Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by danhopgood »

horizon wrote:
pwa wrote:Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....


pwa: we agree on this. Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.


So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by Vorpal »

danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.

Most of these rules do not have the force of legislation behind them. When they do, it will list the particular legislation that applies, such as
16

Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.
Law RTA 1988 sect 26


Many of the rules for motor vehicles, on the other hand, do have the force of legislation behind them.

Roads are, for the most, parts rights of way established for the passage of people. Pedestrians and cyclists have a clear and defined right to be there. Motor vehicles are only there by licence.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by AlaninWales »

danhopgood wrote:
kwackers wrote:
danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.

As a pedestrian I long for the days drivers obey the rules. Rule 170 would be a good start.


And as a vehicle user I like pedestrians who obey Rule 7D.

Moral equivalence again (please look it up). Have you read the HC? How many of those rules for pedestrians say MUST? Do you understand the significance of this omission?
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by horizon »

danhopgood wrote:
So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?


Lorry drivers would be prosecuted if:

They drove without an assistant in a built-up area
They drove a vehicle more than x feet long/wide/high in a built-up area
They drove without the required safety equipment such as mirrors etc

I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by danhopgood »

AlaninWales wrote:Moral equivalence again (please look it up). Have you read the HC? How many of those rules for pedestrians say MUST? Do you understand the significance of this omission?


Legislation applies more to motorised traffic mainly because more complicated interactions are involved - hence more "musts" for motorised traffic. I also consider it's the case that there are more "musts" for motorised traffic as it's more important that motor vehicles behave to a high standard - because of the more onerous consequences if things go wrong. Hence much more prescriptive requirements for motorised traffic - not driving under the influence etc. That's dealing with the "moral equivalence" you seem so precious about. It's taking the issue of moral equivalence and applying it in a balanced way, taking account of the sometimes conflicting requirements of safety, cost and keeping the country moving. It's not the balance that you want - but that's the way it is.
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by danhopgood »

horizon wrote:
danhopgood wrote:
So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?


Lorry drivers would be prosecuted if:

They drove without an assistant in a built-up area
They drove a vehicle more than x feet long/wide/high in a built-up area
They drove without the required safety equipment such as mirrors etc

I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).


The exact circumstances of the incident in question are not confirmed, so a lot of what has been said on this thread is speculation, but if the facts turn out to be as described then I don't think the problem is with the lorry in this case, based on the law as it stands.

For the future I'd like to see better infrastructure, passively safe equipment added to vehicles like side skirts, better training for all road users and effective enforcement. Those are the sorts of things that will help reduce the all too frequent tragedies that occur on the roads and that's where energies should be directed in my view.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by reohn2 »

horizon wrote:I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).


The problem is AFAIK that the cyclist rode up the inside of a left indicating lorry which had started it's manoeuvre.
What we don't know is if the driver checked his mirrors and or camera(s) before turning and having check(presuming he did)signalled then began the manoeuvre.
If the lorry had to stop mid manoeuvre,is it then reasonable for the driver to carry one driving without checking again.
If the lorry didn't stop should the driver continually keep checking his mirrors and or camera(s) or should his/her focus be to the front of the vehicle,considering there's more chance of pedestrians or other vehicles being in that direction.

FWIW,I see the argument for a banksman or co driver,but also think realistically the chances of such a law being implemented to be slim in the extreme if at all.
I also agree that the lorry driver should as all drivers should, be vigilant and careful of other road users,however is it reasonable under the present system that at some point the driver after satisfying himself it is safe to carry out the manoeuvre to continue?
There comes a time when the driver has to commit to continuing and after satisfying him/herself it's safe carries on.
If in the meantime someone cycles upto the inside of such a left turning and left indicating lorry,questions need to be asked of that cyclist's capability of using the road IMO.
I take the points raised that pedestrians and licence free vehicles have,for want of a better word, priority and that motor vehicles are only licensed,but we can't have a situation where pedestrians and cyclists have no responsibilities both to themselves and others IMHO that is reasonable.

Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.

The problem here is AFAICS that we have human beings operating such machines that can cause those consequences,and whilst we do there will be mistakes made by either party,the problem is then one of fault.
If a driver of such a vehicle has made all necessary checks,is conforming to all the rules,is diligent and careful in his/her driving duties and conforming to the letter and spirit of the law,if someone should step out into and under the wheels of their vehicle.
Would it then be the driver who was at fault?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by irc »

horizon wrote:I can't help thinking that some people on this forum think that it is a lorry firm's right to deliver goods in a patently unsafe vehicle without any degree of skill or care.


