OV9

Simon wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:00 pm
Now let's get back to signing parrots or something.

Jobbo wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:31 pm 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.

V8Granite wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 1:08 pm Border terrier, Jack russell, any dog with some fight about it attracts me.


Dave!

GG. wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:25 pm

Jobbo wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:31 pm 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)

GG. wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:25 pm

Jobbo wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:31 pm 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)

Rich B wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:21 pm 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.

Jobbo wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:07 am

Rich B wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:21 pm 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?