Randomness

[Simon]

Mike is correct.

/Thread.

Now let's get back to signing parrots or something.

[Jobbo]

Mike is correct about how cyclists could avoid putting themselves in a risky position. That doesn’t alter that fact that if the lorry had squashed the cyclist, the driver would be at fault and probably on a death by dangerous driving charge.

[jamcg]

Someone was a bit keen to get a new book from the library…..

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-58945203

[nuttinnew]

[nuttinnew]

Now let's get back to signing parrots or something.

[GG.]

Mike is correct about how cyclists could avoid putting themselves in a risky position. That doesn’t alter that fact that if the lorry had squashed the cyclist, the driver would be at fault and probably on a death by dangerous driving charge.

Yes but this comment, in my opinion, inadvertently shows exactly why the whole situation is so inequitable in certain cases. In this scenario the lorry driver was, we think (without a birds eye view from the cab) aware there were cyclists there and consequently it’s hard to have much sympathy.

Many times, however, a cyclist does things which puts their life at risk and were an innocent driver to run them over, would tear their life apart being dragged in front of the courts when it wasn’t their fault. The vulnerable road user viewpoint biases the situation when said road user does something which would be considered suicidal and very much their fault if they were a motorcyclist for example.

If a cyclist kills themselves by swerving in front of your car in a reckless manoeuvre, there should be no presumption that you are in the wrong just because they’re on a bike. And I mean societally not necessarily legally (which some lobby groups were also pushing for)

[nuttinnew]

Border terrier, Jack russell, any dog with some fight about it attracts me.


Dave!

https://www.thedodo.com/daily-dodo/clev ... 5zdGTFJTc4

https://www.thedodo.com/close-to-home/d ... I5xeUk53h4

[V8Granite]

I had the MILs Jack Russell Jessie well trained after they never bothered to.

She was awesome, a long legged smooth hair which had some kind of Essex connection. Fast as buggery and very very determined. We lost her in a rabbit warren once and I was leaving to get my shovel before she popped up about 30 metres away.

Dave!

[Jobbo]

Mike is correct about how cyclists could avoid putting themselves in a risky position. That doesn’t alter that fact that if the lorry had squashed the cyclist, the driver would be at fault and probably on a death by dangerous driving charge.

Yes but this comment, in my opinion, inadvertently shows exactly why the whole situation is so inequitable in certain cases. In this scenario the lorry driver was, we think (without a birds eye view from the cab) aware there were cyclists there and consequently it’s hard to have much sympathy.

Many times, however, a cyclist does things which puts their life at risk and were an innocent driver to run them over, would tear their life apart being dragged in front of the courts when it wasn’t their fault. The vulnerable road user viewpoint biases the situation when said road user does something which would be considered suicidal and very much their fault if they were a motorcyclist for example.

If a cyclist kills themselves by swerving in front of your car in a reckless manoeuvre, there should be no presumption that you are in the wrong just because they’re on a bike. And I mean societally not necessarily legally (which some lobby groups were also pushing for)

You'll remember the (fortunately low) number of cases of students in Oxford being run over by trucks turning left because they've put themselves in that position. And the truck drivers in those cases weren't found to have done anything wrong. Even 30 years ago I used to be frustrated not to be able to turn left (in my car) from High Street into Longwall Street, which was a change in the road layout as a result of a cyclist being squashed. Now of course you pretty much can't drive down the High anyway.

There are European countries where there's a statutory presumption that the cyclist isn't at fault and I can see the logic - they are vulnerable road users. Perhaps standing up for the HGV driver isn't a great idea if it leads to that sort of legislation coming here.

[mik]

Think of this as a metaphor relating to a cyclist and a truck driver.

[Rich B]

How many cyclists should the lorry driver have allowed for coming from the wrong lane? He gave way to the 3 he could see - then the guy in red who got hit was clearly in his blind spot throughout the whole thing.

[Ascender]

Mike is correct about how cyclists could avoid putting themselves in a risky position. That doesn’t alter that fact that if the lorry had squashed the cyclist, the driver would be at fault and probably on a death by dangerous driving charge.

Yes but this comment, in my opinion, inadvertently shows exactly why the whole situation is so inequitable in certain cases. In this scenario the lorry driver was, we think (without a birds eye view from the cab) aware there were cyclists there and consequently it’s hard to have much sympathy.

Many times, however, a cyclist does things which puts their life at risk and were an innocent driver to run them over, would tear their life apart being dragged in front of the courts when it wasn’t their fault. The vulnerable road user viewpoint biases the situation when said road user does something which would be considered suicidal and very much their fault if they were a motorcyclist for example.

If a cyclist kills themselves by swerving in front of your car in a reckless manoeuvre, there should be no presumption that you are in the wrong just because they’re on a bike. And I mean societally not necessarily legally (which some lobby groups were also pushing for)

But from where he was sitting, he'd have no way of telling how many cyclists were in that lane. And its a reasonable assumption on his part, that as they were all in the marked lane to turn left, that's exactly what they'd do as we all would.

I'm just glad I don't have to bike to an office anymore. Every time I go out in the car these days its clear the standard of driving continues to plummet on a downward trajectory.

[Jobbo]

How many cyclists should the lorry driver have allowed for coming from the wrong lane? He gave way to the 3 he could see - then the guy in red who got hit was clearly in his blind spot throughout the whole thing.

He could see there were cyclists ahead and likely to be in his blind spot and quite obviously accelerated at them all. The chap in red was the unfortunate one but any of the others could have been.

If the chap in red was so invisible, why did the driver actually stop?

[Rich B]

How many cyclists should the lorry driver have allowed for coming from the wrong lane? He gave way to the 3 he could see - then the guy in red who got hit was clearly in his blind spot throughout the whole thing.

He could see there were cyclists ahead and likely to be in his blind spot and quite obviously accelerated at them all. The chap in red was the unfortunate one but any of the others could have been.

If the chap in red was so invisible, why did the driver actually stop?

I expect because of the loud bang of cyclist back/helmet against his passenger door?

[mik]

Wow and

[dinny_g]

[nuttinnew]

mik;

[jamcg]

[nuttinnew]

^

[nuttinnew]