Captain Caveman 76:
I struggle to accept your “right to go up the left side of a lorry”.
Suicide was decriminalised under the law of England and Wales by the Suicide Act 1961, overturning the historic position that suicide was an offence under common law broadly equivalent to self murder. Obviously suicide being an offence didn’t affect the deceased, but the criminality of suicide could could add to the problems faced after an unsuccessful suicide attempt or for the survivors of someone successfully committing suicide.
I reject the suggestion made by some that cyclists are, in effect, committing suicide by their acts. My definition of suicide is a deliberate decision to take your life, so an unwise decision that leads to an untimely demise is not a suicide in my eyes. In the case of the latest sad death at Bank, I’m not sure we yet have a clear account of the facts, though it seems that the cyclist somehow found herself between the nearside of a left turning lorry and the kerb.
The reason I brought up the law on suicide is that it illustrates that the existence of a right doesn’t necessarily justify the exercise of the right, let alone make it sensible to exercise the right. Assuming a person wishes to avoid death or injury, which I appreciate is not always the case, it does not make sense for that person knowingly to enter a danger zone on the road, irrespective of the right they have to be on the road or the sort of road user they are. When driving a car, I have the right to sit tight to the offside of a semi-trailer on a roundabout, but I shouldn’t be surprised if my car gets crunched when the artic exits the roundabout, causing the centre of the trailer to sweep towards me, then my insurance company to blame me for the collision.
I find recourse to the language of rights unhelpful in most cases, as it can encourage the mentality of “I’ll do it because I can”.
The law on negligence is based on the duty of care you owe to others. The famous case of Bolam and subsequent case law define the duty of someone purporting to have a special skill as being a reasonably competent practitioner of that skill, even if they are a learner or novice. This means a lorry driver is not negligent if they drive as a reasonably competent professional driver, bearing in mind the limitations of their vehicle.
It is important to remember the reasonably competent cyclist is not necessarily a driver, so may not appreciate the issues faced by a driver.
I can understand why the cycling lobby is portraying themselves as persecuted.
In part, this is because cyclists are some of the most vulnerable road users, having none of the vehicular protection of a motor vehicle driver, much less safety gear than the typical motorcyclist, and they are not always that conspicuous. Simply put, many cyclists feel vulnerable on the roads, especially in the vicinity of large vehicles, and the news coverage of cyclist deaths is upsetting. The poor attitude of some drivers to cyclists doesn’t help.
In part, this is because cycling is becoming increasingly popular, whereas infrastructure for British cyclists is generally rather poor.
Neither of these arguments are undermined by the poor attitudes to risk and to traffic law that some cyclists demonstrate, though these ongoing lapses by some cyclists are extremely unhelpful.
Even so, I find it unhelpful that the specific problems of left turn risk have become conflated with the broader political campaign for better provision and especially better infrastructure for cyclists. This is not a genocide perpetrated by lorry drivers on cyclists. I doubt there are any lorry drivers who go to work aiming to kill a cyclist; the driver in the latest Bank incident was reported to be crying at the scene and will have to live with the memories of what happened even if the investigation rules he is blameless.
It is not feasible to re-engineer every road junction to mitigate left turn risk - even if unlimited funds were available, there often is not enough space to separate cyclists from motorised traffic.
Every cyclist that is killed or seriously injured (KSI) is unfortunate, but cyclists KSI from left turns comprises a minute proportion of overall road KSI. Restrictions on lorry traffic risk unintended consequences - a senior TfL official responsible for cycling policy (whose precise name and job title eludes me at present) has resisted calls for timed lorry bans, pointing out that a rush hour ban on lorries will lead to a greater number of lorries on the roads after the ban ends, risking a greater increase in vulnerable pedestrian KSI than the decrease in rush hour cyclist KSI.
To my mind, the solution to this problem lies partly in assisting the reasonably competent professional driver to detect and avoid nearside hazards when turning left, and partly in educating cyclists so as to raise the ability of the reasonably competent cyclist to avoid left turn danger. I know left turn alarms are embarrassing for drivers and might ultimately achieve little because the public will become desensitised to the noise, whilst underrun bars can pose problems for vehicle manoeuvrability, but it is important to recognise that what is reasonable to require of vehicles changes over time. Those who use and drive lorries cannot reasonably close their mind to the safety issues highlighted by these deaths.
The right to use the roads is accompanied by responsibilities for your own safety and to other road users. I believe it would be helpful if all involved sought reasonable measures to improve safety whilst remembering that it is impossible to eliminate all risk. The attempts to make political capital or impose knee-jerk solutions are unhelpful, in my view.
above the wagon which,as I said would be better changed to more view out and down at the side.While the wide angle mirror seems to provide a ( too ) good view of the the cab and door which would again be better changed to more at the side in addition to lifting it a bit more above the door line. 
