Roymondo:
Wait at what line though? The cyclist in question was in a cycle lane which doesn’t have a Stop line until the ASL some distance in front of the truck. Seems she was doing exactly what cyclists are supposed to do and was making her way to the ASL zone while the truck (and any other traffic) was waiting at a red light. That’s the way ASLs are supposed to work.
That obviously leaves more questions like was the truck also waiting at and therefore starting off from the ASL bearing in mind they don’t apply if the lights change after the first line is crossed ?.
If not how did the cyclist end up at the side of the truck assuming the cyclist entered the junction before and ahead of the truck from the ASL ?.
Did the lights go green before the cyclist reached the ASL ?.
Did the cyclist then enter the junction together with the truck from behind ?.
Only assuming if the cyclist started off from the ASL and entered the junction ‘before’ and ‘ahead’ of the truck in that case would/should have been expected to set alarm bells ringing with the jury.
While the idea of actually encouraging cyclists to undertake vehicles and then enter a junction with them might explain the reason why there have been numerous other reported casualties there.
Roymondo:
Wait at what line though? The cyclist in question was in a cycle lane which doesn’t have a Stop line until the ASL some distance in front of the truck. Seems she was doing exactly what cyclists are supposed to do and was making her way to the ASL zone while the truck (and any other traffic) was waiting at a red light. That’s the way ASLs are supposed to work.
While the idea of actually encouraging cyclists to undertake vehicles and then enter a junction with them might explain the reason why there have been numerous other reported casualties there.
Janina undertook nothing. She was in her lane, where she was supposed to be. She DID NOT undertake, she was in the cycle lane. In her lane. It was a lane. The clue’s in the name, CYCLE LANE.
See the position of the truck and the cycle lane ahead? The driver had just driven along a road with a cycle lane the entire length. He was turning into a road that has a cycle lane the whole length. He turned left without checking even though the rider was in plain sight when BOTH were stationary at the lights where’s a large ASL for almost half a minute.
roaduser66:
Janina undertook nothing. She was in her lane, where she was supposed to be. She DID NOT undertake, she was in the cycle lane. In her lane. It was a lane. The clue’s in the name, CYCLE LANE.
Feel free to post evidence of cycle lane markings ‘at the point’ where the collision took place within the junction.
Meanwhile as I said ‘cycle lanes’ leading up to ASL’s by definition encourage cyclists to pass vehicles on the nearside on the approach to junctions.Thereby creating the situation of them being missed by and/or lost to view of drivers of large vehicles during a turn.On that note the fact is in this case we’ve got a cyclist on the nearside and a truck entering a junction together with inevitable results when the vehicle made a left turn.
As for so called ‘lanes’.Even in the case of there actually being more than one marked lane on the approach to and through a junction rule 221 of the highway code still applies.IE you’ll often need to give way and wait to allow large vehicles to turn because there isn’t enough room.
You’re driving along a busy road in the capital that has a cycle lane the entire length down the left hand side. You overtake a cyclist. 200 metres later the light is red and you stop for 23 seconds. The lights change and you turn left and knock the cyclist over and crush her. I guess she came out of nowhere.
See the position of the truck and the cycle lane ahead? The driver had just driven along a road with a cycle lane the entire length. He was turning into a road that has a cycle lane the whole length. He turned left without checking even though the rider was in plain sight when BOTH were stationary at the lights where’s a large ASL for almost half a minute.
You need to go to spec savers.Look at the line which denotes the cycle lane past the junction.Not surprisingly there is no cycle lane within the junction where the collision took place.The chamfered line leading up to it denotes the start of the cycle lane in the road being turned into.Nor is it even a cycle lane divided by a solid line.
As for the circumstances leading up to the collision we only know that the cyclist had been passed well before the junction and arrived after the truck.We don’t know the truck’s position at the line or exactly how the cyclist and the truck came to collide within the junction.Although we do know that she wasn’t hit from behind by the front of the truck.She was hit having entered the junction,together with and at the same time as the truck at/by the nearside of it.
Janina undertook nothing. She was in her lane, where she was supposed to be. She DID NOT undertake, she was in the cycle lane. In her lane. It was a lane. The clue’s in the name, CYCLE LANE.
[/quote]
and heres another clue…the cycle lane is in the…ROAD… theres your clue right there…and if your on a bike on the ROAD…unless your clueless,it may be prudent to make sure your nowhere near a truck.irrespective of who has right of way,if your daft enough to be on a bike,your getting the 2nd prize in any accident.
roaduser66:
You’re driving along a busy road in the capital that has a cycle lane the entire length down the left hand side. You overtake a cyclist. 200 metres later the light is red and you stop for 23 seconds. The lights change and you turn left and knock the cyclist over and crush her. I guess she came out of nowhere.
In the real world of the truck being there first and the cyclist then going along the nearside of the truck and then entering the junction together with the truck in an unseen position that’s exactly how it will seem from the driving seat.
