East Dulwich (Mobile) Forum

another bike run over by large truck

just got back from Lidl in Peckham and there was a young man stuck under the rear wheels of a large tipper truck that had been turning left into Bellenden rd from Peckham rd Bike was crushed he seemed ok but trapped.
Sorry to upset anyone but just compounds the need to be careful if you find yourself alongside one of these lorries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 18, 10:39am by macutd.

...and that lorries need to be careful when they find themselves alongside bicycles, responsibility is a two way street! Hope the lad's OK.
I saw the truck and the crushed bike, too (the chap was not there any more).
Has any one seen what happened?
Did the truck driver swerve to the left without signalling? Did the cyclist try to undertake him while he was turning?
Other than signalling in advance, I don't really know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid cyclists!
DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw the truck and the crushed bike, too (the
> chap was not there any more).
> Has any one seen what happened?
> Did the truck driver swerve to the left without
> signalling? Did the cyclist try to undertake him
> while he was turning?


Really? What if the truck (as has been detailed in several inquests on those killed in this sort of instance) had a clear view of the cyclist ahead but instead of letting him go ahead across the junction tried to speed up and cut across him.

> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really
> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid
> cyclists!

That's as daft a statement as it's possible to make. Truck drivers have no responsibility to avoid hitting cyclists beyond signalling? Incredible.
They've started work in earnest on the old Highshore school site and I spotted four large dumper trucks parked nearby this morning on my way to work. I'm expecting the same with the work going on for the new Heath Centre and school on East Dulwich Grove. A definite need for heightened awareness from all.
There is a green cycle lane on the inside going past Burger king from Rye lane and a cycle box at the head of the junction with Bellenden road. This is pretty basic stuff for a professional driver to consider
@flocker spotter, do you know what actually happened? I don't. If you do, please clarify.

What do you mean by 'pretty basic stuff'? Maybe the driver swerved to the left, without signalling, and hit the cyclist who couldn't have known the truck decided to turn at the last moment. Maybe the driver had signalled well in advance, and the cyclists didn't notice it or decided to risk it anyway. The possibilities are endless. Again, do you have any reasons to believe one of the many possibilities is more likely?

@Rendelharris, specifically what steps, other than installing CCTV on the sides, and those 'stay back' signs, do you think truck drivers should take to look out for cyclists? If the driver had a clear view of the cyclist, then he's a bloodthirsty assassin and I don't think there is much to comment. Why do you mention it? Do you have any reason to believe this is what happened? I struggle to see the relevance of mentioning evidently stupid and criminal behaviour by a category of road users unless you know specifically that is what happened; the world is full of idiots, every category of road users has its fair share, what does mentioning generic idiotic behaviour achieve?

On a related note, it still beggars belief how many cyclists and motorcyclists fail to understand that they must stay the hell back from large vehicles. I am not a truck driver - I say this as a motorcyclist. We road users on two wheels (and 3, counting the Piaggio Mp3 and the like), regardless of whether we have an engine or not, are the most vulnerable road users, and must ride accordingly, i.e. defensively, which means assuming that all the other road users are brain-dead idiots ready to kill us for no reason other than their idiocy. I ride a powerful and loud (not illegally loud, but clearly louder than a bicycle) motorcycle, which means that, compared to a pushbike, I am more likely to be seen and/or heard, and I have an incredibly better chance to accelerate away from an unexpected danger. Yet I always stay the hell back from big trucks and the like. I overtake them only if the road is straight and they couldn't possibly turn anywhere. Why on Earth do not all cyclists and motorcyclists do the same? No, this does not mean minimising the responsibility of the truck drivers who behave with criminal negligence: it means accepting the banal truth that we are the most vulnerable and must behave accordingly, taking the necessary precautions.
I think my post was self explanatory - I do not relish an internet argument with a random who is obviously furious about something, but thanks for the opportunity.
Cyclist taken to major trauma centre - sounds grim.

This will be a Police investigation and potential charges. Not sure it's helpful to speculate on this thread while evidence being collected and until a jury have decided against any charges.
"assisting police with their enquiries" - no such thing I thought
DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>
> @Rendelharris, specifically what steps, other than
> installing CCTV on the sides, and those 'stay
> back' signs, do you think truck drivers should
> take to look out for cyclists? If the driver had a
> clear view of the cyclist, then he's a
> bloodthirsty assassin and I don't think there is
> much to comment. Why do you mention it? Do you
> have any reason to believe this is what happened?
> I struggle to see the relevance of mentioning
> evidently stupid and criminal behaviour by a
> category of road users unless you know
> specifically that is what happened; the world is
> full of idiots, every category of road users has
> its fair share, what does mentioning generic
> idiotic behaviour achieve?

You love to accuse me of putting words in your mouth, so I won't do that. These are your exact words:

> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really
> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid
> cyclists!

