Safe Speed Forums

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/404 ... s_coroner/


My sincere condolences to all involved and especially the cyclist's family and pals.


My sister (one of them) works in Bolton as a teacher. She did know this person by sight and speaking acquaintance in the town's main library. And she liked him as a person .. misses him in the library.


I have blotted out surnames despite providing a link. I would be happy if folk edit out the surname so how they discuss if they choose to discuss this story.






Unfortunately .. I have to say the lorry driver may have a legitimate defence here.. Ian should have waited.


When I am in this situation .. I use a trick which IG told me his cycling police team are trained to do. I will pass this tip on to try to save a few lives here.

He makes sure he can see his own image in the mirror. If he can see his own image in the mirror and usually to the left of centre in this glance .. then the lorry dirver should see us if he glances in this nearside mirror.


I have never actually tested this out though. I choose to wait fully behind these guys to be sure I will be safe here. I cannot be 100% sure they will not turn left or move inwards for any reason I choose to be ultra-cautious. I have kids I am proud of and love to bits .. and a really lovely and loveable wife whom I adore.



My comment is no disrespect to the late Ian P. I am simply pointing out that the lorry driver may have a fair defence to put before the objectively minded court..








The lorry was not speeding then .. another point which the lorry driver's defence will use here. And given the hype - will be most justified in doing so.

He may well be acquitted here .. though this will not help Ian's family all the same and I have to be realistic as to the logic of placing oneself into a blind SMIDSY which all should be aware of so as to drive and ride and cycle "defensively and safely"




I recall a man describing a mugged old lady thinking she was a sack of potatoes until he registered what he actually saw.

He helped the old lady and called the police. The thug escaped of course. But police had his description .. ..which in fairness was a bit vague. How do I know? Oh the old lady was a neighbour of my aunt.



No one's fault and no one could have foreseen an opportunist thug in broad daylight either. The police did try and had an idea who it was .. but the old lady was too confused to identify other than commenting" he did resemble" on an ID parade .. but the courts require HE WAS THE GUY!

The police were convinced they had their man.. but could not get the evidence to stand up in court.

I post this analogy to try to show I am not "anti-police" at all and both me and my wife do know what police and CPS are really "up against" in the name of real deserving justice.




Maybe.. But a defence lawyer can just as easily point out that riding up the near-side of a long vehicle is per the Highway Code a The trucky;s defence can easily argue that he did see the cyclist but assumed he would stay where he was.

How do I know? Andreas lost one such case .. even though he had won a similar one in similar cirmcumstance prior to that. Andreas (a Swiss legal beagle based in UK) did take to appeal .. and won in a higher court - but he admits it was all a "cat's whisker" and he really felt he almost lost it. on arguments put forth by the other party .. and fears that court may well be superseded by another similar court's "ratio decidendi" or whatever they call it ..






A defence will milk to dry udders.

I have to say rightly so as all have a right to defence and mitigation so what has been done.

This is where I have the edge over BRAKE. I still give some cash as the "charity" still does work which I agree with.. but I resigned full membership and give safespeed a fair share of our collective fund raising activities and now donate more than we do to BRAKE.




I think the coroner's verdict will help Mr D's defence and whilst I feel sorry for Mrs P and Ian P's family and chums and acquaintances (who include my own sister who found him to be a really lovely and informative person . and a loss to her personally - I do think we have to be realistic and concede that the trucker has a defence .. that there are plenty of loopholes here .. and some precedence set .. which will help the truckie's case.


I will re-iterate. I would have waited behind the long vehicle. I would not have ridden up his nearside. I could not ever guarantee a check in any mirror on his part. I thus apply due caution at all times. I hope to survive muppets out there by doing so

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

The notice that you see on some HGVs - "If you can't see my mirrors I can't see you" - does seem rathe an abrogation of responsibility. Surely a driver of any vehicle has a responsibility to be aware of all the enviroment around his vehicle. If a vehicle has large "blind spots" then this is a fault in the design which should be addressed by the addition of further mirrors or cameras.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

i've seen some, cement mixers usually i think, with signs warning cyclists not to go up the inside.
and i agree its a VERY bad idea in most cases.

not sure we can hold the truck drivers fully responsible in some of these cases, especially if they are indicating their intention well in advance.

the cyclists have to take some responsiblity i think, almost without fail people give a truck or bus a wide berth at a junction or roundabout when in a car and avoid putting themselves alongside.

cyclists should have this level of awareness too, if not more so.
i really can't understand why they don't.

