Video: Alarmingly close call with HGV – London cyclist says footage highlights issues with long-term temporary layout of CS3

Mungecrundle wrote:

First rule of traffic light club:

Green = Proceed, if it is safe to do so.

 

You need to check before you go!

Isn't the first rule "red=stop"?

Unless it's "don't talk about traffic light club".

Realistically it's probably some boring thing about agreeing to all the other rules.

It doesn't sound like the most exciting club, to be honest.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

doesn't the reaction by some cyclists as to who is at fault here reflect how deep the indoctrination goes with respect to how much responsibility one has for your own safety.

because there is no point being in the right if you are dead.

As a pedestrian, I would place one foot on the crossing to establish precedence. This does not mean I would continue when some &%^ing large lorry had not stopped or looked as though it would not stop, merely to establish it's my right of way.

There's a difference between knowing you are in the right and acting upon it.

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

doesn't the reaction by some cyclists as to who is at fault here reflect how deep the indoctrination goes with respect to how much responsibility one has for your own safety.

because there is no point being in the right if you are dead.

As a pedestrian, I would place one foot on the crossing to establish precedence. This does not mean I would continue when some &%^ing large lorry had not stopped or looked as though it would not stop, merely to establish it's my right of way.

There's a difference between knowing you are in the right and acting upon it.

Well you're so perfect you neve make a small error, well done you. A peestrian nor a cyclist should ever be punished with their life or severe injury for making a small error in judgement but we allow this all the time.

Seems to me you're not grasping what I'm saying, we are putting too much onus on the vulnerable to remain safe, this should massively changed. Even if you do go far beyond what you should and can do, the outcome is too often no different, in fact by continuing with the thinking that you and others do it continually pushes that responsibility away from those that pose the threat of harm and the police and even others of the same ilk start victim blaming and losing sight of what the real  problem is, exactly as you and others have done in this thread.

It started almost a century ago, lights for night time, being forced onto cycle lanes (which were shortly removed/left to ruin long before WWII), pushed onto back roads or off bikes altogether, forced/coerced to wear hi-vis, helmets etc all in the name of  segregation, etc. So much so that we have piss poor levels of cycling and walking in towns and cities yet levels of harm is huge and people are literally physically cut off from going where they would like due to one certain group. 

I bet you must tell you female riends/family members not to walk on the wrong side of the street, stay away from certain areas and not dress provocatively for fear of getting raped, what, you don't, don't be a hypocrite, get laying down the rules to make sure they are safe 100% of the time, no margin for errors right?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

doesn't the reaction by some cyclists as to who is at fault here reflect how deep the indoctrination goes with respect to how much responsibility one has for your own safety.

On the one hand......

No-one on here is suggesting the cyclist is entirely at fault; it's just been pointed out they are hardly faultless. It has nothing to do with indoctrination, it has an awful lot to do with looking after your own well being. It's curious how your tune has changed since we were discussing the Elliston case, or was that pedestrian now not at fault at all? 

The myopia, bigotry and inconsistency in your arguments does us all a dis-service. 

And well done on the knee jerk false equivalency with the rape analogy. Perhaps you could throw nazis into the equation for a full house?

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

doesn't the reaction by some cyclists as to who is at fault here reflect how deep the indoctrination goes with respect to how much responsibility one has for your own safety.

On the one hand......

No-one on here is suggesting the cyclist is entirely at fault; it's just been pointed out they are hardly faultless. It has nothing to do with indoctrination, it has an awful lot to do with looking after your own well being. It's curious how your tune has changed since we were discussing the Elliston case, or was that pedestrian now not at fault at all? 

The myopia, bigotry and inconsistency in your arguments does us all a dis-service. 

And well done on the knee jerk false equivalency with the rape analogy. Perhaps you could throw nazis into the equation for a full house?

Ah, hello mr,godwin, how typical of you to chuck that little titbit in!

people are comparing a motor travelling at circa 30mph with a cyclist +bike moving at much less speed, the equivalnce is ridiculously different.

and apparently jumping the lights by the massive killing thing is the equivalent to a cyclist who deliberately swerves to avoid a person who literally changes her mind/moves in different direction twice in a very short space of time, to a person with around 80kg max mass, braking from circa 18mph maximum to circa 10mph at impact and who gave two audible warnings (as advised by the highway code). Of course they are similar scenarios!

We already know that pedestrians and people on bikes are not very different in how vulnerable they are, we also know that even the police investigators with their motorventric thinking can only pin the blame on cyclists 4 times in 7 years for the death of someone else, this is in fact less than the number of pedestrians causing their own deaths according to the very same government report.

You're a nazi, better now?

