HGV Versus Cyclist Road Rage

amcalester

Rave.ef wrote: »

They do and I honestly think they don't see the big picture... try and navigate 46 ton from the long mile road into ballsbridge and then tell me most don't put themselves in danger.

I've no doubt that some do put themselves in danger, as evidenced by the video, but your assertion that most put themselves in danger isn't backed up by the stats.

You're viewing things from your cabin and forming opinions based on anecdotal evidence. I can counter this with anecdotal evidence of my own that all collisions involving cyclists and motorists are the fault of motorists (based on a sample of 4 collisions).

Neither opinion is correct because the sample sizes are too small (and open to various forms of bias, including confirmation bias) but what the stats do show is that the motorists are generally at fault, not the cyclists.

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why do cyclists bang on windows? its terribly annoying. Imagine pedestrians going around kicking your wheels to get your attention.

And to add, there is no need for confrontation. There's bucket loads of people going around pointing out things that has nothing to do with them. Mind your business and carry on!

When I was a child a guy jumped out of his van and started thumping on the drivers window of the car I was in. My mum had flicked on her fog lights and hadn't noticed. He went ballistic. It was stupid of her but still an error.

Now why do men in vans bang on windows, oh wait, that is a generalisation. A person done this, not all van drivers, a person, not all cyclists, some people.

jimmycrackcorm

Rave.ef wrote:

Fair point but most as you can see from the video put themselves in a dangerous predicament

I thought it was strange how the driver was able to stop when he collided with the cyclist. It's pretty obvious that he had an attitude of, he with the bigger vehicle wins.

Likewise the cyclist obviously thought he would driver with care knowing there were cyclist beside him.

Rave.ef

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Rave.ef wrote: »

One of the stupidest things if read on this.
The excuse for being so close to the kerb is simply the truck would be in the path of the on coming traffic.

So tell me again how the truck was ever going to be in the path of oncoming traffic?




Pretty stupid not to check your facts first!

Fair enough I didn't realise there were 2 lanes. Still not enough room to leave a meter m without hitting the car on the right hand side. Any one who can't see why a HGV takes up so much room really shouldn't be left on the road.

Bushmanpm

Tenzor07 wrote:

So tell me again how the truck was ever going to be in the path of oncoming traffic?

Rave.ef wrote:

Fair enough I didn't realise there were 2 lanes. Still not enough room to leave a meter m without hitting the car on the right hand side. Any one who can't see why a HGV takes up so much room really shouldn't be left on the road.

That's a tad disingenuous, that's the north side Of Battersea Bridge where the approach is two lanes straight on and the turn left only but as you cross the junction the two straight on lanes merge into just one. As you can see in the video, the LGV is in the nearside (straight on) lane with other traffic on the trucks offside. As they all proceeded across the junction the truck is being pressured by the cyclists on the left as well as the traffic on his right. If the truck were to be further away from the curb, a few more metres along it WOULD have bee on on the other side of the road.

Tenzor07

Bushmanpm wrote: »

the junction the truck is being pressured by the cyclists on the left
as well as the traffic on his right.

Yea i'm sure he felt awful pressure...

Pressure which should have been applied to the brakes not the accelerator and checked it was safe to give vulnerable road users some space... If the MPD was in law then this driver should be receiving penalty points at least...

Bushmanpm

Tenzor07 wrote:

Pressure which should have been applied to the brakes not the accelerator and checked it was safe to give vulnerable road users some space... If the MPD was in law then this driver should be receiving penalty points at least...

And as previously mentioned, the cyclists could also have applied THEIR brakes. And their common sense. And their brains.
I have no axe to grind with cyclists but I much prefer pragmatism and honesty to blinkered intransigence.

BorneTobyWilde

The shape of the road caused a lot of it. There is a reason it's a left turn lane only as the shape of road ahead would not allow for the option to go straight ahead. The truck held its line of sight, while the cyclists had to veer and veer out into the path of truck to continue straight. The truck was attempting to stay in its lane as it entered the far side of the junction. It's a tight two lanes and the truck had cars on its out side to think of also.
This cyclist must have been in a blind spot.

BorneTobyWilde

I don't get the road after the junction, is it two lanes? A van seems to be on the outer side of truck and continued straight, seems very tight for two lanes. If not then I don't understand truck getting so close to kerb.

Mooooo

The cyclists should have been in the same lane as the truck at the lights either in front or behind simple as that. They were in the wrong lane. You'd have to be sitting in the truck to see what he could see. It is the height of ignorance of ones own safety to go past a truck on the inside. Have seen cars do the same. Idiots

Carlos Orange

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The truck held its line of sight, while the cyclists had to veer and veer out into the path of truck to continue straight.

