Video: Truck driver loses it with cyclist after collision in London

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Ok, how else are you going stock every shop in the town centre if not with lorries? Say we move to massive trams, someone will still try an idiot move and get splatted by one. Then what? These things need to get to where they are going, if they stop for every cyclist that's chancing their hand then nothing will get anywhere. 

It's 2017 not 1917. 

Thats a hard one. If only there were some other  large cities who also have shops and cyclists that we could look to for ideas.

Jeffree wrote:

As far as your bullet point suppositions involving 'crystal balls', cycling against the flow of traffic, dashing to the footpaths, etc... That just makes you look like a twit. I freely admitted I didn't understand all of the nuances involved while cycling in your country, but rather than helping me understand better through your experience, you just attack me.

It's a common argument people make, not just about cycling. "If I was there I would have never made that mistake...", "If I was attacked I would have fought him off with...", "If I was born to a single parent on a council estate...". Reasons given range from the sublime to the ridiculous. 

I know its mostly just peoples mental defence mechanisms, explaining why the horrible thing couldn't happen to them and maybe tied up with some just world hypothesis that they can't articulate - but it's annoying, repetitive, usually reactionary and it hurts any attempt at actually looking at why things happen. It is a way of shutting down any further thought.

So, if you were there, cycling along, taking the same route as the other cyclists and as you approached the stop line you noted it became a left turn lane and the lights were red and there was a truck next to you and a long queue of vehicles behind that - what would you have done? Just wait for a while to see if the queue of traffic on your right finishes? Or try to merge like the others, if not in front of the truck maybe in front of the vehicle behind? That's just rhetorical - think about it or not, as you will.

Jeffree wrote:

Great job mate, and you wonder why there is so much contention between motorists and cyclists who both have a right to the roads and should learn to understand each other and get along.

I don't wonder at all why there is contention. It's a pretty standard setup with people doing something dangerous but doing it every day so it seems normal, the people with the power not being the ones that take the consequences, people having to concentrate on something that is boring but occasionally critical, a culture that suggests one group has more rights than another, a stressful environment and resources (i.e. road space, time) being scarce. The outcome we get I think is entirely predictable.

You are right though - we should all learn to understand each other and get along and that is why I think you should put yourself forward to negotiate peace in the middle east.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Ok, how else are you going stock every shop in the town centre if not with lorries? Say we move to massive trams, someone will still try an idiot move and get splatted by one. Then what? These things need to get to where they are going, if they stop for every cyclist that's chancing their hand then nothing will get anywhere. 

It's 2017 not 1917. 

you're right, it is 2017! We have autonomous electric vehicles, so let's start using them, and they will stop for every cyclist that chances their arm, and there will be far fewer deaths on the road, not just from the reduction in two objects trying to fill the same space at the same time, but also from the reduction in pollution. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

I think anyone who cannot understand just how profoundly in the wrong the cyclist in this video is needs to spend some time in the cab of a HGV being driven in an urban environment.

Which would also be evidence for how badly designed HGVs are, and how profoundly wrong it is to compel humans to share roads with them.

Ok, how else are you going stock every shop in the town centre if not with lorries? Say we move to massive trams, someone will still try an idiot move and get splatted by one. Then what? These things need to get to where they are going, if they stop for every cyclist that's chancing their hand then nothing will get anywhere. 

It's 2017 not 1917. 

None of which is an argument against redesigning the HGV, the infrastructure, or both. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

 

Ok, how else are you going stock every shop in the town centre if not with lorries? Say we move to massive trams, someone will still try an idiot move and get splatted by one. Then what? These things need to get to where they are going, if they stop for every cyclist that's chancing their hand then nothing will get anywhere. 

It's 2017 not 1917. 

yet there are some European Capital cities out there where artics  appear to be banned. It is possible if we accept that we don't need these vehicles in urban areas. If we fight all options, we're knackered.

LJS wrote:

It's a tough one and really makes me appreciate context, I ride this section of road several times a week.. comments based on rush hour traffic..

Firstly the approach to the junction is always congested and you will be passing stationary traffic. Cyclists always pass on the left of traffic to the point it becomes three lanes from one.  To pass on the right you get mixed up into the other two lanes and face the oncoming traffic in the other direction it's fairly narrow.

Secondy the only place to wait if you're going left or straight on is that left hand lane.  Most vehicles would notice that unless they didn't drive there recently or had unfortunately arrived there with no cyclist around which is pretty unlikely.  Also if you carry on waiting there the cars behind looking to turn left will no doubt get a bit p*ssed off.

Thirdly the lane on the other side of the lights is wide.  There's absolutely no need for the driver to move that close to the kerb.

