists who went up the side of the HGV.

It's a bit unfair to say that all (or most, or even some) cyclists will automatically side with another cyclists in the event of an accident just because they're both cyclists. All we know is that one cyclist did in this case.

Perhaps the reason that cyclists side with other cyclists is that research shows that in the majority of cases the motorist is at fault.

In London it is 68% motorist fault, 20% cyclists fault and 12% no fault or both at fault. In Vancouver it's 93% motorists at fault.

Adelaide is 79% motorists at fault and 21% cyclists.

Falcon L

ThisRegard wrote: »

I haven't watched it in ages, but I think it was just 1 cyclist who 'rallied' around, the rest left.

But you're yet another poster holding up the actions of the 1 cyclist as a yardstick to all others. If you really want to know why the cyclist with the camera did what he did, contact him via the YouTube page.

Why do you think anyone here can answer for him?

But it wasn't just 1 cyclist, was it? The whole group were in the wrong. I have no doubt that it's the same at every light change at that junction and many, many like it.

It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer. I suspect you do too.

ThisRegard

Falcon L wrote: »

But it wasn't just 1 cyclist, was it? The whole group were in the wrong. I have no doubt that it's the same at every light change at that junction and many, many like it.

It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer. I suspect you do too.

You're changing your tune now, you were complaining about the other cyclists rallying around, it was pointed that it was 1. Are you trying to say that the word 'rally' has the same meaning as 'wrong'?

You then asked us to answer for the guy with the camera, but now you're also backtracking on that.

You have some argument in your head based on what you think you're reading in this thread. From the second post it has been agreed that the cyclists are in the wrong, Why are you still trying to debate this point?

Have you posted on the YouTube page asking the guy your questions yet? You know we here aren't the Borg don't you?

Falcon L

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're changing your tune now, you were complaining about the other cyclists rallying around, it was pointed that it was 1. Are you trying to say that the word 'rally' has the same meaning as 'wrong'?

You then asked us to answer for the guy with the camera, but now you're also backtracking on that.

You have some argument in your head based on what you think you're reading in this thread. From the second post it has been agreed that the cyclists are in the wrong, Why are you still trying to debate this point?

Have you posted on the YouTube page asking the guy your questions yet?

Fine, carry on. :rolleyes: I'm out.

ThisRegard

Falcon L wrote: »

Fine, carry on. :rolleyes: I'm out.

Well there's no point hanging around arguing against nothing is there.

Carlos Orange

ThisRegard wrote: »

But you're yet another poster holding up the actions of the 1 cyclist as a yardstick to all others.

I think it was actually 9 cyclists.

dense

amcalester wrote: »

I think all you can infer from that clip is that the cam-cyclist is just as much of an idiot as the cyclists who went up the side of the HGV.

It's a bit unfair to say that all (or most, or even some) cyclists will automatically side with another cyclists in the event of an accident just because they're both cyclists. All we know is that one cyclist did in this case.

Perhaps the reason that cyclists side with other cyclists is that research shows that in the majority of cases the motorist is at fault.

In London it is 68% motorist fault, 20% cyclists fault and 12% no fault or both at fault. In Vancouver it's 93% motorists at fault.

Adelaide is 79% motorists at fault and 21% cyclists.

The counting only begins after a fatality.

How many of the cyclists were at fault in that clip? All of them, yet if one had been killed I'd say it would be found to be the motorist's fault.

beauf

dense wrote: »

You mean cyclist death rates don't you? I don't have them and we could argue about what a novice is and at what point one ceases to be a novice cyclist.
Point is moot.
Would you recommend a novice to pull alongside a stopped artic at a junction?
Personally I wouldn't.

No I mean what you asked.

dense wrote: »

....If a certain road and it's traffic is too dangerous to cycle on, is it worth the risk?

Would you recommend say a novice cyclist to use such a road?

How do you judge a road or traffic is dangerous? By what metric.

