Italian prince on fixie overtook HGV immediately before fatal collision in London

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

But we don't know where the cyclist came from and there are a lot of areas near/around lorries where you can't be seen.

Why did the cyclist perform a 'left hook' ?

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

According to the taxi driver witness he was on the outside of the lorry, and then swung in in front of it (to avoid an island). I think what is being suggested is that in that position, with an unexpected obstacle ahead of him his options on a normal bike would have been to either go for it or slam the anchors on. The latter would have been the safer option but being on a fixie made it impossible.

It was a foreign truck, with the driver presumably on the left which probably didn't help matters.

Very sad, I'm sure we've all been in situations at times where we've thought 'oops' afterwards but ridden away.

Yrcm wrote:

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

According to the taxi driver witness he was on the outside of the lorry, and then swung in in front of it (to avoid an island). I think what is being suggested is that in that position, with an unexpected obstacle ahead of him his options on a normal bike would have been to either go for it or slam the anchors on. The latter would have been the safer option but being on a fixie made it impossible.

It was a foreign truck, with the driver presumably on the left which probably didn't help matters.

Very sad, I'm sure we've all been in situations at times where we've thought 'oops' afterwards but ridden away.

didn't briggs do something similar in front of Charlie Alliston, Alliston was accused of manslaughter and should have avoided her according to every man and his dog, why is this not the case here? Why do motorists not get the zero leeway that people on bikes are seemingly getting, why are the operators of proven to be killing machines not forced to give leeway for others errors just as Charlie Alliston was convicted over because of the perveption he didn't despite slowing sigificantly, doing what the vast majority do and swerving to avoid?

Two sets of rules, same old.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

didn't briggs do something similar in front of Charlie Alliston, Alliston was accused of manslaughter and should have avoided her according to every man and his dog, why is this not the case here? Why do motorists not get the zero leeway that people on bikes are seemingly getting, why are the operators of proven to be killing machines not forced to give leeway for others errors just as Charlie Alliston was convicted over because of the perveption he didn't despite slowing sigificantly, doing what the vast majority do and swerving to avoid?

Two sets of rules, same old.

OT:

I had my own near-Alliston moment the other evening.  Two lanes of traffic going down a hill; left one for going straight on, right one (with queuing traffic) for turning right.  I'm going right, but I know there's an ASL at the traffic lights at the bottom of the hill so I go down in the (empty) left hand lane.  Pedestrian on my left kerbside further down: watch her as she steps into the road (without looking), crosses my lane, pauses before going between the queuing traffic in the right hand lane, steps as if to pass between the queuing cars, but then - just as I get level with her, passing behind her in an otherwise empty traffic lane  - she turns and dashes back to the kerb (again, without looking).  If she'd done that probably less than a second later, we would have collided at speed.  If I'd have been driving a car, she would have run into the side of my vehicle.

Yrcm wrote:

dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

According to the taxi driver witness he was on the outside of the lorry, and then swung in in front of it (to avoid an island). I think what is being suggested is that in that position, with an unexpected obstacle ahead of him his options on a normal bike would have been to either go for it or slam the anchors on. The latter would have been the safer option but being on a fixie made it impossible.

It was a foreign truck, with the driver presumably on the left which probably didn't help matters.

Very sad, I'm sure we've all been in situations at times where we've thought 'oops' afterwards but ridden away.

I don't see from the article(s) how fast the lorry was going relative to the cyclist and thus how long the manoeuvre would have taken - it may have been very few seconds. Regardless, the onus is on overtakers to ensure they can do so safely - which it doesn't appear the poor chap did.

The lorry driver does have to check his mirrors but he can only look in one direction at a time so would prioritise more attention ahead if he only going straight ahead. Would be different if he was switching lanes or turning but there's no suggestion he was.

It's also uncertain from the details given whether the lack of a front brake was important here - it might have allowed the rider to abort the manoeuvre safely. Maybe not - we can't say specifically (although it's sensible from a safety and legal perspective to have one).

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Just in vehicles that don't have massive bind spots so their drivers have no idea if they are killing people or not.....i don't think that's much to ask.
How did goods get into cities before the advent of HGVs with cabs based on construction site vehicles?

Zjtm231 wrote:

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Just in vehicles that don't have massive bind spots so their drivers have no idea if they are killing people or not.....i don't think that's much to ask. How did goods get into cities before the advent of HGVs with cabs based on construction site vehicles?

PC Keen's investigation of the lorry would have determined whether the driver had adeqaute vision (in the way of mirrors suitable for the lorry), but there will always be blind spots in any vehicle. It's up to the cyclist to make sure they aren't in them, especially when the vehicle is moving.

This is a tragic event but totally avoidable. The cyclist made a poor choice, whether it be through speed or not making himself visible enough, or just plain recklessness, but let's not blame the lorry who in this case did nothing wrong and had every right to be there.

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

TR-3B 

Thelma Viaduct wrote:

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

 

TR-3B 

Like

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Well if high cabbed heavy goods vehicles and coach & horses are the only 2 types of vehicle that exist, I suppose a coach and horses is the most suitable for the task of delivery in this environment.

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Rail perhaps, there are a few stations after all.

Grahamd wrote:

superfly_nz wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Rail perhaps, there are a few stations after all.

The only real problem is that the rail network is congested enough during the day, and the only feasible time to use it (and have a train at a station long enough to unload), would be effectivily the very late to early hours. And that wouldn't go down too well with the thousands of local residents of London who live nearby these inner city stations.

Otherwise not a half bad suggestion, I think the rail is definitely under-utilised when it comes to goods transfer. 

Deeferdonk wrote:

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

In fairness to the police officer, I think the point is that neither of those were crimes.

Maybe they should be but that's a different issue and not the officer's responsibility.

Duncann wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

In fairness to the police officer, I think the point is that neither of those were crimes.

who said they were crimes? They are problems.Erectile disfunction is not a crime but I'm sure PC David Keen would consider it to be a problem.