Oh, I quite agree with you about cyclists. My concern is more for pedestrians. I have similar reservations about those audible reversing indicators which seem to transfer the onus of safety from the driver to the people behind (a fair proportion of whom are hard of hearing)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I think it's a polite way of saying "don't be a muppet"...... In other words you may be following me TOO CLOSELY!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I think that they are trying to point out that there is a big blind spot on large vehicles and that if you sneak up the inside, for example while the truck is stopped waiting to turn left, the driver might not realise you are there even though he has looked in his/her mirrors.

The trouble with mirrors is that they in themselves create a blind spot. So more mirrors more blind spots.

While the driver of anything big has his responsiblity not to crush people, if you are going to sneak up the side of anything big like a bus or a truck you have to take some of the responsility for your own actions. We get trucks in the yard all the time and I make damn sure they know where I am and wouldn't dream of parking anything behind the combine with out the driver seeing me do it.

They are good things. At least other people know what the driver is doing. It is likely that if someone heard a reversing beeper going off and saw someone walk behind they would shout, bang on the door etc, it's not transfering responsibility more like team work

More like common sense I would say which seems to be lacking a lot these days. More common sense= less accidents.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

First of all .. to those claiming a sign on the rear of a HGV or other large vehicle not to ride up the inside of them or carry a warning about cycling into a blind spot is a "






It is not. It is a warning to pay some heed to. Like a warning triangle or paint on a road surface warning of a bend or junction or school which .. by such "logic" would be superflous as you "should be able to see the hazards these signs are warning you about..


I suggest those making such comments look at the diagram on page 69 of John Franklin's "Cycle Craft" - the chap they call upon as an "expert" when trying it on in the courts for compo


But then - some "cyclists" cannot refer to John Franklin and hold him as the definitive authority if you then never bothr to read or take note of his mostly excellent advice ( to John Franklin whose book I do dip into and do promote his advice whenever I need to on this board.)


Franklin's book on page 69 tells me that the long trailer can swing to the left when it overtakes me normally and that I should ease off the pedalling and be prepared to brake to keep clear of th rear end. He does point out that this would be rare for the cyclist who positions properly in primary in the first place

But on page 69 - he shows a lorry turning left - showing exactly why it is a real NO NO NO! to ride up the inside of a long vehicle which intends to turn left.

On page 70 - he explains the diagram (5.2) as this is Chapter Five in his book.




This advice would apply to motorcycles and cars alike by the way

On page 71 - Franklin also tells us that it is a common mistake for us to keep too far left at all turns

How I wish cyclists would use primary position a lot more than they do. None of should be riding in the gutter. We should be at least a metre and no less than a hafl metre from the kerb in secondary. In traffic and to be seen - we should go for primary - positions as first safety choice..



The cyclist in this tragic tale perhaps was too far to the left and whilst the driver may have seen him initally for the alleged 27 seconds in all three mirrors - a defence lawyer could argue in court that the poor man fell victim to the middle of the vehicle - and in the real world and not internet discussion fora - defence lawyers will be looking at this aspect when in court when defending the driver.




Could go either way from the bare bones of the story as reported in the press ..


But all the same - do heed John Franklin's advice . and read the whole book - putting as much of it into Bikemobility practice as possible. It all helps reduce risk for all of us out there.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Surely he should be aiming to be able to see teh river's image in the mirror, only then can he say the driver would be able to see him. Even then he is hoping the driver will look.

i have to confess i find your posts quite difficult to read, but since you seem to be quoting me i've made a special effort (i.e. i forced myself to read beyond the first paragraph).

you seem to have misquoted me and completely without context.

why the f*** would i be suggesting putting signs on trucks is a bad idea ?

I too have difficulty with In Gear (and mad Moggie) - too many smilies break up the narrative and make the effort to read it almost unjustifiable.

But back to the substantive point. My concern with those notices, and with reversing sounders, is that they could be seen as transferring responsibility from the driver to his potential victim - sort of licensing the SMIDSY mentality. As far as I am concerned the driver of a 40 ton piece of metal has an absolute responsibility to ensure that he knows what is going on around him, even if that something includes the ill-advised actions of other road users.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Reversing beepers come into their own in confined spaces such as loading bays where people are scurrying about., it makes them aware. Which is why many fork lifts have them

Re. the signs. You can't expect people that don't drive big stuff to know what the driver has to contend with. I get people overtaking me while turning right on my tractor, they try to overtake while I/we turn left and have to swing right to get into narrow gateways. I can only imagine what it is like threading artics and LGV's in general through built up areas.

