Motorcar vs Cyclist.

jpaul said:
Sad lorry cyclist incident here
https://road.cc/content/news/265456-skip-lorry-driver-acquitted-causing-death-cyclist-hull
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7325786,-0.385828,161a,35y,270h,0.95t/data=!3m1!1e3

I would like to know what the lesson learned for the cyclist should be - be aware of lorry blindspots ?,
but they seem to say that lorry driver was excused (pulling out) because the cyclist was in his blindspot.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a blind spot that I hadn't considered. From the description of the incident the two things that could have saved the cyclist and that were in their control would have been to give way to the lorry (that, I understand was itself approaching give way markings) or the cyclist moving out of the cycle lane to the centre of the lane which in theory would have taken them out of the blind spot. Neither of these are obvious things for a cyclist to do and so I'd say the real solution here is for better visibility from lorry cabs and better awareness of their own blind spots from the drivers. If my interpretation of the incident is correct, if the driver had waited at the junction for 2-3 seconds the cyclist would have cleared the junction before they pulled out.
 
In traffic the only safe place is behind or in front of a lorry really. Even in a car I avoid going parallel with them around junctions unless there is loads of room.
 
Nasher said:
In traffic the only safe place is behind or in front of a lorry really. Even in a car I avoid going parallel with them around junctions unless there is loads of room.
Click to expand...

I'd even correct that to say the only safe place is (a significant distance) behind a lorry. In this case the cyclist was travelling within a cycle path on a main road and the lorry was emerging from a side road. The lorry driver didn't see anything coming (because the view of the cyclist was blocked by their wing mirror) and so didn't stop at the give way and proceeded on to the main road, hitting the cyclist in the process.

Clearly the jury had access to more evidence than I do sat here, but I'm amazed they came to a not-guilty verdict considering (as far as I understand):

i.) These blind spots would have been well known to the driver
ii.) The cycle lane suggests a risk of cyclists being there, and therefore there's a real possibility there's one in one of his blind spots
iii.) Stopping at the give way to make sure he knew there was nothing in his blind spots is not exactly a massive hardship. Surely that should be the minimum expectation of someone in that position.
 
Phil99 said:
I'd even correct that to say the only safe place is (a significant distance) behind a lorry. In this case the cyclist was travelling within a cycle path on a main road and the lorry was emerging from a side road. The lorry driver didn't see anything coming (because the view of the cyclist was blocked by their wing mirror) and so didn't stop at the give way and proceeded on to the main road, hitting the cyclist in the process.

Clearly the jury had access to more evidence than I do sat here, but I'm amazed they came to a not-guilty verdict considering (as far as I understand):

i.) These blind spots would have been well known to the driver
ii.) The cycle lane suggests a risk of cyclists being there, and therefore there's a real possibility there's one in one of his blind spots
iii.) Stopping at the give way to make sure he knew there was nothing in his blind spots is not exactly a massive hardship. Surely that should be the minimum expectation of someone in that position.
Click to expand...

An accident is an accident. He may have checked his blind spots but the cyclist was still obscured by something at the time.
 
Nasher said:
An accident is an accident. He may have checked his blind spots but the cyclist was still obscured by something at the time.
Click to expand...

Thing is you can't be watching everywhere 100% of the time all the time - scares me sometimes how much can happen in what seems like the blink of an eye while for instance your attention for just a second is mostly on another driver who is acting unpredictably and meantime a vehicle can completely appear or disappear behind you like it blinked in or out of existence, etc.
 
Rroff said:
Thing is you can't be watching everywhere 100% of the time all the time - scares me sometimes how much can happen in what seems like the blink of an eye while for instance your attention for just a second is mostly on another driver who is acting unpredictably and meantime a vehicle can completely appear or disappear behind you like it blinked in or out of existence, etc.
Click to expand...

With cars and lorries it's not usually a problem. But I see cyclists weaving between slow moving traffic at quite a pace in towns and it's just asking for trouble. People can only look in one direction at a time.
 
Rroff said:
Thing is you can't be watching everywhere 100% of the time all the time .. meantime a vehicle can completely appear or disappear behind you like it blinked in or out of existence, etc.
Click to expand...
In this case lorry was pulling onto a road and should have been aware of his blindspots ... lorry was visible form the cycle for 3s, and pulled straight onto carriageway. ...
you can't gamble like that .. it's like HRH being dazzled by the sun - plan ahead ... and the lorry driver was old too.

.. and when a vehicle 'disappears' from behind you don't you always think - god I'm inattentive - when did he turn off.
If you watch some of the advanced driving utubes .. a test is often describe the vehicles behind you ..
 
jpaul said:
.. and when a vehicle 'disappears' from behind you don't you always think - god I'm inattentive - when did he turn off.
If you watch some of the advanced driving utubes .. a test is often describe the vehicles behind you ..
Click to expand...

Not really - realities of negotiating some road layouts or making sure a pedestrian or cyclist isn't going to suddenly move out in front of you, etc. means you can't pay attention to everything at once - you can still pretty much know when a vehicle turned off, etc. but not actually see it.
 
