Yes they really convicted the driver

[walm]

Nigel Worc's said:

The driver of a badly driven car seems accountable for their shortcomings if something goes tits up, cyclists don't seem to be accountable.

I really have no idea where you get this utterly moronic view.

Let's list the ways in which you are wrong:
1. More hit-and-runs by cyclists than by drivers? Nope.
2. Drivers very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Yep.
3. Cyclists very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Nope.
4. Cyclists let off when they kill someone? Nope, due process like everyone else.

I think the problem you have with cyclists (like many drivers) is that - as you admit - other cars just don't get in the way much.
They go a similar speed and generally behave just like you - their behaviour is easy to anticipate since that is your behaviour too, being a driver.

However, cyclists actually require some thinking, anticipation and skill to manoeuvre around.
They are slow, do unpredictable things and require extra care since they are very vulnerable.
Yes, you are responsible for not killing them with your car. That is part of the deal about SHARING THE ROAD.
I'm sorry that it is such a hassle for you to consider the safety of others but the vast vast majority manage to do it without bleating about it like a spoiled child. It really isn't that hard.

Unfortunately saying things such as cyclists have an "untouchable status" marks you out as a paranoid and ignorant.

Ironically YOU are the one trying to give DRIVERS special status by automatically defending THEM.
Laughable hypocrisy.

The prejudice in this entire thread is just depressing. Pretty much every moron on here trying to defend the guy who ADMITTED GUILT has referred to the poor bloke crushed to death as a "cyclist" rather than what he was for the salient point of the issue - A PEDESTRIAN.

Edited by walm on Wednesday 3rd June 09:18

[eatcustard]

One simple morel to this story.

If you are a cyclist keep clear of car drivers, as you will always lose in a crash.

Also, both car drivers and cyclists are as bad as each other on the roads, keep a wide gab drive within the law and all will be well (most the time)

[Nigel Worc's]

walm said:

Nigel Worc's said:

The driver of a badly driven car seems accountable for their shortcomings if something goes tits up, cyclists don't seem to be accountable.

I really have no idea where you get this utterly moronic view.

Let's list the ways in which you are wrong:
1. More hit-and-runs by cyclists than by drivers? Nope.
2. Drivers very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Yep.
3. Cyclists very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Nope.
4. Cyclists let off when they kill someone? Nope, due process like everyone else.

I think the problem you have with cyclists (like many drivers) is that - as you admit - other cars just don't get in the way much.
They go a similar speed and generally behave just like you - their behaviour is easy to anticipate since that is your behaviour too, being a driver.

However, cyclists actually require some thinking, anticipation and skill to manoeuvre around.
They are slow, do unpredictable things and require extra care since they are very vulnerable.
Yes, you are responsible for not killing them with your car. That is part of the deal about SHARING THE ROAD.
I'm sorry that it is such a hassle for you to consider the safety of others but the vast vast majority manage to do it without bleating about it like a spoiled child. It really isn't that hard.

Unfortunately saying things such as cyclists have an "untouchable status" marks you out as a paranoid and ignorant.

Ironically YOU are the one trying to give DRIVERS special status by automatically defending THEM.
Laughable hypocrisy.

The prejudice in this entire thread is just depressing. Pretty much every moron on here trying to defend the guy who ADMITTED GUILT has referred to the poor bloke crushed to death as a "cyclist" rather than what he was for the salient point of the issue - A PEDESTRIAN.

Edited by walm on Wednesday 3rd June 09:18

I've no idea why you're such a , but that's life I guess !

[walm]

Nigel Worc's said:

I've no idea why you're such a , but that's life I guess !

Nice.

[Devil2575]

walm said:

Nigel Worc's said:

The driver of a badly driven car seems accountable for their shortcomings if something goes tits up, cyclists don't seem to be accountable.

I really have no idea where you get this utterly moronic view.

Let's list the ways in which you are wrong:
1. More hit-and-runs by cyclists than by drivers? Nope.
2. Drivers very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Yep.
3. Cyclists very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Nope.
4. Cyclists let off when they kill someone? Nope, due process like everyone else.

I think the problem you have with cyclists (like many drivers) is that - as you admit - other cars just don't get in the way much.
They go a similar speed and generally behave just like you - their behaviour is easy to anticipate since that is your behaviour too, being a driver.