So.. the cyclist was in a bad position, but there are reasons why he was there, the driver didn't need to drive in the way he did and could be more aware.

Now that is a fair comment. Thank you.

Feanor wrote:

Have either of you watched that TFL video I posted?

Have you ever made eye contact with the driver of an artic just to see what they can actually see. These videos are usually misleading and use badly aligned mirrors to prove a point. Have you ever seen an artic reversing without a banksman and avoid everything that's in the supposed blindspot. Sorry Faenor you video proves not one thing except some drivers are too lazy to use their mirrors properly. After all they are legally covered if they carry the new get out of jail free card,

or similar stickers, aren't they?

don simon wrote:

Feanor wrote:

Have either of you watched that TFL video I posted?

Have you ever made eye contact with the driver of an artic just to see what they can actually see. These videos are usually misleading and use badly aligned mirrors to prove a point.

 

Are you seriously accusing TFL of making/posting a misleading video?

Feanor wrote:

don simon wrote:

Feanor wrote:

Have either of you watched that TFL video I posted?

Have you ever made eye contact with the driver of an artic just to see what they can actually see. These videos are usually misleading and use badly aligned mirrors to prove a point.

 

Are you seriously accusing TFL of making/posting a misleading video?

Did it show the cyclists in perfect view of the mirrors as they rolled up to the waiting truck at the stop sign?

Did it show the waiting cyclists at the stop line as the truck drew to a halt?

I guess I am calling it misleading as the cyclists don't suddenly appear as that video shows.

Do you blindly believe everything that's presented to you that carries an official stamp?

don simon wrote:

Did it show the cyclists in perfect view of the mirrors as they rolled up to the waiting truck at the stop sign?

Did it show the waiting cyclists at the stop line as the truck drew to a halt?

I guess I am calling it misleading as the cyclists don't suddenly appear as that video shows.

Do you blindly believe everything that's presented to you that carries an official stamp?

1. No, it shows that the cyclists could see the mirrors. It doesn't show that they can see the driver, ie that the driver could see them.

2. No, because it doesn't show the truck drawing to a halt. The truck is already stationary when the cyclist with the helmet cam arrives. No way of knowing what happened beforehand.

3. Cyclists can suddenly appear, it depends when they arrive from.

4. No, but when it's corroberated by multiple sources I do.

But OK, let's keep doing dangerous things, keep upsetting drivers, keep whining about infrastructure and that drivers are out to get us, and keep defending idiot cyclists. It'll be us cyclists who keep dying as a result.

Feanor wrote:

don simon wrote:

Did it show the cyclists in perfect view of the mirrors as they rolled up to the waiting truck at the stop sign?

Did it show the waiting cyclists at the stop line as the truck drew to a halt?

I guess I am calling it misleading as the cyclists don't suddenly appear as that video shows.

Do you blindly believe everything that's presented to you that carries an official stamp?

1. No, it shows that the cyclists could see the mirrors. It doesn't show that they can see the driver, ie that the driver could see them.

2. No, because it doesn't show the truck drawing to a halt. The truck is already stationary when the cyclist with the helmet cam arrives. No way of knowing what happened beforehand.

3. Cyclists can suddenly appear, it depends when they arrive from.

4. No, but when it's corroberated by multiple sources I do.

 

But OK, let's keep doing dangerous things, keep upsetting drivers, keep whining about infrastructure and that drivers are out to get us, and keep defending idiot cyclists. It'll be us cyclists who keep dying as a result.

In the face of you agreeing that there are some rather important element missing, we can agree that it's misleading. Cyclists do not appear out of nowhere, they are either in front of the truck as it rolls to the stop line or come from behind (and there's a good chance that the truck has recently overtaken them and thusly aware of their presence). The only way they can suddenly appear is if the driver is not focused on driving. but this is London and there would appear to be so many cyclists that it becomes difficult to NOT be aware that there are cyclists around. Since when has having the nearside wheels on the double red lines been a natural driving line?

As for your last statement, I thought you worked for the TFL, but it looks like you're too young to have a job. Extreme much?

don simon wrote:

 

As for your last statement, I thought you worked for the TFL, but it looks like you're too young to have a job. Extreme much?

Too young to have a job? I have worked and commuted in Paris, Rome, Berlin and across the Middle East and North Africa. I speak fluent German and passable French and Italian. Try again.

Feanor wrote:

Have either of you watched that TFL video I posted?

Which, if it shows anything, shows that these things shouldn't be on the road at all. 

Feanor wrote:

If cyclists want to have a better time on the roads we need to drop this attitude, and stop defending it. All of us.