Not at all. But as we don't live in a perfect world the better skilled that cyclists are the fewer accidents they will be involved in. It isn't a difficult concept.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by kwackers »

danhopgood wrote:taking account of the sometimes conflicting requirements of safety, cost and keeping the country moving

For the most part despite how drivers behave it isn't cyclists or pedestrians who are stopping them moving, it's the car in front - and that's usually sat in a queue.
Doesn't stop drivers from trying to get past, or turning into a road pedestrians are already crossing with hand on horn etc. The reality of it is drivers need 'reigning in', slowly but surely as their numbers have increased they've taken a ever increasing 'cut' of other peoples share to the point now where they feel it's OK to park in cycle lanes or on pavements or use their vehicles in aggressive ways intended to intimidate and for what? To get to the next queue a few seconds earlier?
User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 6044
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by foxyrider »

Where I work is on a one way system, the council have supplied a safe cycle route through the area, restricted speed and directed traffic to not use some access into the system. Every day dozens of vehicle make an illegal right hand turn (including police vehicles) because they don't think it matters/can't see the point/reached the junction in error. We also see quite regularly vehicles driving through a well signposted no entry for reasons best known to the drivers. These actions have so far not resulted in death or injury as they generally occur at low speeds.

However its the 'cyclists' travelling through the area that are the biggest issue riding, often at elevated speeds, the wrong way through the main junction, jumping pavements, even waiting for a gap to ride the wrong way into the traffic. It's a wonder none have been killed, its probably a matter of time, a quick survey reveals they are mostly commuters with 'all the kit' making this dangerous manoeuvre every weekday. The cycle route would add maybe 30 seconds onto their journey.

The motorised traffic and self propelled both show different levels of stupidity. We should not automatically blame the motorised driver if there is an accident involving a bike, yes they are often at fault but not always, sometimes cyclists are b******y stupid! Better training for new drivers, training for all schoolchildren and maybe coppers doing more than strolling around talking about last nights match could make some difference. But you can't train/legislate for stupid.
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by Vorpal »

We don't have blame someone in order to find a way to prevent it from happening again.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by Ellieb »

I can't help thinking that some people on this forum think that it is a cyclist's right to ride on a road in traffic without any degree of skill or care.

Hmm Perhaps i could have phrased it better.

The point I am making is that in order to cycle safely, you do actually need to display a degree of skill and care. If not, then what about when you come across a pedestrain? Are you not supposed to be able to behave safely around them. Even allowing for that, you cannot have completely incompetent people moving around on bikes and expect everyone on four (or two motorised) wheels to be wholly responsible for avoiding the consequences of their unsafe actions (I'll say once again, I am not directly relating this statement to this accident as we don't know exactly what happened). I am not suggesting that every cyclist is going to need the skill and experience that I suspect most people on this forum possess. But they do have to behave on the roads safely: Going up the inside of a moving, indicating lorry ought to be self-evidently dangerous, you don't need 30 years and 50,000 miles of cycling to appreciate that this is so.

EDIT: The reason why you have to accept that the cyclist in this sort of incident need to accept some part of the responsibilty is because it has been reported (although I don't know if it has been statistically proven) that these sort of incidents happen disproportionally more to female cyclists. If that is the case then it would help to stop it happening if we could find out why. This may involve in the cyclists being in some way responsible...Or it may not, but you won't help matters if you just insist that none of it can ever be even partially due to the actions of the cyclist.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by kwackers »

Ellieb wrote:EDIT: The reason why you have to accept that the cyclist in this sort of incident need to accept some part of the responsibilty is because it has been reported (although I don't know if it has been statistically proven) that these sort of incidents happen disproportionally more to female cyclists.

I don't follow that quote. It appears to say that because women suffer these types of accidents more they need to take more responsibility for their actions... I'm not sure that's what you meant.

As an aside, it's been suggested that women are more likely to succumb simply because they're more likely to obey rules. For all the anecdotes that abound about rule breaking cyclists they seem to be under represented in the accident stats - at least superficially.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by horizon »

Ellieb wrote:
but you won't help matters if you just insist that none of it can ever be even partially due to the actions of the cyclist.


It may help if we accept that the accident was caused by the cyclist. The lorry, as far as we know, did nothing wrong.

But two facts remain:

1. The consequence was totally out of proportion to what the cyclist did.
2. It was the lorry that killed her.

So, morally, we want to prevent it. In practical terms that will involve better education for cyclists and new rules and regulations (and possibly higher costs) for lorries.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

Post by pwa »

Horizon

thinking about your comment on a need for changes that will alter the design and use of lorries, that is all theoretically possible , of course. And, as you point out, it will cost money. It would be a cost that we would all bear, since we are all customers of companies paying for lorry deliveries. I've got no problems with that in principle.

I look at lorries as a part of our way of living, not as something imposed upon us by others. They are there because our society needs them. They are driven by ordinary people just like you and me. They are on the roads because of us, the people who use the new buildings and the services they accommodate. We create the demand for lorries. We put them on the road.

Lorry drivers (like all drivers) have a moral duty to be careful around other people. No arguments there. But if a lorry driver takes care and the irresponsible actions of a cyclist lead to the cyclist being killed under the wheels of the lorry, the cyclist must be held responsible. None of us, not even a lorry driver, can be held responsible for something outside our control.

In the immediate future, with infrastructure and regulations as they are, we must look after ourselves. And we must tell anyone who will listen about the need to be careful when cycling near something big.
Post Reply