However, cyclists actually require some thinking, anticipation and skill to manoeuvre around.
They are slow, do unpredictable things and require extra care since they are very vulnerable.
Yes, you are responsible for not killing them with your car. That is part of the deal about SHARING THE ROAD.
I'm sorry that it is such a hassle for you to consider the safety of others but the vast vast majority manage to do it without bleating about it like a spoiled child. It really isn't that hard.

Unfortunately saying things such as cyclists have an "untouchable status" marks you out as a paranoid and ignorant.

Ironically YOU are the one trying to give DRIVERS special status by automatically defending THEM.
Laughable hypocrisy.

The prejudice in this entire thread is just depressing. Pretty much every moron on here trying to defend the guy who ADMITTED GUILT has referred to the poor bloke crushed to death as a "cyclist" rather than what he was for the salient point of the issue - A PEDESTRIAN.

Edited by walm on Wednesday 3rd June 09:18

A very good post.

[wolves_wanderer]

walm said:

Nigel Worc's said:

I've no idea why you're such a , but that's life I guess !

Nice.

Give him his due, he sets low standards and never fails to achieve them.

[Bennet]

It seems to me that people tend to side with whichever party they could most easily imagine themselves ending up being.

I can't imagine trying to squeeze down the side of a waiting lorry. And I do not specifically check my wing mirrors every time I set off. Lots of people here seem adamant that doing so is a fundamental check. Does anyone really do that? Are you all lorry drivers? Is that something they teach lorry drivers to do? I don't recall being taught that when I learned to drive a car and I'm quite anal about driving to the standard I was taught.

What I do do is maintain a basic level of awareness of my suroundings and suggested by someone above. So yeah, I feel quite sorry for the driver in this instance. I think excercising poor judgement is a greater crime than the minor negligence of failing to carry out a check for freak circumstances every single time you move the truck.

Blah blah blah don't have all the information blah.

I also agree that some people do often seem determined to blame the cyclist no matter what the driver does. You also see it with motorcyclists who are always determined to blame the car driver no matter what the biker does.

[walm]

Bennet said:

And I do not specifically check my wing mirrors every time I set off. Lots of people here seem adamant that doing so is a fundamental check. Does anyone really do that? Are you all lorry drivers? Is that something they teach lorry drivers to do? I don't recall being taught that when I learned to drive a car and I'm quite anal about driving to the standard I was taught.

Are you sure you had ANY lessons?

MIRROR-SIGNAL-MANOEUVRE

Just FYI, setting off counts as a manoeuvre.

[Bennet]

walm said:

Bennet said:

And I do not specifically check my wing mirrors every time I set off. Lots of people here seem adamant that doing so is a fundamental check. Does anyone really do that? Are you all lorry drivers? Is that something they teach lorry drivers to do? I don't recall being taught that when I learned to drive a car and I'm quite anal about driving to the standard I was taught.

Are you sure you had ANY lessons?

MIRROR-SIGNAL-MANOEUVRE

Just FYI, setting off counts as a manoeuvre.

I'm just being honest. Maybe I had poor instruction. In reality, I suspect everyone here relies on the basic awareness of their surroundings method, rather than a specific system of checking both wing mirrors every time they move off. You can of course, quote MSM, pretend it's standard practice, and make a case for placing the blame squarely on the driver.

I appreciate I've probably shown up to the thread a bit too late and missed the chance for calm, honest discussion.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Bennet said:

I can't imagine trying to squeeze down the side of a waiting lorry.

how about a parked lorry blocking a road?

we don't know how long it was there, if the driver was there or if the engine was running when the guy tried to get past

[Bennet]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Bennet said:

I can't imagine trying to squeeze down the side of a waiting lorry.

how about a parked lorry blocking a road?

we don't know how long it was there, if the driver was there or if the engine was running when the guy tried to get past

Honestly, I've no idea. In my personal opinion, from the situation as described in the article, even if the unfortunate gentlemen had good reason to believe his actions were safe and wise, the entire situation still has more in common with a freak accident than dangerous driving.

[Hugo a Gogo]

careless driving, not dangerous

because he was manoeuvering a large vehicle through a tight space without using his mirrors properly

[walm]

Hugo a Gogo said:

careless driving, not dangerous

because he was manoeuvering a large vehicle through a tight space without using his mirrors properly

Yes but you don't need to use your mirrors when manoeuvering, that's excessive.

You just set off and hope that no one has the bad luck to be anywhere near you.
As long as you have a "basic awareness of your surroundings".
It is therefore a completely "freak accident" when you plough into someone who is walking next to your vehicle.