Carry fast… your wasting your time, Roaduser66 will never admit that cyclists also have a responsibility for their own actions, he wont accept that while you maybe able to do something legally, sometimes common sense tells you its not a good idea. you are the big bad cyclist killing truck driver and it will always be your fault… and that is why people like Roaduser66 are part of the problem. the inability to accept any responsibility and only lay blame on others rather than look for mutual solutions, yes truck drivers need to be aware. but so do cyclists cyclists share the road with trucks and have to take their share or responsibility for their own safety… going up the inside of any HGV given the inherent dangers of doing so is foolhardy… you may be entitled to do it, but its dangerous so don’t, I can legally stand in a bath of water holding an electric fire- I don’t because I know its dangerous, common sense tells me not to put myself in that situation, when I ride a bike common sense tells me not to move up the inside of an HGV- this isn’t rocket science, just self preservation
Rikki-UK:
Carry fast… your wasting your time, Roaduser66 will never admit that cyclists also have a responsibility for their own actions, he wont accept that while you maybe able to do something legally, sometimes common sense tells you its not a good idea. you are the big bad cyclist killing truck driver and it will always be your fault… and that is why people like Roaduser66 are part of the problem. the inability to accept any responsibility and only lay blame on others rather than look for mutual solutions, yes truck drivers need to be aware. but so do cyclists cyclists share the road with trucks and have to take their share or responsibility for their own safety… going up the inside of any HGV given the inherent dangers of doing so is foolhardy… you may be entitled to do it, but its dangerous so don’t, I can legally stand in a bath of water holding an electric fire- I don’t because I know its dangerous, common sense tells me not to put myself in that situation, when I ride a bike common sense tells me not to move up the inside of an HGV- this isn’t rocket science, just self preservation
Where’s the like button when you need it.
As for what happened, the jury have gone through all the evidence that was put before them, gone through all the arguments between the defence and prosecution, and reached this verdict. Both the driver and cyclist made mistakes that day, and both have ultimately paid the ultimate price, with one losing her life, Abs the other having to live with that for the rest of his life. Something I’d never want to wish on anyone.
What a surprise. A cyclist death and up pops roaduser66 like some sort of ghoul.
Does it not say a lot about you that you come on this forum ONLY when there is a death?
I can tell how this will go though now you’ve shown your face.
You will constantly throw up reasons as to why it is perfectly acceptable for a cyclist to put themselves in dangerous situations and instead tell us all it is the drivers responsibility and they obviously hate cyclists
When put to you that a cyclist shouldnt move into a drivers blind spot you will tell us all that the driver should look and they obviously hate cyclists
When its put to you that cyclists should hang back and not sit next to a vehicle at lights, you will tell us its the drivers job to look and they obviously hate cylists
When put to you that cyclists need to accept this responsibility to protect themselves, you will accuse that poster of being a danger and they obviously hate cyclists
When put to you about ANY dangerous manouvre by cyclists you will state “thats not whats killing cyclists” as if that somehow makes it any less dangerous or more acceptable and that they obviously hate cyclists
At some point you will pull the old cliche out about truck drivers all viewing ■■■■ while driving out of the hat
When put to you that there are maniac cyclists who have no respect for the rules of the road, you will revert to “thats not whats killing cyclists”
You will quote countless facts and figures to back up your claims.
Anyone who says cyclists are a danger to themselves will straight away be accused by you of having a hatred towards cyclists (in breath taking hypocrisy by you given your obvious disdain to anything with more than two wheels)
You will ignore any questions you dont like( or by answering would poke holes in your views) and accuse the questioner of hating cyclists
Anyone who does not agree to total cyclist innocence in any incident involving cyclists will be accused of hating cyclists.
No doubt other pieces of your MO will show up when you start to get rattled.
Why dont you stick to your own cycling forum where you can all chat among yourselves about why it should be perfectly acceptable to cycle around without caring and its a drivers responsibility to look out for you and your safety and leave the rest of us alone?
Quit you’re trolling.
Rikki-UK:
Carry fast… your wasting your time, Roaduser66 will never admit that cyclists also have a responsibility for their own actions, he wont accept that while you maybe able to do something legally, sometimes common sense tells you its not a good idea. you are the big bad cyclist killing truck driver and it will always be your fault… and that is why people like Roaduser66 are part of the problem. the inability to accept any responsibility and only lay blame on others rather than look for mutual solutions, yes truck drivers need to be aware. but so do cyclists cyclists share the road with trucks and have to take their share or responsibility for their own safety… going up the inside of any HGV given the inherent dangers of doing so is foolhardy… you may be entitled to do it, but its dangerous so don’t, I can legally stand in a bath of water holding an electric fire- I don’t because I know its dangerous, common sense tells me not to put myself in that situation, when I ride a bike common sense tells me not to move up the inside of an HGV- this isn’t rocket science, just self preservation
As I said before Judge roaduser66 obviously knows all the true facts of this case and how badly the jury got it all wrong, so who are we to argue. Trolling seems to be his hobby, so if we ignore him, he’ll eventually ■■■■ off.
The-Snowman:
What a surprise. A cyclist death and up pops roaduser66 like some sort of ghoul.