Carior wrote:

So - really not clear why everyone is assuming that the cyclist went on Amber.  Several points to flag that suggest this may not be the case:

1. The motorists coming the other way, i.e. west east on embankment stop long before the lorry is in view.  Any suggestion that the lorry might have been "sneaking" through on the changeover seems a bit of the stretch in this context - seems likely that he was always going through on red, knew it and didn't care.

2. The cyclists coming the opposite way, i.e. east/west have also started moving so I'm not sure why there is any meaningful apportionment of blame to the cyclist. Even if he starts on amber, unless he has the 1 lap standing start speed of Ed Clancy, I somehow doubt that he would actually have been entering the junction before it went green for cyclists.

3. I agree the hoardings clearly don't help but to suggest that a motorist should be excluded from running a red light because he couldn't see that doing so would kill someone is quite frankly ridiculous - any assumption that "I have right of way because I can't see a reason that I shouldn't" is ridiculously counterproductive and is basically just SMIDSY -ism.  

How can we fight for our own safety when there are people on this very forum who even partly excuse a motorist because of SMIDSY! It's frigging mental.

SMIDSY doesn't come in to this. The truck driver failed to stop for a red light. However the cyclists tried crossing before the way was clear. They are both equally poor actions. No-one has suggested the motorist is excused, but the cyclist is equally to blame for the peril he found himself in. 

Would you step out in front of a truck that was running a red light?

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

Completely agree. The video doesn't show the light sequence but the kamikaze cyclist was a brainless fool to cross when the lorry was approaching and before he could see it was stopping. 

fizrar6 wrote:

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

Completely agree. The video doesn't show the light sequence but the kamikaze cyclist was a brainless fool to cross when the lorry was approaching and before he could see it was stopping. 

(sarcasm on)

Completely agree. That cyclist definitely deserves to die horribly for expecting a vehicle to stop at a red light. Idiot!

(sarcasm off)

fizrar6 wrote:

 Completely agree. The video doesn't show the light sequence but the kamikaze cyclist was a brainless fool to cross when the lorry was approaching and before he could see it was stopping. 

This is all assuming the road lights have an amber phase (don't they all?) and that the cyclist went on amber not red, but if that is the case then the lorry driver _appears_ to have been doing what motorists regularly do - ignoring amber or just taking it as an instruction to accelerate to try and beat the red, and then ending up going through on red.  And in this case doing so when he coudln't actually see the queued cross-traffic (and they couldn't see him) because of the hording.  That seems irresponsible, to me.

The cyclist made a bad decision, but I'm puzzled why you use strong terms like 'kamikaze' and 'brainless' about the cyclist, while you don't use equivalent words like 'moronic' and 'murderous' about the driver.

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

But the cyclist was risking his own safety, the driver was risking other people's, so those are not the same thing.

  Also whoever put the hording there and whoever designed that ridiculous light sequence should take the largest share of blame.  Between those two things that's like a death trap, as you can guarentee that some motorist will at some point try to beat the red and that some cyclist will go on amber, because that's what people do (and neither are ever legally penalised for it).

Also that's a heck of a long queue of cyclists.   I wonder how far a queue of cars would stretch be if each of them were in a car?  If motorists ended up queuing to that extent I reckon they'd change the light timing in their favour to shorten the queues.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

 

But the cyclist was risking his own safety, the driver was risking other people's, so those are not the same thing.

 

  Also whoever put the hording there and whoever designed that ridiculous light sequence should take the largest share of blame.  Between those two things that's like a death trap, as you can guarentee that some motorist will at some point try to beat the red and that some cyclist will go on amber, because that's what people do (and neither are ever legally penalised for it).

 

Also that's a heck of a long queue of cyclists.   I wonder how far a queue of cars would stretch be if each of them were in a car?  If motorists ended up queuing to that extent I reckon they'd change the light timing in their favour to shorten the queues.

 

It's not the same thing, but that doesn't absolve the cyclist  of any kind of blame. Have you ever spoken to anyone who has run over a pedestrian or cyclist? I know 2. Neither of them was 'at fault'. It has entirely re-defined their lives.  The cyclist may be the only one endangering their physical safety, but they are endangering the quality of life of others involved, and that pretty much amounts to the same thing.  If you have any doubt about this, look up the effect on train drivers of 'walk outs'

You might be right about the car queuing, and the light sequence, and the hoarding, but the cyclist was still acting like a fool. These things are very rarely binary.

madcarew wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

 

But the cyclist was risking his own safety, the driver was risking other people's, so those are not the same thing.

 

  Also whoever put the hording there and whoever designed that ridiculous light sequence should take the largest share of blame.  Between those two things that's like a death trap, as you can guarentee that some motorist will at some point try to beat the red and that some cyclist will go on amber, because that's what people do (and neither are ever legally penalised for it).

 

Also that's a heck of a long queue of cyclists.   I wonder how far a queue of cars would stretch be if each of them were in a car?  If motorists ended up queuing to that extent I reckon they'd change the light timing in their favour to shorten the queues.

 

It's not the same thing, but that doesn't absolve the cyclist  of any kind of blame. Have you ever spoken to anyone who has run over a pedestrian or cyclist? I know 2. Neither of them was 'at fault'. It has entirely re-defined their lives.  The cyclist may be the only one endangering their physical safety, but they are endangering the quality of life of others involved, and that pretty much amounts to the same thing.  If you have any doubt about this, look up the effect on train drivers of 'walk outs'

You might be right about the car queuing, and the light sequence, and the hoarding, but the cyclist was still acting like a fool. These things are very rarely binary.

I wouldn't suggest the cyclist was absolved of all blame.  And I think I'd put most blame on the light sequence and the hording rather than the lorry driver, because whoever is responsible for those things should have known how drivers (and cyclists, and peds) tend to behave in the real world.

  But I do have a hard time having a huge amount of sympathy for those who kill pedestrians or cyclists, _if_ they contributed to it by driving recklessly (regardless that the victim failed to save them from their bad behaviour by being sufficiently cautious).

  The train analogy doesn't work becuase in almost none (maybe literally none) of those cases did the train driver cause the event by bad driving, almost all of them are due to suicide or crass stupidity by the person hit.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

madcarew wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

 

But the cyclist was risking his own safety, the driver was risking other people's, so those are not the same thing.

 

  Also whoever put the hording there and whoever designed that ridiculous light sequence should take the largest share of blame.  Between those two things that's like a death trap, as you can guarentee that some motorist will at some point try to beat the red and that some cyclist will go on amber, because that's what people do (and neither are ever legally penalised for it).

 

Also that's a heck of a long queue of cyclists.   I wonder how far a queue of cars would stretch be if each of them were in a car?  If motorists ended up queuing to that extent I reckon they'd change the light timing in their favour to shorten the queues.

 

It's not the same thing, but that doesn't absolve the cyclist  of any kind of blame. Have you ever spoken to anyone who has run over a pedestrian or cyclist? I know 2. Neither of them was 'at fault'. It has entirely re-defined their lives.  The cyclist may be the only one endangering their physical safety, but they are endangering the quality of life of others involved, and that pretty much amounts to the same thing.  If you have any doubt about this, look up the effect on train drivers of 'walk outs'

You might be right about the car queuing, and the light sequence, and the hoarding, but the cyclist was still acting like a fool. These things are very rarely binary.

 

I wouldn't suggest the cyclist was absolved of all blame.  And I think I'd put most blame on the light sequence and the hording rather than the lorry driver, because whoever is responsible for those things should have known how drivers (and cyclists, and peds) tend to behave in the real world.

 

  But I do have a hard time having a huge amount of sympathy for those who kill pedestrians or cyclists, _if_ they contributed to it by driving recklessly (regardless that the victim failed to save them from their bad behaviour by being sufficiently cautious).

  The train analogy doesn't work becuase in almost none (maybe literally none) of those cases did the train driver cause the event by bad driving, almost all of them are due to suicide or crass stupidity by the person hit.

I showed the train analogy because you were implying or suggesting that it's ok if a cyclist rides out in front of a vehicle because they're only risking their own safety. They're not.  And I have varying degrees of sympathy for drivers who have killed another road user depending on the level of culpability of either party, and as you and I have discussed before, the fact that apart from copious quantities of blind luck, there, but for the grace of god.....

And you don't get off the hook entirely by not driving. There are many things we do in our day to day lives that put others at risk, and it is only by the good fortune of the fall of the cards that we are not put in a position where we have to bear the respnsiblity of those actions.  (You might want to think back on how impeccable your food preparation standards were last time you cooked for someone else...)

Some people drive like complete idiots, and should bear the largest responsibility for their actions. In this case, both parties were acting with similar levels of cupability (for the answer to your red / amber question watch the video in its entirety. It makes it clear the cyclist was probably going on an amber red.)

madcarew wrote:

I'll probably cop some flack for this, but as pointed out above, amber on red means prepare to go, not 'go'. Green means 'go if the way is clear'. I understand the visibility etc is awful, but the cyclist / s bear pretty much equal blame with the lorry driver.

I only partly agree with you. Whilst the cyclists that went should accept some blame, no way is it 50/50.

robertoegg wrote:

feel for the driver in this one. Bet he shit his cab...great reaction to stop.

OTOH it might have been better to use those amazing reflexes and brakes to stop on Amber, or even on red...? (you know, cos then this wouldn't have happened)

robertoegg wrote:

feel for the driver in this one. Bet he shit his cab...great reaction to stop.

Or, you know, stop on amber as required by law?

robertoegg wrote:

feel for the driver in this one. Bet he shit his cab...great reaction to stop.

When I spoke to him he was in a state of shock.