Yes a lorry driver should be scanning his mirrors while he is sat at the lights, put in practise it is easy to sneak up on one and when the driver checks his mirrors and see's nothing, he's not to know some body is lurking in his blind spot.

Sorry Adam but "blind spots" are no more an excuse for hitting somebody than would be a misted up windscreen. You must be aware of what is going on around you.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

especially when riding a bicycle around vehicles with limited visibility.

Accidents are prevented by people being aware of the limitations of those around them, and the possibilities of what might happen next. I'm cautious around lorries when driving my van, often preferring to hold back on slow moving urban DC's untill I can pass quickly, rather than pace his blind spot. These vehicles can and do hit vehicles the size of me, but rather than moan about the perceived rights and wrongs of it I exercise my duty to anticipate what may happen, and chastise myself when I fail to do so rather than purely blame the other.

While it'd be lovely for cyclists if every motor vehicle was acutely aware of their presence and intentions, the reality is they're not and this isn't going to change any time soon, therefore the smart cyclist must be cautious.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Actually - I think if you actaully bothered to read - you would note that I did not actually quote or name the posters. I merely alluded to their comment that placing such a sign was a



without naming nor directly quoting anyone. The fact you have responded as above accusing of "taking you out of context" suggests to me that you know it was perhaps a VERY bad idea to pour scorn on such initiative on the part of the hauliers and suggest that these skilled drivers (as they are indeed skilled - even Franklin admits it in "Cycle Craft") .


I will now quote your full post so that you can see what you posted and could you please explain why you think it to be a


#???????????



Oh and just to humour you - I will not place any smilies and you then see how dry and blunt and yet still "cutting" we really are without 'em.







You are commenting that such signs are a "bad idea in most cases" I have not taken "out of context" and I did not even quote it in the first place. I merely alluded to the comments in passing. Dcb, on hte other hand, seems to suggest that the sign removes responsibility from the driver. To him I would suggest - join the police - apply for RPU/accident investigation and then learn a lot more as to what actually goes on in this field. Why the F***k do you think we close a road down? For fun of it ? To annoy drivers and other road users? FFS!

OK - you then modify with this comment. Oh and whilst we are about "difficult to read - do spell "I" correctly as we all find the mis-spelling "difficult to read" as I am now in "acid mode"..







[/quote][/quote]

So who is responsible and if you are saying that such a sign gives the "driver an excuse to be a muoppet" -are you not then excusing the other person for taking a most unnecessary risk?

Some do. Many do not. Of all the cycling fatalities - the truck/bus turning left and hitting the cyclist alongside features quite highly in cycling incidents. Do an FOI. That's why the hauliers have put up a warning sign - to try to help - not to excuse themselves.

So if they are indicating and the the cyclist still rides up the inner lane - again explain - each of you - why you have a problem with a useful extra warning sign for the muppets who do this and place themselvs in great danger and the lorry driver and his family who may then collide placed in the same trauma as the cyclist and his family.

It ain't just a case of "driver collided - injured - exact revenge". When that goes to court - there will be questions over the the cyclist would have been "visible for 27 seconds per the CCTV at the shop".


Does any one person - even if they have a rear view mirror on the handle bars of the bicycle - sit at lights with eyes glued in all three mirrors? Do you, for example, sit there with eyes glued to mirror all the time you are at traffic lights?
That, is what the defence will argue. In the real world and not internet chatroom fora. They will also perhaps refer to Franklin as the expert. Defences use him just as much as CPS/plaintiffs.



The only person I know who does keep an eye in a mirror for a long time after stopping is Wildy - and that's mainly because she wants to make sure the person behind her does actually stop and has allowed an escape route via an extra space in front of her - but that's more because of what happened in the past to be blunt.


What they really mean is that the lorry was ahead of the cyclist and stopping for the lights. The cyclist may have spent 27 seconds in riding up to these lights and then ridden up the inside of the long vehicle. In the duration of this 27 seconds - driver would have seen a cyclist in all three of the available mirrors perhaps (or per the angle of the cam and subesequent replays in the investigation to ascertain such "facts" (which can still be chllenged by his defence all the same as I've been there in similar cases being "hammered by defence lawyers") -but when setting off at the lights may not have realised he had come up to his true blind spot. Whilst the cyclist made the common error of keeping too close to the kerb and equally common error of riding up the inside of a long truch - as far too many have never heard of John Franklin nor even the CTC and they certainly do not read C+ nor CW either.. the driver also did not ask himself "What happened to that cyclist? Where the hell did he go?"