Rroff said:
Thing is you can't be watching everywhere 100% of the time all the time - scares me sometimes how much can happen in what seems like the blink of an eye while for instance your attention for just a second is mostly on another driver who is acting unpredictably and meantime a vehicle can completely appear or disappear behind you like it blinked in or out of existence, etc.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. But this is the case where an HGV driver pulled out of a junction without stopping when he knew he had some quite significant blind spots that could affect the safety of that manoeuvre. He approached a potentially hazardous situation and he took a gamble, basically. Not the actions of a responsible professional driver, IMO.
 
Phil99 said:
Absolutely agree. But this is the case where an HGV driver pulled out of a junction without stopping when he knew he had some quite significant blind spots that could affect the safety of that manoeuvre. He approached a potentially hazardous situation and he took a gamble, basically. Not the actions of a responsible professional driver, IMO.
Click to expand...

I think in isolation this is a view most would take, so the evidence present to convince a jury to let him off must have been fairly compelling
 
Kenai said:
so the evidence present to convince a jury to let him off must have been fairly compelling
Click to expand...

if you read the some of the cross-questioning of the expert that is not obvious at all, and moreover if the journalist had sat through the trial and there was some kind of compelling simulation of what happended I think he would have referenced that .. moreover as some of the cycle forum commengts suggested ..
the (predicated) bunch of motorists in the jury thought there but for the grace of god ...

Mr Laprell asked: “Is your conclusion in your report from that, that certainly as far as the camera lens point of the GoPro is concerned, there is never a point of contact between that and the driver’s eyes?” “Yes, that’s correct,” Mr Cass said. “In 150-plus separate frames?” asked Mr Laprell.

“Indeed, yes,” said Mr Cass. “Viewed one by one?” Mr Laprell asked. “Yes,” said Mr Cass. In cross-examination, David Gordon, prosecuting, asked Mr Cass: “This phenomenon – wing mirror blindspot synchronicity – have you come across this in other cases?” Mr Cass said he had, but not with the specifics of Mr Sanderson’s case.

“So you have not come across a case such as this before?” Mr Gordon asked. “Not in its specifics, no,” said Mr Cass.

“Is there any academic research being done into this phenomenon?” Mr Gordon asked. “Not that I’m aware of,” said Mr Cass. Mr Gordon said: “These particular wing mirrors, these double wing mirrors on HGVs, they’ve been a standard feature of HGVs for ten years now, haven’t they?” Mr Gordon asked.

“That is my understanding, yes,” said Mr Cass. “These wing mirrors are a potentially fatal feature of all HGVs driving up and down our roads every day, aren’t they?” Mr Gordon asked. “That’s not for me to comment on,” Mr Cass said.

The latest cases in the courts
Mr Gordon said: “We heard Mr Sanderson tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that he looked in the direction of the flyover and he saw nothing approaching.”

“That is my understanding of his evidence,” Mr Cass said. “And he told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that his view was in no way obstructed by his wing mirrors. I asked him specifically about that.”

“Indeed,” said Mr Cass.

‘Your evidence doesn’t match defendant’s’
Mr Gordon said: “How do you account for that? Mr Sanderson is saying he looked in that direction, his view was not obscured by the wing mirrors, and he saw nothing. You say he can’t possibly have seen the cyclist because the cyclist was hidden and must have been hidden.

“How do you reconcile his evidence with yours?” Mr Cass said: “Well, I can say what the CCTV imagery tells me about the position of the vehicles.”
....
Click to expand...
 
Cyclist in wrong I think but as a driver always have to be aware of them and if you think you might endanger them, let them go first or just see if they wave you off first. Maybe it wasn't possible to know you had to pull left until you were already turning. Just put it down to an experience. Nobody got harmed at end of day.
As a driver, cyclists can get on me ****. As a cyclist, drivers do the same thing :). Cycling a lot around Bristol a year ago made me realise just what cyclists often have to put up with, including vehicles just pulling out in front of you because they know you're going to hurt yousefl if you don't brake hard to avoid hitting them. After taking up cycling I'm extra careful around cyclists now when driving as I know what it's like from their side.
 
Last edited:
DarrenM343 said:
Cyclist in wrong I think but as a driver always have to be aware of them and if you think you might endanger them, let them go first or just see if they wave you off first. Maybe it wasn't possible to know you had to pull left until you were already turning. Just put it down to an experience. Nobody got harmed at end of day.
As a driver, cyclists can get on me ****. As a cyclist, drivers do the same thing :). Cycling a lot around Bristol a year ago made me realise just what cyclists often have to put up with, including vehicles just pulling out in front of you because they know you're going to hurt yousefl if you don't brake hard to avoid hitting them.
Click to expand...
lol - read the thread
 
Nothing wrong with your response to the OP, but the OP replied back effectively concluding that bit of the thread a little while ago and then the thread was revived with the lorry vs. cyclist case a few posts back, changing the subject somewhat
 
Just sounds to me like the lorry driver just shot out of the junction not looking properly and used a lawyer to fabricate a story to get him off. It happens all the time with cyclists being killed and very little justice is being done. The sheer amount of times I've read accounts of drivers just pulling out and say I didn't see them is a disgrace and its usually because they aren't looking properly, they just look for cars and if they don't see one they just pull out. There have been campaigns for drivers doing the exact same thing to motorcyclists for years like "Think Bike"
 
Literally just saw a cyclist go up the inside of a lorry while it was obviously maneuvering a tight space - the lorry came around the corner in front of me half over my side causing me to have to stop quickly and unable to back up due to the traffic behind me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom