Please look at the video of a Lorry knocking me off.

[Mick F]

I've been out riding - in the rain! - and thinking about stuff, as I usually do.
I gave the OP's incident some thought.

If he's going to take this issue further, I would suggest he removes the YouTube video out of public view and doesn't rely on it to make his case. See a lawyer, as TC says, and hold your council. The video in public view isn't a good thing.

IMHO, he was as much to blame as the lorry driver, and the video doesn't help his case one iota.

[dave84]

IMO that cycle lane is an inadequate afterthought and the drain covers force you even closer to the traffic. Perhaps when it was installed they didnt conceive that the bicycles could be going faster than the cars. If the traffic was moving very slowly or stationary then I would take full advantage of the cycle lane as you did and make progress, but when they are moving at a reasonable speed its not the same situation.

There is a point where you just have to back off and queue with everyone else. Otherwise it smacks of the "must get ahead at all costs" mentality that we often berate motorists for. Consideration for other road users works both ways. It looked like you hesitated for a microsecond while you decided whether or not to have the lorry. Alarm bells should have been ringing looking at the size of the gap your aiming for. Did you know the cycle path was imminently coming to an end? If you did, the safest choice surely has to be to hang back.

As others have said, the critical piece of information we need is how far infront of the lorry were you. That makes the difference between 1) vindictive lorry driver and 2) poor judgment on behalf of the cyclist.

Even though I can't fully support you without knowing more, I do of course hope you recover from any injuries you sustained.

Dave A

[stewartpratt]

stewart: if you are seriously suggesting that the OP should have ignored and flouted the directions given by the road markings, by the Highway Code and by society in general, then everything else (like red light jumping) starts to unravel as well. I happen to agree with you but that does have implications for all the other rules of the road - cyclists disobey the law in order to stay alive.

That's not what I'm suggesting in the slightest. I'm having difficulty figuring out how you reached that conclusion.

[irc]

[ think that as there is a cycle lane with a solid white line it is very reasonable to expect a cyclist to be using it and overtaking a slow moving truck.[/color]

Actually at the point of collision there isn't. The "lane" ends on the road and continues on the pavement. See it at 1:27 on the video. The crash is 9 seconds later after passing a ped crossing and a junction. Not that I'm saying this excuses the driver but I in the absense of a cycle lane I would not expect to get undertaken in a gap that size at that speed. Very unwise.

[stewartpratt]

Actually at the point of collision there isn't. The "lane" ends on the road and continues on the pavement. See it at 1:27 on the video. The crash is 9 seconds later after passing a ped crossing and a junction. Not that I'm saying this excuses the driver but I in the absense of a cycle lane I would not expect to get undertaken in a gap that size at that speed. Very unwise.

The undertaking manoeuvre is a bit of a grey area IMO in that it begins within the cycle lane and it appears to end somewhere near the end of it.

One thing that certainly needs to be taken from this, if it wasn't already obvious, is that white paint does not protect you against a lorry. I've said it before: a lot of white paint on the road just serves to legitimise in people's minds manoeuvres which, once you remove the paint, are clearly hideously dangerous.

[meic]

[ think that as there is a cycle lane with a solid white line it is very reasonable to expect a cyclist to be using it and overtaking a slow moving truck.[/color]

Actually at the point of collision there isn't. The "lane" ends on the road and continues on the pavement. See it at 1:27 on the video. The crash is 9 seconds later after passing a ped crossing and a junction. Not that I'm saying this excuses the driver but I in the absense of a cycle lane I would not expect to get undertaken in a gap that size at that speed. Very unwise.

I agree but that is the point of collision not the point at which the overtake took place.

As others have said the issue is how far ahead the cyclist got from the truck, if he did at all.
I think that the time delay between the overtake and the re-overtake with the speed differential between the two vehicles at that time suggests the cyclist had cleared the truck and the two incidents are discrete from one another.
The defence given by the truck company is not of an undertake but that the cyclist wobbled while being overtaken.

[horizon]

stewart: if you are seriously suggesting that the OP should have ignored and flouted the directions given by the road markings, by the Highway Code and by society in general, then everything else (like red light jumping) starts to unravel as well. I happen to agree with you but that does have implications for all the other rules of the road - cyclists disobey the law in order to stay alive.

That's not what I'm suggesting in the slightest. I'm having difficulty figuring out how you reached that conclusion.

From this:

your riding style is an accident that was waiting to happen, IMO.

Obviously I've extrapolated from what you said (to make the point) but the point is that the OP followed the rules in terms of the cycle lane and from where it ended. You and I are both horrified that he did this but nevertheless he was only doing, as far as I can see, what he was meant to.

[horizon]

One thing that certainly needs to be taken from this, if it wasn't already obvious, is that white paint does not protect you against a lorry. I've said it before: a lot of white paint on the road just serves to legitimise in people's minds manoeuvres which, once you remove the paint, are clearly hideously dangerous.

stewart: you've said here more or less what I meant. I'm just waiting for the man who put the white paint down to post a reply.

[Mick F]

Meant to?

I don't think he "meant to" put himself in danger, but common sense - or at least my common sense - would tell me that "meant to" was a stupid thing to do.

Maybe if he'd been riding slower and keeping an eye out for dangerous vehicles, he could have stayed where he was "meant to" be and been safe. To go at a fast speed would mean staying out into the main carriageway - just where he could see and be seen.

Fast, and being behind the line in traffic like that, are mutually exclusive.

[karlt]

Kwackers - I'm fairly confident that "incompetent" would pass muster in a libel trial as fair comment. Accusations of intent to kill would not. And yes, people have before now taken official action over things published in media such as bulletin boards.

[horizon]

Meant to?

I don't think he "meant to" put himself in danger, but common sense - or at least my common sense - would tell me that "meant to" was a stupid thing to do.

Maybe if he'd been riding slower and keeping an eye out for dangerous vehicles, he could have stayed where he was "meant to" be and been safe. To go at a fast speed would mean staying out into the main carriageway - just where he could see and be seen.

Fast, and being behind the line in traffic like that, are mutually exclusive.

He was "meant" (by the highway engineers and by drivers) to cycle on the cycle lane staying within the white line but able to expect that no other vehicles would cross it. Within this context he was "meant" to undertake the lorry (I wouldn't have done, I would have done what you suggested.) You could argue that the engineers still rely on people to use their common sense, but the OP was obviously trusting the white line, just like we trust red lights ).

MickF: just to reiterate that your good sense is not what was intended by this cycle lane - everything points to the contrary. The almost suicidal behaviour of the OP was exactly what was intended by that white line.

[horizon]

Kwackers - I'm fairly confident that "incompetent" would pass muster in a libel trial as fair comment. Accusations of intent to kill would not. And yes, people have before now taken official action over things published in media such as bulletin boards.

karlt: like kwackers. I have doubts that what I said would have been libellous but I have taken your other point about malice. The phrase I was looking for this morning was "We might be forgiven for thinking that....." in a humorous way. Unfortunately it came out a bit stronger!

[kwackers]

Kwackers - I'm fairly confident that "incompetent" would pass muster in a libel trial as fair comment. Accusations of intent to kill would not. And yes, people have before now taken official action over things published in media such as bulletin boards.

karlt: like kwackers. I have doubts that what I said would have been libellous but I have taken your other point about malice. The phrase I was looking for this morning was "We might be forgiven for thinking that....." in a humorous way. Unfortunately it came out a bit stronger!

It seemed humorous to me...
Quite the contrary, I think an OTT suggestion can't be seen as anything but, but claiming incompetence would actually require evidence.

Either way, it's nonsense to assume that highway engineers as a group are going to start throwing around lawsuits, I suspect to even suggest as much is more down to trying to make a point than any real conviction.

[Mick F]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

I have issues here:
"when practicable"
"not compulsory"
"can make your journey safer"

[Geriatrix]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

I have issues here:
"when practicable"
"not compulsory"
"can make your journey safer"

Indeed, value judgements that are problematic, especially when a magistrate/judge differs in opinion to you.