What stopped them being behind the truck?

Bushmanpm

BorneTobyWilde wrote:

I don't get the road after the junction, is it two lanes? A van seems to be on the outer side of truck and continued straight, seems very tight for two lanes. If not then I don't understand truck getting so close to kerb.

its two lanes merging into one so the trucker had vehicles on the outside as well as cyclists on the inside. The driver is trying to monitor BOTH sides as well as looking ahead as well as changing gear etc.....
....but HE wasn't doing enough!

beauf

Bushmanpm wrote: »

its two lanes merging into one so the trucker had vehicles on the outside as well as cyclists on the inside. The driver is trying to monitor BOTH sides as well as looking ahead as well as changing gear etc.....
....but HE wasn't doing enough!

Sounds like my normal route to work.

Is there something remarkable about this that I'm not getting.

Bushmanpm

beauf wrote:

Sounds like my normal route to work.

beauf wrote:

Is there something remarkable about this that I'm not getting.

But you've ridden motorbikes so you're used to rear observations, life savers, anticipation and all round eyes up your backside!;-)
Unfortunately a lot of road users don't have that gift, and I'm including ALL road users in that (but especially car drivers!)

beauf

Everyone else driving seems to do it.

Rave.ef

It's nice to see that the majority of people here have common since. Must really annoy the lycra brigade

railer201

creativedrinker wrote: »

The whole pack of cyclists had a death wish doing this

If you see any form of HGV either get infront of him or behind him.... simple

I drive HGV's and I'm also a cyclist and when ever I see anything bigger than a transit on the bike I always hold back and let them do their thing... better a minute late than in a box

As both a HGV driver and a cyclist do you think it's about time that bicycles were equipped with a loud horn/siren/klaxon so as to alert a driver that something is the matter and he/she could apply brakes ?

It seems strange that in the 21st century apart from useless tinkly bells and shouting which would largely be inaudible over traffic and engine noise anyway - cyclists have no means to warn other drivers of anything amiss, never mind an impending accident.

flatface

Rave.ef wrote: »

It's nice to see that the majority of people here have common since. Must really annoy the lycra brigade

You mention common sense then make a huge generalization about an imaginary Lycra brigade. Who are they?
Most posters here agree on the fault in the video despite the fabric they wear while transporting themselves. Please bring your ignorance elsewhere

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: On this forum, we accept that your mode of transport says no more about you than the day you were born on. The next person to generalise anyone based on their mode of transport or what they wear will be taking a long holiday from the forum.

AndrewJRenko

Rave.ef wrote: »

No matter how many mirrors or cameras you can't watch every single one of them at the same time.

Am I the only HGV driver ere

That's why I mentioned an extra banksman too. If you're unable to take your equipment out onto the public road without putting people's lives at risk, you need to take whatever steps are necessary to fix this.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why do cyclists bang on windows? its terribly annoying.

Annoying? Somebody puts your life at risk to get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds early, and you're worried about 'annoying'?

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

And attempted murder.

And most importantly, seven years bad luck.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well no. Manslaughter at most. The cyclist should have made a complaint to the Guards, not taken the law into his own hands by breaking the law.

It's a nice theory, but have you ever tried it? It is very difficult to get the Gardai to take safety of cyclists seriously. If you have helmetcam evidence, and there is a direct, immediate, specific breach of the law, you might get some action - but something anyway debateable like a close overtake is a waste of time.

Rave.ef wrote: »

It's nice to see that the majority of people here have common since. Must really annoy the lycra brigade

Lycra brigade? Do you mean the mammies wearing lycra to Lidl and for the school run in their SUVs?

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Lycra brigade? Do you mean the mammies wearing lycra to Lidl and for the school run in their SUVs?

That comment has been addressed in the mod warning, lets leave it there.

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's why I mentioned an extra banksman too. If you're unable to take your equipment out onto the public road without putting people's lives at risk, you need to take whatever steps are necessary to fix this.


Annoying? Somebody puts your life at risk to get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds early, and you're worried about 'annoying'?

And most importantly, seven years bad luck.


It's a nice theory, but have you ever tried it? It is very difficult to get the Gardai to take safety of cyclists seriously. If you have helmetcam evidence, and there is a direct, immediate, specific breach of the law, you might get some action - but something anyway debateable like a close overtake is a waste of time.


Lycra brigade? Do you mean the mammies wearing lycra to Lidl and for the school run in their SUVs?

You can't have it both ways, however difficult it might be to prove. If you expect motorists to respect the law then motorists are entitled to expect the same from cyclists. Unless you think it's ok for a cyclist to smash my mirror? In which case, you'll have no problem when a cyclist breaks the rules of the road and I get out and throw his bike over the wall.

AndrewJRenko

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You can't have it both ways, however difficult it might be to prove. If you expect motorists to respect the law then motorists are entitled to expect the same from cyclists. Unless you think it's ok for a cyclist to smash my mirror? In which case, you'll have no problem when a cyclist breaks the rules of the road and I get out and throw his bike over the wall.

I didn't make any comment about the rights or wrongs of mirror-smashing, except the '7 years bad luck' point. But please don't equate a cyclist breaking the rules of the road with a motorist endangering the cyclists' life. You don't hear of many cases of cars or drivers killed by cyclists breaking the rules of the road. It is a false equivalence.

I was simply pointing out that enforcement of traffic law against motorist, and indeed cyclists is abysmal. We wouldn't have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits if they had any real expectation of being caught.

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't make any comment about the rights or wrongs of mirror-smashing, except the '7 years bad luck' point. But please don't equate a cyclist breaking the rules of the road with a motorist endangering the cyclists' life. You don't hear of many cases of cars or drivers killed by cyclists breaking the rules of the road. It is a false equivalence.

I was simply pointing out that enforcement of traffic law against motorist, and indeed cyclists is abysmal. We wouldn't have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits if they had any real expectation of being caught.

I'm saying all road users should respect all laws. Would you agree?

AndrewJRenko

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm saying all road users should respect all laws. Would you agree?

I will answer, but before I do, please clarify if you ever break a speed limit while driving?

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I will answer, but before I do, please clarify if you ever break a speed limit while driving?

Sometimes. When I notice, I immediately slow down.

After watching the clip again, it was an interesting video for the cyclist to upload. You can only assume that they were trying to put blame on the truck driver, but it looks a bit silly when the truck driver accuses the cyclist of coming from the left turning lane, and the cyclist denies that he was there....

AndrewJRenko

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sometimes. When I notice, I immediately slow down.

But you get my point, right? Isn't it strange how animated people get about those terrible cyclists breaking red lights, when most of those people speed, use their phone, break red lights (though in a slightly different way) when driving.

82% of motorists break speed limits, and speed is a key factor in many road deaths, unlike cyclists breaking red lights.

Which issue would you want the Gardai to focus on?

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But you get my point, right? Isn't it strange how animated people get about those terrible cyclists breaking red lights, when most of those people speed, use their phone, break red lights (though in a slightly different way) when driving.

82% of motorists break speed limits, and speed is a key factor in many road deaths, unlike cyclists breaking red lights.

Which issue would you want the Gardai to focus on?

I've never broken a red light. Getting up to 105km on a 100 km road for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat. So leave me out of it.

Certainly I think the Gardaí should focus on motorists who endanger others.

But it's a bit rich to hear about outrage from cyclists when I constantly see cyclists pedalling on footpaths. That seriously endangers children and old people who might step out onto the path.

Cyclists who break lights (a norm now) are endangering themselves and are in danger of causing an accident if a motorist has to swerve suddenly.

As I said, everyone should obey the rules. Do you think that person broke the law when smashing the driver's mirror? Do you condone what he did?

Weepsie

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've never broken a red light. Getting up to 105km on a 100 km road for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat. So leave me out of it.

Certainly I think the Gardaí should focus on motorists who endanger others.

But it's a bit rich to hear about outrage from cyclists when I constantly see cyclists pedalling on footpaths. That seriously endangers children and old people who might step out onto the path.

Cyclists who break lights (a norm now) are endangering themselves and are in danger of causing an accident if a motorist has to swerve suddenly.

As I said, everyone should obey the rules. Do you think that person broke the law when smashing the driver's mirror? Do you condone what he did?

Hold on. You can't claim that your law breaking doesn't endanger others, and then claim the others definitely does.

Also you have taken the very worse possible scenarios imaginable for what WILL happen if a cyclists breaks a light or goes on a path. You've then deduced that this is what will likely always happen. Both are highly unlikely. They are a nuisance and annoying certainly, but they are not what will, and generally they are not what happen.

Anyway, this has turned into another mess of a thread and you and a few other posters are a part of the reason why. It was about the HGV and the cyclist. Go have a debate via pm ffs.

Nobody should condone the mirror breaking, but why are you not on giving about the driver who nearly squashed the person who broke the mirror? You've picekd a side because you are so incredibly biased it's unbelieable. You're not alone, there are people on both sides but your arguments here are absolute nonsense and nothing to do with the op