I don't know why you are talking about novice cyclists or dangerous roads. The guys in the video were not novices, and the junction was not dangerous if you obeyed the rules and people did what they are meant to.

amcalester

dense wrote: »

The counting only begins after a fatality.

How many of the cyclists were at fault in that clip? All of them, yet if one had been killed I'd say it would be found to be the motorist's fault.

Nope. Those studies included non-fatalities as well. Quite simply in the majority of collisions between cyclists and motorists research shows it is the motorist that is at fault.

That's not the case here though, those cyclists were 100% in the wrong.

ThisRegard

psinno wrote: »

I think it was actually 9 cyclists.

Rally around is the key phrase.

dense

beauf wrote: »

No I mean what you asked.



How do you judge a road or traffic is dangerous? By what metric.

I don't know why you are talking about novice cyclists or dangerous roads. The guys in the video were not novices, and the junction was not dangerous if you obeyed the rules and people did what they are meant to.

They sure behaved like novices with no road sense. Or it could just be a case of familiarity breeds contempt.

I think the road and that junction looks dangerous.
I think the cyclists put themselves in danger.

Would you advise cyclists in general to pull up along the inside of an artic at junctions?

CramCycle

psinno wrote: »

I think it was actually 9 cyclists.

Nope, one, possibly a second off camera. The rest all left.

dense wrote: »

The counting only begins after a fatality.

How many of the cyclists were at fault in that clip? All of them, yet if one had been killed I'd say it would be found to be the motorist's fault.

That is certainly not true. Your just making stuff up now. If the cyclist had been killed, the video footage would have absolved the truck driver. They may have commented on the driver could have expected someone to be there but noone would find him at fault. The only other issue that might be flagged is lack of infrastructure, personally I think that is a cop out though.

CramCycle

dense wrote: »

They sure behaved like novices with no road sense. Or it could just be a case of familiarity breeds contempt.

Sheep and familiarity, no different than the numerous road traffic laws you will see broken here every day by a variety of transport types.

I think the road and that junction looks dangerous.

Poorly designed but the road is not dangerous. The road is well surface and maintained. the only thing that is potentially dangerous on that road are the users.

I think the cyclists put themselves in danger.

And everyone agrees with you.

Would you advise cyclists in general to pull up along the inside of an artic at junctions?

And everyone has said no.

beauf

dense wrote: »

They sure behaved like novices with no road sense. Or it could just be a case of familiarity breeds contempt.

I think the road and that junction looks dangerous.
I think the cyclists put themselves in danger.

Would you advise cyclists in general to pull up along the inside of an artic at junctions?

With respect. The situation in the video is obvious and all your questions have been answered many time over already. You are flogging a dead horse, with a bias that is not based on any facts.

XVII

"because it's London" ahahahah what a hilarious retarded excuse.

ComDubh

Just to concur with some of the points made earlier I've been cycling (and driving) for decades and would instinctively never behave as those cyclists did. Either you stop well ahead of the lorry and sprint away (it's easy to beat a lorry from standing), or you stay behind and bide your time. The driver's rage at these idiots seemed understandable to me. I'm regularly disgusted at drivers who treat cyclists with contempt, but this driver just seemed upset that the cyclist's arrogance had nearly led to a very serious accident.

AndrewJRenko

the whole year inn wrote: »

The driver hit the gas because its a truck,the truck has blind spots and doesn't see all the bikers.

You don't get to bring dangerous equipment into a public space and say 'Oh I've a blind spot so you have to work around me'. You have legal obligations under safety legislation to ensure your equipment and your system of work is safe.

If the truck has a blind spot, the truck operator has to work around this - see-through doors, better mirrors, cameras, extra crew to watch out - whatever it takes to make the equpment safe.

Rave.ef wrote: »

Cyclist is one lucky idiot. How could the hgv driver see the mog...

This would be the drivers view

Then the driver needs to get a better view - it is his problem to fix.