How does this not imply that any cyclist is to blame for any bike/HGV collision as long as the truck signals? Your many posts on here prove that you are fanatically anti-cyclist, I just wish you'd be honest about it rather than pretending you're not. There has been an accident with a left turning truck wiping out a cyclist, you weren't there, nor was I, but you have assumed it's the cyclist's fault. It's worth repeating once again what you said:

> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really
> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid
> cyclists!


You are beneath contempt.
Hubby was a cyclist so as a car driver I am very wary when driving of other cyclists. Coming up from LL to the Plough traffic lights, I indicated and was in the correct lane to turn left into Barry Road. Just as the lights changed a cyclist drove up on my nearside and proceeded to cut in front of me to go straight ahead. I spotted him at the last minute and slammed on the brakes. There are many good cyclists who are aware of what is going on around them, but unfortunately many are utter wallies.

Hubby has been a cyclist since a teenager (now in his 60s) and remembers very clearly being taught you stay behind other vehicles and give them enough space to that if the indicate a turn you have time to stop. Also never go alongside a large vehicle as they cannot always see you in their mirrors.
@rendelharris, you continue putting words in my mouth. You really can't help it. I specifically asked if anyone knew what happened. I said the possibilities were endless, that maybe it was the cyclist's fault, maybe it was the driver's fault, we just don't know. I specifically said:

> Maybe the driver swerved to the left, without signalling, and hit the cyclist who couldn't have known the truck
> decided to turn at the last moment. Maybe the driver had signalled well in advance, and the cyclists didn't notice it
> or decided to risk it anyway. The possibilities are endless. Again, do you have any reasons to believe one of the
> possibilities is more likely?

Please enlighten me: how is this assuming it was the cyclist's fault? I shall be looking forward to your explanation.

Just to be clear: I was commenting about my experience of the road in general. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case because I do not know what happened; again, maybe the cyclist was at fault, maybe the driver was at fault, I have no idea, and I have no reason to believe one hypothesis is more likely than the other.

If a truck signals well in advance, I find it extremely stupid and irresponsabile if a cyclist or motorcyclist undertakes or overtakes the truck. I repeat, I say this as a motorcyclist. Does this make me... what? A fanatic? Of what? Why? I repeat, I say this as a motorcyclist, and I think that anyone on two wheels, regardless of whether they have an engine or not, who does this is an idiot who puts his/her life at risk. Again, what is so outrageous about this opinion? You don't agree? If not, why? Do you think it is wise for a cyclist or motorcyclist to undertake or overtake a large vehicle which has signalled? Please elaborate.

I am not a lawyer nor a policeman. I honestly do not know what the law says about a cyclist or motorcyclist who undertakes or overtakes in those circumstances. I am simply a motorcyclist who has been both cautious and lucky enough never to have an accident in about 10 years of riding. All I know is that, regardless of what the law may or may not say, undertaking or overtaking a large vehicle which has signalled or just before the road turns left or right is extremely stupid and irresponsible.

> You are beneath contempt.

Personal insults are the last resort of those who cannot reply to very specific and detailed points.
Just to repeat, this is what you said:

> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really
> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid
> cyclists!

You remain beneath contempt.
@rendelharris, as usual you avoid replying to very detailed and specific points. Congratulations.

You accused me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. I showed when and how I said I had no idea what happened, nor whose fault it was. Is it too much to ask that you acknowledge you were wrong? Probably yes, right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 18, 06:38pm by DulwichLondoner.

Any minute now you will get "If you cannot debate in a sensible way I am out"
DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> @rendelharris, as usual you avoid replying to very
> detailed and specific points. Congratulations.
>
> You accused me of saying it was the cyclist's
> fault. I showed when and how I said I had no idea
> what happened, nor whose fault it was. Is it too
> much to ask that you acknowledge you were wrong?
> Probably yes, right?

So did you or did you not say this:

> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really
> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid
> cyclists!

If you didn't then I'm happy to have a debate with you. If you did then you're not worth my metaphorical breath. And you did say that, no words being put in your mouth or anything else.
sally buying Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> Any minute now you will get "If you cannot debate
> in a sensible way I am out"

Got a point of your own to make Sally? If not, what was the point of that?
Thanks for posting L&W. My youngest son and I went past this moments after it happened and have been wondering how he was ever since. Poor guy - so glad to hear he's ok.

L&W Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> Leg injuries, but not life threatening.
>
> [www.standard.co.uk]
> h-cyclist-rushed-to-hospital-after-collision-with-
> a-lorry-in-peckham-high-street-a3517221.html
@rendelharris, you accused me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. I never did; in fact, I showed very clearly how I said I had no idea whose fault it was. Are you ready to admit you made a mistake, yes or no?