Nonsense on stilts. Do you take the same collective-responsibility attitude to every other group, or is it just people who use bikes?

If we want everyone to have a better time on the roads we need to push for better infrastructure and for the state to stop putting the private car and the private motorist at the centre of transport.

PS didn't watch the video, it's irrelevant to the wrongness of your statement.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Feanor wrote:

If cyclists want to have a better time on the roads we need to drop this attitude, and stop defending it. All of us.

Nonsense on stilts. Do you take the same collective-responsibility attitude to every other group, or is it just people who use bikes? If we want everyone to have a better time on the roads we need to push for better infrastructure and for the state to stop putting the private car and the private motorist at the centre of transport. PS didn't watch the video, it's irrelevant to the wrongness of your statement.

You seem to have read a different thing to what I wrote. Nothing about it suggests collective responsibility because if you don't have this attitude, and if you don't defend those that do behave like this, then it doesn't apply to you.

Also, dropping a bad attitude isn't mutually exclusive from infrastructure - but if my comment is collective responsibility, then yours is total denial of responsibility. We have some of the best infrastructure in the world and the social engineering that goes into our roads to encourage good behaviour is some of the best I've come across, even if there are a few cities which are a bit better when it comes to bicycles. People who do stupid dangerous things need to own responsibility for their actions, not blame their behaviour on the state. How can you even comment on infrastructure being an issue when you haven't even watched the video?!

Feanor wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Feanor wrote:

If cyclists want to have a better time on the roads we need to drop this attitude, and stop defending it. All of us.

Nonsense on stilts. Do you take the same collective-responsibility attitude to every other group, or is it just people who use bikes? If we want everyone to have a better time on the roads we need to push for better infrastructure and for the state to stop putting the private car and the private motorist at the centre of transport. PS didn't watch the video, it's irrelevant to the wrongness of your statement.

You seem to have read a different thing to what I wrote. Nothing about it suggests collective responsibility because if you don't have this attitude, and if you don't defend those that do behave like this, then it doesn't apply to you.

Also, dropping a bad attitude isn't mutually exclusive from infrastructure - but if my comment is collective responsibility, then yours is total denial of responsibility. We have some of the best infrastructure in the world and the social engineering that goes into our roads to encourage good behaviour is some of the best I've come across, even if there are a few cities which are a bit better when it comes to bicycles. People who do stupid dangerous things need to own responsibility for their actions, not blame their behaviour on the state. How can you even comment on infrastructure being an issue when you haven't even watched the video?!

It's hard to argue with someone who posts something, even quotes it, and then denies they said what they said. Your comment is _entirely_ about collective responsibility. Perhaps you should read it back to yourself?

You refer to 'cyclists' as a group, then say 'we ' (who is this 'we' of which you speak? Is there a club with membership cards and everything?), and, absurdly, try to claim that people have a hard time riding bikes on the road not because of crap infrastructure or bad driving, but because of the attitude of this completely mythical 'we'. As I said, your comment was completely nonsensical.

As for 'we have some of the best infrastructure in the world' - are you on crack?

Edit - seriously, that's the daftest statement I've seen on such arguments for a long time. You think UK cycle infrastructure is 'some of the best in the world'? How come so few people dare cycle then?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 It's hard to argue with someone who posts something, even quotes it, and then denies they said what they said. Your comment is _entirely_ about collective responsibility. Perhaps you should read it back to yourself? You refer to 'cyclists' as a group, then say 'we ' (who is this 'we' of which you speak? Is there a club with membership cards and everything?), and, absurdly, try to claim that people have a hard time riding bikes on the road not because of crap infrastructure or bad driving, but because of the attitude of this completely mythical 'we'. As I said, your comment was completely nonsensical. As for 'we have some of the best infrastructure in the world' - are you on crack? Edit - seriously, that's the daftest statement I've seen on such arguments for a long time. You think UK cycle infrastructure is 'some of the best in the world'? How come so few people dare cycle then?

The denial is your interpretation of what I wrote, not what I wrote.

Moreso, it's your constant attempts to make things mutually exclusive. Of course better infrastructure would help. Of course bad driving is a major factor in cyclists getting killed.

But honestly, cyclists' attitudes are also a huge factor. Yes, cyclists are a group - a group like any other, with huge diversity and many who don't conform at all to the rest of the group. We're on a friggin' cyclists' website debating on a cyclists' forum. The attitudes being shown here by a vocal minority are absolutely symptomatic of why so many non-cyclists tar us all with the same brush. Of course lumping a disparate group like cyclists together is wrong - but that's what people do, like it or not.

