Whilst I don’t think the cyclist is blameless (probably, it depends on the actual circumstances), I don’t think the driver is entirely blameless either. If he had actually stopped at his stop line rather than violating the ASL, the cyclist would have been able to get far enough in front of him to be visible, which is what ASLs are designed to do. Also, as for him having “overtaken” her 200 m earlier, I wonder what the definition of “overtaken” is. There are certainly some drivers who seem to think that they have “overtaken” a cyclist as soon as their wing mirrors have passed the bike’s handlebars, because that’s when they start pulling back in again. Given London traffic is likely to have limited the speed of the truck, had he really overtaken her?
I also think that there is a certain amount of double standards going on here. For example, in this post, some cars came up the inside of a truck waiting at a roundabout; the general consensus of the posters was that the truck driver was at least partly, possibly even mostly, to blame. However, the moment the vehicle up the inside is a cyclist, suddenly the cyclist is considered to be (almost) entirely at fault. Similarly, if a bus (in a bus lane) came up the inside of a truck which then pulled left and collided with it, I’m sure people here would be condemning the truck driver.
In this case, I don’t think the truck driver has done his case any favours by jumping out and berating a dying girl. It suggests that he’s one of the [zb]wit [zb]hole truck drivers who go on about how they “hate cyclists” and “would run them over if they could”, of which there are many on here.
I’m not saying that cyclists have no responsibility towards their own safety - far from it, and if the story really is as presented here (which I strongly doubt), I wouldn’t have gone up the inside of the truck. However, the alternative attitude that some truck drivers here seem to present (that cyclists should never attempt to undertake or overtake trucks under any circumstances, and that all cyclist-truck collisions are always the cyclist’s fault), isn’t realistic either.
Western Europe youtube.com/watch?v=gqg27gsJ060 Eastern Europe.
I though will be fun to watch, at least for me is 
P.S. From youtube videos seems there is big problem cyclist vs drivers in UK, is it true?
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, 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?
Firstly it’s obvious that your idea creates conflict in the case of anything to the nearside of a right ( left here ) turning large vehicle.
As I’ve said rule 221 of the Highway Code effectively ( rightly ) means stay behind the potentially turning vehicle don’t attempt to undertake/outrun it across the junction.The problems start when we let the cycling lobby take idiotic foreign ideas like you’ve described and then apply them in the form of ASL’s which contradict that life saving rule. 
But yes assuming a suicidal rule of give way to undertaking traffic when making a right ( left ) turn that might explain her actions.But the inconvenient fact is she was probably more likely just following the ideas of the local cycling community in which case for them the only rules are there are no rules.
Having said that in more than 30 years of driving on the continent I’ve never seen a cyclist attempt to undertake a right turning car let alone truck.While overtaking or undertaking through junctions was often and sometimes still is a common habit here among the motorcycling community.So no surprise that cyclists now seem to be following that suicidal idea. 
MrFlibble:
I don’t think the driver is entirely blameless either. If he had actually stopped at his stop line rather than violating the ASL,
Firstly the test in court is for the prosecution to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt not the defence.
You do know that ASL’s don’t apply in the case of the lights changing after the first line has been crossed.
Well you will not see because bicycle riders have their own paths on the continent or any turning vehicle has to let anyone going straight to pass first.
“Suicidal” continentals, riding bikes without orange/green vest and helmet
youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
Dolph:
Well you will not see because bicycle riders have their own paths on the continent or any turning vehicle has to let anyone going straight to pass first.
It depends on the country and location not everywhere on the continent.But what does help is the often more large scale use of protected right turn lanes so anything going straight ahead is often to the offside of nearside turning traffic.Which then leaves the obvious question in this case that the cyclist and the truck both seemed to be turning left not the cyclist going straight on.In either case undertaking or overtaking through a junction is just nuts and which that rule you’ve described seems to facilitate.
Carryfast:
MrFlibble:
I don’t think the driver is entirely blameless either. If he had actually stopped at his stop line rather than violating the ASL,Firstly the test in court is for the prosecution to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt not the defence.
And just because a jury hasn’t been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was committed, doesn’t mean that the accused person did nothing wrong. I never said that I thought he was completely guilty of the offence charged, just that I didn’t think that he was entirely blameless.