You accused me of being a fanatic. I explained very clearly why, as a motorcyclist, I consider cyclists and motorcyclists who don't stay the hell back from large vehicles as idiots who are putting themselves in great danger - danger which could be easily avoidable. To reiterate: I talked about a category I belong to myself. Does this make me... what? An anti-me? I asked if you agree or not and why; I asked what is so fanatical about this statement. Your silence has been deafening.

As for your other question, yes, I did say that I am not sure what truck drivers can do, other than signalling well in advance. To be clear, just in case there is any doubt, this does not mean drivers should close their eyes, signal, and then turn with their eyes closed. Of course they must pay attention, drive sensibly, etc... all common sense stuff every road users should always be doing. What I meant was that I don't think there are specific 'silver bullets', magical solutions.

Some of the larger vehicles play very loud recordings: "this vehicle is turning left/right". This clearly helps, but I am not sure it would be indispensable if other road users paid attention to the signalling lights. I have not seen a single large vehicle without the customary "stay back" sign, which helps, even though it would be totally unnecessary if the roads were not so filled with idiots. I suppose some vehicles will have smaller blind spots than others, but I'd still expect the blind spots of large vehicles to be significantly bigger than those of a car. I know there are initiatives to give truck drivers the perspective of a cyclist, eg by getting truck drivers to cycle in central London for a day. I think this helps; in fact, as a motorcyclist, I strongly believe all road users should go through the experience of riding in central London on two wheels, whether motorised or not; however, I do not think it would be a silver bullet. The only thing I can think of which would make a big difference would probably be installing CCTV on the sides of the vehicles to eliminate most of the blind spots, although it would be interesting to understand if this is permitted or if the law would consider watching what happens laterally a distraction.

Of course I may be wrong. I am not a truck driver and have no experience whatsoever driving large vehicles. I fully appreciate there may well be other things I have neglected to consider, which a truck driver should specifically do, and which would make a material difference. This is why I asked you what these could be. If I made a mistake, I will gladly admit it. So I ask you again: what are these other steps that truck drivers should take? If you were a truck driver, what exactly would you do before turning left, if there is a non-segregated cycle lane?
DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course I may be wrong. I am not a truck driver
> and have no experience whatsoever driving large
> vehicles. I fully appreciate there may well be
> other things I have neglected to consider, which a
> truck driver should specifically do, and which
> would make a material difference. This is why I
> asked you what these could be. If I made a
> mistake, I will gladly admit it. So I ask you
> again: what are these other steps that truck
> drivers should take? If you were a truck driver,
> what exactly would you do before turning left, if
> there is a non-segregated cycle lane?

Oh God, I don't know what on earth a truck driver could do! Stop, check down the side of their vehicle, see if there are any vulnerable road users on their inside before turning left, stay back any time they see a cyclist ahead of them...no, that's madness, obviously. Go and have a look at the coroner's reports into most of the recent HGV/cyclist deaths over the last few years and see where the blame was apportioned.

What would I do if I was a truck driver before turning left? Make f0cking sure I wasn't going to run over a cyclist, that'd be a good thing to do, no?
I notice that you still cannot admit you made a mistake in accusing me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. Oh, well...

You have also not explained what would be so fanatical in saying that cyclists and motorcyclists should stay back from large vehicles. Oh, well...

What you have described (stop, check, etc.) is just responsible, common sense behaviour that should be followed by every road user. Have I maybe ever said that drivers should turn without checking? Come on, I know that putting words in my mouth is your favourite pastime, but this is ridiculous.

I don't have access to the coroners' reports of HGV/cyclist deaths. Do you? Are they public record? The only public record I know of is a report by the Metropolitan police or TFL (the MET does the classification; I don't remember which body publishes the report) classifying collisions into a number of categories; I remember that, for cyclists, a significant number of collisions fell into the category of the collision described in this post, but I don't remember reading any statistic on whose fault it is. Do you have any data on this? Bearing in mind, of course, that single cases are utterly irrelevant and statistically meaningless.

TFL has a 'safer lorry scheme', which is about installing specific mirrors, which provide a greater field of view, and side guards to protect cyclists from being dragged under the wheels in case of a collision.
[tfl.gov.uk].

Large vehicles have big blind spots. If al cyclists stayed back from large vehicles, overtaking them only well away from bends and turns, the number of collisions would plummet.

At intersections like those between Bellenden road and Peckham road it is sensible for any driver, especially those of large vehicles, to come to almost a complete stop before turning. Not doing so would of course increase the chance of hitting a cyclist in the blind spot. Whose fault it would be if this were to happen would of course depend on the specific circumstances; nothing changes the fact that staying back from large vehicles reduces these risks considerably. In other circumstances, instead, like changing lane before turning, coming to a complete stop is neither feasible nor desirable, because it would block the traffic creating a number of other hazards.