Does it not say a lot about you that you come on this forum ONLY when there is a death?
I can tell how this will go though now you’ve shown your face.
You will constantly throw up reasons as to why it is perfectly acceptable for a cyclist to put themselves in dangerous situations and instead tell us all it is the drivers responsibility and they obviously hate cyclists
When put to you that a cyclist shouldnt move into a drivers blind spot you will tell us all that the driver should look and they obviously hate cyclists
When its put to you that cyclists should hang back and not sit next to a vehicle at lights, you will tell us its the drivers job to look and they obviously hate cylists
When put to you that cyclists need to accept this responsibility to protect themselves, you will accuse that poster of being a danger and they obviously hate cyclists
When put to you about ANY dangerous manouvre by cyclists you will state “thats not whats killing cyclists” as if that somehow makes it any less dangerous or more acceptable and that they obviously hate cyclists
At some point you will pull the old cliche out about truck drivers all viewing ■■■■ while driving out of the hat
When put to you that there are maniac cyclists who have no respect for the rules of the road, you will revert to “thats not whats killing cyclists”
You will quote countless facts and figures to back up your claims.
Anyone who says cyclists are a danger to themselves will straight away be accused by you of having a hatred towards cyclists (in breath taking hypocrisy by you given your obvious disdain to anything with more than two wheels)
You will ignore any questions you dont like( or by answering would poke holes in your views) and accuse the questioner of hating cyclists
Anyone who does not agree to total cyclist innocence in any incident involving cyclists will be accused of hating cyclists.
No doubt other pieces of your MO will show up when you start to get rattled.
Why dont you stick to your own cycling forum where you can all chat among yourselves about why it should be perfectly acceptable to cycle around without caring and its a drivers responsibility to look out for you and your safety and leave the rest of us alone?
Quit you’re trolling.
R66 is a complete and utter loon and a very poor representative for cycling, and I think you would be surprised if you went onto a cycling forum how much debate is had on the rights and wrongs of cycling up the inside of trucks, many cyclists including myself also think it is a very risky thing to do. Not everybody blames lorry drivers all of the time for everything, in fact there are quite a few lorry drivers who are also keen cyclists.
See the position of the truck and the cycle lane ahead? The driver had just driven along a road with a cycle lane the entire length. He was turning into a road that has a cycle lane the whole length. He turned left without checking even though the rider was in plain sight when BOTH were stationary at the lights where’s a large ASL for almost half a minute.
It looks like the cycle lane ended at the junction and restarted just in front of the truck, hence the dotted lines and cycle symbol.
Elderly unsignwritten Foden aswell so not from a large fleet I’d guess?
What are the actual rules for bicycles in UK when waiting at traffic light like the one in the article?
Here, (I ride bicycle often for the record) always the vehicle going straight ahead is with right of way, I always go ahead of the inner lane if the lane is for that direction, the law say I have to keep as close to the sidewalk as possible in the inner lane. And always turning cars are waiting for me and/or other cyclist to move ahead before turning.
My point is, if the law is the same in Germany the lady might have thought that the lorry will wait and she proceeded ahead, the lorry driver didn’t checked his mirrors or thought she will wait and collision happen with fatal ending.
Are British cycling laws different then continental Europe?
No Dolph, there is no similar rule here in UK. The closest we get is the Advance Stop Line which is intended to allow cycles to start ahead of the rest of the traffic where they will be more easily seen.
Dolph:
What are the actual rules for bicycles in UK when waiting at traffic light like the one in the article?
Here, (I ride bicycle often for the record) always the vehicle going straight ahead is with right of way
We have the same rule, Janina had priority. Doyle should have given way.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
You’re driving along a busy road in the capital that has a cycle lane the entire length down the left hand side. You overtake a cyclist. 200 metres later the light is red and you stop for 23 seconds. The lights change and you turn left and knock the cyclist over and crush her. I guess she came out of nowhere.
In the real world of the truck being there first and the cyclist then going along the nearside of the truck and then entering the junction together with the truck in an unseen position that’s exactly how it will seem from the driving seat.
Janina was not in an unseen position:
The first he knew of Gehlau’s position was after he felt a “bump” and looked in his mirror to see her head sticking out
Anyone else done the Safer Urban Driving module as part of CPC training? It’s actually all about cyclists in London. I never go into London, so it’s a shameful waste of my time, but the company paid for it all and its part of FORS and eventually if you turn up to a site without a FORS badge they will be able to refuse the delivery… Apparently one type of cycle lane is going to be removed, as it encourages cyclists to cycle up the inside, congregate in front of traffic in the markets section and prevent anyone turning left as they have right of way. Some progress in thinking, as if something is not working, things have to be changed. And apparently all cyclists will be trained but their road-positioning will change. They will move away from the kerb before making a left turn to prevent traffic overtaking and then move back nearer the kerb after the manoeuvre. Traffic will be slowed up appreciably, but accidents are minimised. After this has worked in London for a while, other large cities will be encouraged to follow suit.
I will hopefully have retired by then.
