horizon wrote:I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).
The problem is AFAIK that the cyclist rode up the inside of a left indicating lorry which had started it's manoeuvre.
What we don't know is if the driver checked his mirrors and or camera(s) before turning and having check(presuming he did)signalled then began the manoeuvre.
If the lorry had to stop mid manoeuvre,is it then reasonable for the driver to carry one driving without checking again.
If the lorry didn't stop should the driver continually keep checking his mirrors and or camera(s) or should his/her focus be to the front of the vehicle,considering there's more chance of pedestrians or other vehicles being in that direction.
FWIW,I see the argument for a banksman or co driver,but also think realistically the chances of such a law being implemented to be slim in the extreme if at all.
I also agree that the lorry driver should as all drivers should, be vigilant and careful of other road users,however is it reasonable under the present system that at some point the driver after satisfying himself it is safe to carry out the manoeuvre to continue?
There comes a time when the driver has to commit to continuing and after satisfying him/herself it's safe carries on.
If in the meantime someone cycles upto the inside of such a left turning and left indicating lorry,questions need to be asked of that cyclist's capability of using the road IMO.
I take the points raised that pedestrians and licence free vehicles have,for want of a better word, priority and that motor vehicles are only licensed,but we can't have a situation where pedestrians and cyclists have no responsibilities both to themselves and others IMHO that is reasonable.
Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.
The problem here is AFAICS that we have human beings operating such machines that can cause those consequences,and whilst we do there will be mistakes made by either party,the problem is then one of fault.
If a driver of such a vehicle has made all necessary checks,is conforming to all the rules,is diligent and careful in his/her driving duties and conforming to the letter and spirit of the law,if someone should step out into and under the wheels of their vehicle.
Would it then be the driver who was at fault?