Sorry Bennet (I am trying to be calm - honest!), I just disagree with you entirely and yes you must have been taught badly.

How on earth can you think about setting off into space which might very well have been filled by a pedestrian or other car while you were busy with the job of belting up and starting up!!?

In fairness, I don't check BOTH mirrors, just the one that shows me the space I am about to drive into.

[Bennet]

Hugo a Gogo said:

careless driving, not dangerous

because he was manoeuvering a large vehicle through a tight space without using his mirrors properly

Fair enough, it seems so.

[Bennet]

walm said:

In fairness, I don't check BOTH mirrors, just the one that shows me the space I am about to drive into.

I may have badly misunderstood something. Aren't we talking about setting off forward?

[StottyEvo]

Devil2575 said:

walm said:

Nigel Worc's said:

The driver of a badly driven car seems accountable for their shortcomings if something goes tits up, cyclists don't seem to be accountable.

I really have no idea where you get this utterly moronic view.

Let's list the ways in which you are wrong:
1. More hit-and-runs by cyclists than by drivers? Nope.
2. Drivers very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Yep.
3. Cyclists very well protected by cage + airbags if they or someone else makes a mistake? Nope.
4. Cyclists let off when they kill someone? Nope, due process like everyone else.

I think the problem you have with cyclists (like many drivers) is that - as you admit - other cars just don't get in the way much.
They go a similar speed and generally behave just like you - their behaviour is easy to anticipate since that is your behaviour too, being a driver.

However, cyclists actually require some thinking, anticipation and skill to manoeuvre around.
They are slow, do unpredictable things and require extra care since they are very vulnerable.
Yes, you are responsible for not killing them with your car. That is part of the deal about SHARING THE ROAD.
I'm sorry that it is such a hassle for you to consider the safety of others but the vast vast majority manage to do it without bleating about it like a spoiled child. It really isn't that hard.

Unfortunately saying things such as cyclists have an "untouchable status" marks you out as a paranoid and ignorant.

Ironically YOU are the one trying to give DRIVERS special status by automatically defending THEM.
Laughable hypocrisy.

The prejudice in this entire thread is just depressing. Pretty much every moron on here trying to defend the guy who ADMITTED GUILT has referred to the poor bloke crushed to death as a "cyclist" rather than what he was for the salient point of the issue - A PEDESTRIAN.

Edited by walm on Wednesday 3rd June 09:18

A very good post.

I disagree to an extent. Cyclists do have less culpability as they cannot do as much damage as a car. Their lack of protection is also bad for motorists as the lapse in concentration can easily kill the cyclist, compared to hitting a car where you generally have a bump...

Which probably creates a lot of frustration, I've never had a near miss or problem with a cyclist, although I can imagine being extraordinarily annoyed if one decided to run a red and almost hit me, I'd be annoyed that I was so close to killing someone.

[walm]

Bennet said:

walm said:

In fairness, I don't check BOTH mirrors, just the one that shows me the space I am about to drive into.

I may have badly misunderstood something. Aren't we talking about setting off forward?

Ah - I see what you mean now. Since we both pilot vehicles that don't really shift much when pulling off we probably don't need to check our mirrors like a big trailer like an HGV does.
Fair enough.
Sorry.

[walm]

StottyEvo said:

Their lack of protection is also bad for motorists as the lapse in concentration can easily kill the cyclist...

Isn't it slightly worse for the cyclist in this scenario?
(Assuming you mean a driver's lapse in concentration.)

[irocfan]

walm said:

Are you sure you had ANY lessons?

MIRROR-SIGNAL-MANOEUVRE

Just FYI, setting off counts as a manoeuvre.

actually if you want to be pedantic about things at least get it right... I was taught:

MIRROR-SIGNAL-MIRROR-MANEUVER


I will grant you most people these days seem to have it as

MANEUVER-SIGNAL-MANEUVER

[7mike]

walm said:

Are you sure you had ANY lessons?

MIRROR-SIGNAL-MANOEUVRE

Just FYI, setting off counts as a manoeuvre.

walm said:

In fairness, I don't check BOTH mirrors, just the one that shows me the space I am about to drive into.

I think, perhaps a look at the Highway Code is in order. Nowhere will you find Mirror - Signal - Manoeuvre written. You will see however Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre. Whilst this may seem a little pedantic there are very good reasons for this; whether your intention is to turn left, right or go straight on.