Carryfast:
You do know that ASL’s don’t apply in the case of the lights changing after the first line has been crossed.
Yes, and perhaps you can point to the evidence that states that he entered the ASL on a green light? I see so many drivers (of all vehicles) that seem to think that the first stop line doesn’t apply to them. Whether or not it happened in this case I don’t know, but I don’t think that the “cyclist up nearside of truck, therefore 100% cyclist’s fault” response is appropriate.
MrFlibble:
And just because a jury hasn’t been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was committed, doesn’t mean that the accused person did nothing wrong. I never said that I thought he was completely guilty of the offence charged, just that I didn’t think that he was entirely blameless.Yes, and perhaps you can point to the evidence that states that he entered the ASL on a green light? I see so many drivers (of all vehicles) that seem to think that the first stop line doesn’t apply to them. Whether or not it happened in this case I don’t know, but I don’t think that the “cyclist up nearside of truck, therefore 100% cyclist’s fault” response is appropriate.
Innocent means innocent of the relevant charge in this case.
I’d guess that the question of the ASL being contravened and that contributing to the collision would have been an essential part of the prosecution case.In which case the burden of proof to show that was the case is on them not the defence to show it wasn’t.
As for cyclist along nearside of truck scenario.In view of the truck having passed the cyclist 200 m before the junction and the fact that the cyclist wasn’t hit from the rear by the front of the truck what other explanation is there ?.
albion1971:
So he could see. He just didn’t look.Exactly, as in a lot of cases.
Another witness to the accident has crawled out of the woodwork …
Carryfast:
MrFlibble:
And just because a jury hasn’t been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was committed, doesn’t mean that the accused person did nothing wrong. I never said that I thought he was completely guilty of the offence charged, just that I didn’t think that he was entirely blameless.Yes, and perhaps you can point to the evidence that states that he entered the ASL on a green light? I see so many drivers (of all vehicles) that seem to think that the first stop line doesn’t apply to them. Whether or not it happened in this case I don’t know, but I don’t think that the “cyclist up nearside of truck, therefore 100% cyclist’s fault” response is appropriate.
Innocent means innocent of the relevant charge in this case.
In the legal definition of “innocent”, yes. In practice, it just means that it couldn’t be proven that they were guilty. This may be because the driver really was 100% innocent, or it may be because their contribution to the collision wasn’t sufficient to warrant the charge, or it may be because there simply isn’t sufficient evidence to prove that they are guilty.
For example: someone burgles your house. You arrive home to see them running away, and you know who it is. You report it to the police, who arrest and charge them. When it gets to court, there’s insufficient evidence to convict them, so the magistrate/jury returns a “not guilty” verdict. Does that mean that they didn’t do it?
Carryfast:
As for cyclist along nearside of truck scenario.In view of the truck having passed the cyclist 200 m before the junction and the fact that the cyclist wasn’t hit from the rear by the front of the truck what other explanation is there ?.
I refer to my previous comment mentioning people’s differing interpretations of “passed”, along with my other previous comment about double standards. Would you have the same dismissive attitude if the truck driver had collided with a bus in a bus lane?
the thing to me now is with the ever increasing cameras people wear. people off all walks of life seem incapable of accepting blame, just look at the amount of nearmisses or crashes on these idiot driver sites - a whole load could be avoided but the I have a camera I am right means they happen.
not enough education is given in this country regarding bikes, we have think bike etc. nothing showing it from the other point of view regarding blind spots etc. it would be good to have a worth dying for kind of thing with a cyclist on the inside of a truck and cameras placed to show how little you may or may not see.
I hate driving in London always have and cyclists and bikers are the main reason for this.
as I said before 2 familys have had a horrendous experience no one wins irrespective of the outcome.
raymundo:
albion1971:
So he could see. He just didn’t look.Exactly, as in a lot of cases.
Another witness to the accident has crawled out of the woodwork …
Please try to understand who has written what!
I said as in a lot of cases…nothing to do with this particular accident
Carry fast your judgement is clouded due to your hatred of cyclists like a lot of others on here.