On a related note, more training would help. It is not feasible (although I would consider it appropriate) to require some kind of licence for cyclists, but it should be in everyone's interest to provide more training, eg in schools or at the workplace. Let me make an example with motorcycles: in the past you could ride certain motorcycles with just your car licence, as many continental Europeans still can (I think up to 125cc). The UK abolished that and introduced the CBT (compulsory basic training) as a requirement for holders of a car licence to ride 125cc scooters and motorcycles. The change was prompted by the high number of deaths among inexperienced riders, which apparently plummeted after this measure was introduced. I say 'apparently' because I do not have specific statistics. I am sure some of those deaths were caused by other road users, and of course losing control of a motorcycle is easier and more dangerous than losing control of a pushbike, still, the concept that letting inexperienced road users on the road is dangerous, and that training reduces the danger, seems rather reasonable and straightforward.
Glad to hear he's going to be ok. Skipping thru the "I said you said" shenanigans
I'm sure there's a long history to explain what that's all about but ..... crikey!
I am glad the poor cyclist is OK and hope his injuries aren't life-changing. Let's not speculate on blame until we have more information.

However, I would say that I am a very careful cyclist and try to give large vehicles a wide berth wherever possible. I don't scoot down the side of them and if they stop beside or behind me, I move forward so that I'm not in their blind spot. But I've had a couple of close shaves with HGVs - both when their drivers chose to overtake me at stupid points on the road. On one occasion, if I hadn't heard the engine revving to accelerate and chosen to brake and stop, I'd probably be dead as the trailer's rear wheels would have swiped me off my bike. Just as there are reckless or naive cyclist out there, some professional drivers also leave a lot to be desired.
I don't know what happened here but have cycled that stretch of road a lot. That stretch of road has a cycle lane running on the left side of the road which is to say cyclists encouraged to assume that is "their" road space and to be alongside a vehicle on the right is not to be behaving dangerously rather, using the road as it is laid out. A large vehicle turning left across this cycle lane, where cyclists expect and are encouraged by road markings to expect, to be able to proceed safely is a nightmare scenario. A properly segregated cycle path and lights for vehicles turning left across is would help.

[goo.gl]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 19, 12:07am by bawdy-nan.

bawdy-nan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> [...] to be alongside a
> vehicle on the right is not to be behaving
> dangerously rather, using the road as it is laid
> out.

I disagree in the strongest possible way!

If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if the road is straight, the risks are much lower, but there is still the risk the large vehicle might change lane and, again, not see you. And all of this for what? To assert a constitutional right to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are worth more than that... Make an honest assessment of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should ride next to a large vehicle.

Notice I say 'our' lives because this is exactly what I do when I ride my motorcycle; I am speaking out of direct personal experience here.
I saw the whole thing as I was in my car at the lights on Bellenden Road. I called the ambulance.

I looked up just as he was being sucked under the wheels and hooted at the truck driver to stop, he was completely unaware of the guy under his wheels!
It is not just being on the inside of a large vehicle which is a danger to two wheelers - I was struck (on a moped) by an artic's trailer when on the right of it - when it swung out as the artic. turned left - I was too far ahead to see him signalling (and couldn't have done much anyway had I seen it, as I had nowhere to go to avoid the trailer at that stage), and his cab had turned sufficiently that I was no longer visible in his mirror (which I had been before he made the turn). I was not expecting him to turn (we were in queued traffic at lights on a narrow-ish road) - but I was still in a dangerous road position (and I had not worked out just how much the trailer might swing into my lane on that manoeuvre). Didn't make that mistake again (I was knocked off my bike, but no real damage to it or me). Two wheelers and large trucks do not come well together, and simple physics says that it is the two wheel driver who has most to lose and is at most risk in any encounter. So (very) cautious driving should be the rule of the day for the two-wheeler. Being 'in the right' is no real recompense. Which is not to say that bad or reckless driving by HGV drivers should not be punished. Nor that additional warning signs and voiced warnings are not appropriate or necessary.
DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is
> a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you
> are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as
> the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an
> intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn
> and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if
> the road is straight, the risks are much lower,
> but there is still the risk the large vehicle
> might change lane and, again, not see you. And all
> of this for what? To assert a constitutional right
> to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your
> destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are
> worth more than that... Make an honest assessment
> of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should
> ride next to a large vehicle.

Yet again, as you have throughout this thread, you make an automatic assumption that a cyclist must be at fault: you appear to be telling people not to ride alongside HGVs even on straight roads, well guess what, HGVs overtake. Should a cyclist dismount every time they hear an HGV coming?

Are you the same DulwichLondoner, by the way, who acknowledges how dangerous roads are for cyclists to share with HGVs but also wants all segregated cycle lanes torn out?

Original thread | JSON