Before setting off.


So do explain why you think an extra sign on a large vehicle to be a VERY bad idea in most cases because in your opinion it "exonerates a driver from responsiblity"


Then explain to those involved in such accidents. You know the ones. The ones in traumatised shock at what they have done and the fear in their eyes at the possible outcome... and the ones we scrape up from the scenes - with other emergency teams fighting to save them and whilst you are looking for evidence to charge the driver or explain the accident - you also know/have nagging thought that in many of these cases - an error of judgement on his or her part also contributed to the tragedy.


So do please explain again why you think a warning sign to be a "VERY bad idea" as I see such a sign as an extra hazard warning sign aimed more at those who have not completed "Cyclling Proficiency" nor Bikeablity and have certainly never read the Highway Code .. (rule 71/-74 and 221) let alone John Franklin's works.


Then explain to our Accident Investigation teams an forensics why you think we would take note of that warning sign and not all the other evidence per all forensic and reconstructions - and even then have to prove beyond reasoned doubt to a court .. getting all the paperwork correct as this is also "on trial" with the likes of Mr Freeman and his ilk..


But then reading is not your strong point and I do not actually expect you to reply. You accept your comment was daft because you immediately took umbrage at my passing generalised referal to such comments..

Oh and edited to correct quotes.. but in reply to dcb about the design of mirrors - cyclists complain about the large "sticky outs" which offer the truck driver a better view down the length on each side .. and in reply to those who complain about these - you would not be colliding with the nearside ones if you did not undertake in the first place .. and you should be positioning properly when "jamming and filtering down the off side or overtaking it."

Onus on the road user all the time so how they travel. It takes two to tangle after all. All have responsibilities. When we investigate any accident or indeed any crime - we are thorough and whilst we may look at the role any signs officially recognised or just placed on a vehicle to alert another as these signs (unofficial) play in the incidents - we are looking at the CAUSE of the incident and what each party involved may have done to bring about the collision. We then decide if we have any evidence to charge the driver with an offence and refer up to the CPS. In this case - it could go either way for this driver based solely on the newspaper story.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Indeed Ben


All books for Highway Code to Cycle Craft to Road Craft and various articles as written by Franklin, Ripley and Amey all advise absolute caution around a large and long vehicle.

Two wrongs never make things right and as said in my above - and unusually (for me) acid post above - the warnign sign on the rear of the truck does not absolve from liability if all facts and forensics prove negligence - but a defence will use the Highway Code to mitigate all the same in this kind of case whereby common sense and the Bikeability course would suggest never riding up the inside of a vehicle -= especially a big one - intending to turn left. Per Franklin - you adopt "primary" at all junctions to ensure you are seen. Bikeability also promotes this riding style and you can fail Level 3 if you do not consider safety margins at all times. :roll;

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

No he is saying that the idea of a cyclist riding up the inside of a lorry is a bad idea. I he had been referring to the signs he would have said "they are a VERY bad..." not "it is a VERY bad.."




Well I shall be retiring from my engineering post in May at the age of 61 so will have some free time. If you can get me the forms I'll make the application that you suggest.




What the other fcuk does closing a road down have to do with the legitimacy of those signs.?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

thank you dcb... saved me reading another page or two of IG

I apologise if my wording was ambiguous, it was clear to me at the time and it seems others.
You are welcome to seek clarification in the future before going off on one!

As to unamed quoting, you did use quote tags and the phrase you quoted has only been used once before on this thread, so not alluding to a general attitude or group of posters, but to myself specifically. Hence the direct response.

You then make reference to "those making such comments" try reading franklin, given the above (i.e. i was the one to make the comment you quote) its difficult not to take that also to mean myself.
Furthermore the use of quotation marks in the phrase "But then - some "cyclists" cannot refer to John Franklin" also seems disparaging given the franklin link between that and the previous comment.

Given the above and the generally patronising tone of the post, on reflection, I'm surprised my response was as polite as it was.

Personally though, I do think that Ben is the only one so far who seems to be applying good common sense and good road sense to the answers on this debate. If you are going to do something as daft as cycle up the inside of any large vehicle or even walk on it's blind spot you have be take full responsibility and be prepared for the fact that it might not see you. It always amazes me how many people walk directly behind reversing cars in car parks and ok you might say that the driver should be aware of what is around him, I still prefer to use common sense and leave a safe distance from such manouveres ....just in case.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.