As for infrastructure, have you been to any other countries, except for a few cycle havens like the Netherlands and parts of Germany?! I wasn't referring specifically to cycle infrastructure, where I think we're fairly middle of the road (but still not "crap"), but when it comes to the design of our roads more generally yes, we are amongst the best. This is borne out by our roads also being amongst the safest per km/mile driven. Our infrastructure still needs improving - my point is simply that blaming infrastructure on why a cyclist cut up a lorry and then blamed the driver is utterly pathetic.

Feanor wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 It's hard to argue with someone who posts something, even quotes it, and then denies they said what they said. Your comment is _entirely_ about collective responsibility. Perhaps you should read it back to yourself? You refer to 'cyclists' as a group, then say 'we ' (who is this 'we' of which you speak? Is there a club with membership cards and everything?), and, absurdly, try to claim that people have a hard time riding bikes on the road not because of crap infrastructure or bad driving, but because of the attitude of this completely mythical 'we'. As I said, your comment was completely nonsensical. As for 'we have some of the best infrastructure in the world' - are you on crack? Edit - seriously, that's the daftest statement I've seen on such arguments for a long time. You think UK cycle infrastructure is 'some of the best in the world'? How come so few people dare cycle then?

The denial is your interpretation of what I wrote, not what I wrote.

Moreso, it's your constant attempts to make things mutually exclusive. Of course better infrastructure would help. Of course bad driving is a major factor in cyclists getting killed.

But honestly, cyclists' attitudes are also a huge factor. Yes, cyclists are a group - a group like any other, with huge diversity and many who don't conform at all to the rest of the group. We're on a friggin' cyclists' website debating on a cyclists' forum. The attitudes being shown here by a vocal minority are absolutely symptomatic of why so many non-cyclists tar us all with the same brush. Of course lumping a disparate group like cyclists together is wrong - but that's what people do, like it or not.

As for infrastructure, have you been to any other countries, except for a few cycle havens like the Netherlands and parts of Germany?! I wasn't referring specifically to cycle infrastructure, where I think we're fairly middle of the road (but still not "crap"), but when it comes to the design of our roads more generally yes, we are amongst the best. This is borne out by our roads also being amongst the safest per km/mile driven. Our infrastructure still needs improving - my point is simply that blaming infrastructure on why a cyclist cut up a lorry and then blamed the driver is utterly pathetic.

What you wrote was perfectly clear, but you seem unable to understand your own words.

And, no, cyclists are not a 'group'. Cycling is a mode of travel. And no, the 'attitudes shown here' are not 'why so many non-cyclists tar us all with the same brush'. That's your non-evidence-based assertion. And there is no 'us'.

Most of all, only a small number of people cycle on the roads anyway Do you really think the 'attitudes' of that very small minority are the most important factor in whether the majority will consider cycling? I don't really care that much about the small number who currently cycle, that's not the main issue.

And as for 'that's what people do' - yes, people think all sorts of silly things. Doesn't mean you have to adopt their views as your own.

OK, it wasn't clear I meant specifically cycle infrastructure, too accustomed to that being taken as a given. But in that regard we are clearly in the 'crap' category, which is why cycling has such a low share of travel.

As for the safety of our roads - you are ignoring the large number of deaths due to inactivity and pollution, which also are a consequence of our approach to transport policy and road design. Our roads are safe because everyone stays in armoured metal boxes - which has other negative concequences.

And I didn't blame infrastructure for the details of this incident, as I haven't watched it and don't really care who's to blame (though I very much doubt it would have happened if the lorry and cyclists weren't on the same road, so actually, yes, even without watching it I can suspect infrastructure is the fundamental issue). I disagreed with your specific collective-responsibility comment.

Feanor wrote:

AND THE TRUCK DRIVER PROBABLY COULD NOT SEE A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CYCLISTS EVEN AT THE JUNCTION.

Seriously? Have you seen how far out in fron the first cyclists are? Or how far behind some of the cyclists must be. If he is that blind he should not be driving or the vehicle should not be on the road. That's not even normal blind spots.

cqexbesd wrote:

Feanor wrote:

AND THE TRUCK DRIVER PROBABLY COULD NOT SEE A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CYCLISTS EVEN AT THE JUNCTION.

 

Seriously? Have you seen how far out in fron the first cyclists are? Or how far behind some of the cyclists must be. If he is that blind he should not be driving or the vehicle should not be on the road. That's not even normal blind spots.

The get out clause is the use of PROBABLY, but BECAUSE CAPITALS ARE USED, I GET THE FEELING THAT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THE STATEMENT AS BEING TRUE!!!!

So, pray tell dear Faenor, where the fuck did all these cyclists suddenly fucking appear from for the driver NOT to be aware that there were cyclists on the fucking road?