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't think he is, I really believe he made a huge error in judgement and possibly believed he hadn't, when he gets out shouting, that is adrenaline. He thought he might have killed someone. If he was a sociopath and it was intentional, he would not have pulled the cab to the right before stopping.

Just a personal opinion, but I got the impression that the driver knew exactly what he was doing and literally ran down a vulnerable road user.

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?



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.



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.

Not omniscience - just 'don't kill people'. Is that too much to ask?

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Bearing in mind the cab can have anywhere between seven and ten mirrors AND the driver is looking ahead of him as well as checking the mirrors, working his way through (probably) a 16 speed gearbox and everything else going on around him and yet a few cyclists aren't happy?

If he has too much equipment to operate, perhaps he needs assistance in the cab. That doesn't make it OK for him to take dangerous equpment out on a public street.

Falcon L wrote: »

I believe most motorists would call out another driver if they made a mistake involving a cyclist.

Great news -when can I expect to see motorists calling out the 82% of motorists who break speed limits?

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Then the driver needs to get a better view - it is his problem to fix.

Ideally yes that would be great. But the cyclist(s) is a complete and utter moron. The driver shouldn't have to fix the problem either, the problem shouldn't be there as in the cyclist should never have been there in the first place.

Rave.ef

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Then the driver needs to get a better view - it is his problem to fix.

How is it the drivers problem to fix... it's how these machines are built.

Tenzor07

HGV driver should be arrested and charged based on this video evidence.. Fine, points on his licence and sent on a driver awareness course.

No excuse for being this close to the kerb and cyclists:

07Lapierre

I cant believe its taken me this long to notice this!

The real problem here is not the road surface, junction layout or even the LAW!

No...the reason the HGV driver and cyclists collided (see...don't want to aportion blame to either party) is the cyclists are not wearing any Hi-ViZ clothing!

AndrewJRenko

Rave.ef wrote: »

How is it the drivers problem to fix... it's how these machines are built.

So then he needs to buy a better truck with better visibility, or fit more mirrors or cameras, or provide a banksman to sit in the passenger seat and watch out for cyclists.

Weepsie wrote: »

Ideally yes that would be great. But the cyclist(s) is a complete and utter moron. The driver shouldn't have to fix the problem either, the problem shouldn't be there as in the cyclist should never have been there in the first place.

Certainly, it wasn't the smartest move by any of the cyclists, but I presume you can think of scenarios where the driver really, really needs full visibility - like when going through a residential area where kids may well be on the street, or when working around people with sight loss or people with intellectual disabilities - all who have a reasonable expectation of being able to walk on the path or cross at junctions without being squished.

ted1

I'm going to say it's the cyclists fault. All the cyclists were in a left filter lane, there was no advance bike box and not one if the cyclist made an effort to get in front of the truck to ensure he was in the drivers view point.

The must basic rule for cycling is never ever go up in the inside of a truck / bus. And in the event that you do always get in front of him so as to be able to engage in eye contact

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So then he needs to buy a better truck with better visibility, or fit more mirrors or cameras, or provide a banksman to sit in the passenger seat and watch out for cyclists.



Certainly, it wasn't the smartest move by any of the cyclists, but I presume you can think of scenarios where the driver really, really needs full visibility - like when going through a residential area where kids may well be on the street, or when working around people with sight loss or people with intellectual disabilities - all who have a reasonable expectation of being able to walk on the path or cross at junctions without being squished.

Yes, but that is not one of these scenarios. This is a scenario where a group of folks decided it was okay to go up the inside of a HGV's blind spot, on a left only turn, where there is no room to merge unless you are the very first in line and presume that the driver will be able to anticipate that there are a dozen or so idiots daft enough to take that risk.

We knock down whataboutery all the time when we hear, but what about cyclists who run red lights from the usual posters, we should equally knock it back when it's being used like this too.

The cyclist is fully at fault for being in that stupid position. Others have posted the workings of a truck better in the thread and how an acceleration might be the automatic gears etc etc.

There is zero justification for defending the cyclist beyond they were moronic.