As a cyclist, and HGV driver, I never ever undertake a vehicle.I do OVERtake queuing traffic on my bicycle, on the wrong side of the road, expecting oncoming traffic to make room for me.But undertaking is a big NONONO!!!
I can post lots of examples about cyclist stupidity. Here is a prime one:
The HGV driver probably forgot to check his mirrors on the nearside, but this could happen even if something distracts him.Like a pedestrian running across front of him, or a collision on the opposite side of the road , or a burst waterpipe,derailing tram with lots of sparks, etc.Will distract him definitely,and the cyclist could be killed.So, when the driver forgot to check his mirrors, or didn’t 'cos he was distracted, this is doesn’t matter, 'cos you get killed either way.Common sense, that’s what you need to stay alive!
But, in this case, sadly she used to drive, ride on the other side of the road, and probably she just missed that, the indicators were on.
MrFlibble:
Carryfast:
As for cyclist along nearside of truck scenario.In view of the truck having passed the cyclist 200 m before the junction and the fact that the cyclist wasn’t hit from the rear by the front of the truck what other explanation is there ?.I refer to my previous comment mentioning people’s differing interpretations of “passed”, along with my other previous comment about double standards. Would you have the same dismissive attitude if the truck driver had collided with a bus in a bus lane?
Feel free to tell us the different interpretations of ‘passed’ 200 m before the junction which wouldn’t have meant the cyclist wasn’t then behind the truck on the approach to the junction. In this case the truck collided with a cyclist on the nearside of the truck during a left turn.So yes assuming a bus driver was stupid enough to undertake a left turning truck I’d have the same dismissive attitude.The difference being that in most cases it’s the two wheeled lot both cyclists,and to a lesser extent these days motorcyclists,who generally try to overtake or undertake potentially turning traffic through junctions.
albion1971:
Carry fast your judgement is clouded due to your hatred of cyclists like a lot of others on here.
I’d suggest that it’s your 'judgement that has been clouded by a seeming motorcycling background.In which case as I’ve said my use of mirrors has saved a few of those suicidal zb’s too over the years.The common link being an obvious attitude of two wheelers that says over take or undertake everything everywhere including through junctions and then blaming everyone else when correct use of mirrors still isn’t enough to save them from their own stupidity. 
N0rbert:
I do OVERtake queuing traffic on my bicycle, on the wrong side of the road, expecting oncoming traffic to make room for me.
So let’s get this right assuming I do the same thing with a car where I consider that there’s sufficient room and a head on crash still results because the oncoming traffic didn’t move over enough who’s to blame.
albion1971:
raymundo:
albion1971:
So he could see. He just didn’t look.Exactly, as in a lot of cases.
Another witness to the accident has crawled out of the woodwork …
Please try to understand who has written what!
I said as in a lot of cases…nothing to do with this particular accident
Carry fast your judgement is clouded due to your hatred of cyclists like a lot of others on here.
Maybe then you should have omitted the word EXACTLY and said AS IN SOME OTHER CASES
Carryfast:
N0rbert:
I do OVERtake queuing traffic on my bicycle, on the wrong side of the road, expecting oncoming traffic to make room for me.
Than I will steer back to my lane, and hit the back of a queuing vehicle.Better than a head-on. But I’m not going fast, probably would have enough time to slow down, if the oncoming driver doesn’t show any promptitude to make a little room for me.
N0rbert:
Carryfast:
N0rbert:
I do OVERtake queuing traffic on my bicycle, on the wrong side of the road, expecting oncoming traffic to make room for me.
Than I will steer back to my lane, and hit the back of a queuing vehicle.Better than a head-on.
That didn’t exactly answer the question.Bearing in mind that the type of anarchy among cyclists and bikers which you’re describing goes on all the time. 
On that note Albion conveniently seems to have over looked all those old common nothing new issues among the two wheeled mindset lot.Historically overtaking motor cyclists being taken out by right turning vehicles being as common as cyclists being taken out by left turning trucks especially in the days when inexperienced new riders,if not just idiots,were running around with stuff like Kawasaki Z 900’s.
Carryfast:
(…)That didn’t exactly answer the question.Bearing in mind that the type of anarchy among cyclists and bikers which you’re describing goes on all the time.
We are really off topic now, but can we get back to the subject please?
Did you see the video I’ve posted: