My understanding is that a green light means…Proceed if safe to do so.
What it doesn’t mean is any ■■■■■■ can accelerate and claim foul when wiped out by an HGV…discuss.
Heisenberrg:
My understanding is that a green light means…Proceed if safe to do so.What it doesn’t mean is any ■■■■■■ can accelerate and claim foul when wiped out by an HGV…discuss.
■■■■■■ lorry driver in-defenseble actions of the red dumper truck who must of jumped a red light should be pulled for it!
Green light official wording “YOU MAY GO IF THE WAY IS CLEAR” which it was!
Motor cyclist lucky to escape injury from foolish actions of red lorry driver.
Motor cyclist could help himself by not accelerating into a hazard
Probably local and knows the timing of the lights so tries to hit them on the run as he did. Truck appears to have jumped his red light. I’d expect no less of yer average tipper driver. Two idiots come together, nearly! 50-50.
Not seen the video, so I’m guessing it was two amber gamblers at the same time. That’s assuming the lorry wasn’t struggling to pull away from stationary and had gone past the point of no return when the light changed.
Captain Caveman 76:
Not seen the video, so I’m guessing it was two amber gamblers at the same time. That’s assuming the lorry wasn’t struggling to pull away from stationary and had gone past the point of no return when the light changed.
The bike is not following the Highway Code …but evidently that doesn’t matter…an hgv is involved who is probably fully loaded and not driving as fast as other road users would wish…
As they say in Latin…cest la vie…
Tipper with sheet over so probably loaded, tipper was visible @11 secs with lights still on red/ amber, good job it wasn’t a couple of cyclists coming out of the junction, m/cyclist would have wiped them out.
Heisenberrg:
Captain Caveman 76:
Not seen the video, so I’m guessing it was two amber gamblers at the same time. That’s assuming the lorry wasn’t struggling to pull away from stationary and had gone past the point of no return when the light changed.The bike is not following the Highway Code …but evidently that doesn’t matter…an hgv is involved who is probably fully loaded and not driving as fast as other road users would wish…
As they say in Latin…cest la vie…
Just seen the video on youtube. I’ve seen plenty of people nearly come a cropper with emergency vehicles doing that exact same thing.
Same old story, it’s always someone else’s fault.
Heisenberrg:
Captain Caveman 76:
Not seen the video, so I’m guessing it was two amber gamblers at the same time. That’s assuming the lorry wasn’t struggling to pull away from stationary and had gone past the point of no return when the light changed.The bike is not following the Highway Code …but evidently that doesn’t matter…an hgv is involved who is probably fully loaded and not driving as fast as other road users would wish…
As they say in Latin…cest la vie…
Nah
Cant see the video…any caravans involved… 
In what way is the bike not following the Highway code?
Born Idle:
In what way is the bike not following the Highway code?
Riding on hatched lines for starters
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The timing between the light changing from green to amber to red for the truck would have been marginal at the point when the truck actually crossed the line v the clear red and amber showing for the bike on the approach.
Having said that the stupid idea that the onus to stop should be on the driver going on green defeats the object of traffic lights,especially in the case of blind junctions as in this case.In which case it’s safer and might as well make it a three,etc way,stop sign and line.While proceed with caution and stop if required is/should be denoted by flashing amber not green.As it stands the system of lights is a joke.Which ideally needs the addition of flashing green advanced warning of the change to amber,and flashing amber before,or instead of,green which would at least have the effect of slowing down the type of suicidal approach to the lights carried out by the biker in this case.
Bearing in mind that in many countries hazardous junctions are controlled only by flashing amber instead of green and all the lights are set to flashing amber over night.
Born Idle:
In what way is the bike not following the Highway code?
Riding on the hatched markings is not recommended nor is not slowing down when approaching a red light . Having said that running an amber light because you don’t want to stop your loaded 8 legged ain’t exactly good driving is it?
eurotrans:
Born Idle:
In what way is the bike not following the Highway code?Riding on the hatched markings is not recommended nor is not slowing down when approaching a red light . Having said that running an amber light because you don’t want to stop your loaded 8 legged ain’t exactly good driving is it?
Agreed,the motorcyclist is not helping himself, the op suggests that it is totally his fault when the red lorry driver is at greater fault.
mattecube:
eurotrans:
Born Idle:
In what way is the bike not following the Highway code?Riding on the hatched markings is not recommended nor is not slowing down when approaching a red light . Having said that running an amber light because you don’t want to stop your loaded 8 legged ain’t exactly good driving is it?
Agreed,the motorcyclist is not helping himself, the op suggests that it is totally his fault when the red lorry driver is at greater fault.
6 of 1 half dozen of the other springs to mind
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Heisenberrg:
My understanding is that a green light means…Proceed if safe to do so.What it doesn’t mean is any ■■■■■■ can accelerate and claim foul when wiped out by an HGV…discuss.
A green light does indeed mean “Go!” (and that was decided by a very old court case, where someone passed a red light and claimed the person proceeding on green, who hit him, was at contributory fault because he was going at full speed through the junction and unprepared to stop). A driver does not need to slow down precautionarily, or be ready to stop for red-light-jumpers, when proceeding on a green light.
But at the same time, a driver must still react reasonably to actual circumstances - you have to slow or stop once it’s established from observation that it is (or might be) not safe to proceed (for example, if a queue has formed across the junction, and you can see that it is still clearing despite your having a green light).
The difficulty in the motorbike’s case was that the overtake he was performing interacted poorly with the circumstances. The HGV driver probably took a momentary glance and saw that a single lane of traffic was stopped in a line (without expecting any bikes to be overtaking at full speed), and the biker’s view of the HGV was also obscured (at the crucial first moment) by the car he was overtaking. The bike was positioned such that he was hard to see, but still far enough out into the centre of the carriageway (due to the cars he was overtaking) that he couldn’t brake in a straight line without entering the HGV’s apparent manoeuvring space (and so he ended up swerving substantially and not braking at full potential).
There is no a priori assumption that a green light entitles a person to overtake waiting traffic through a single-lane junction. A judge would have to decide whether the overall character of the motorbiker’s driving was less than careful (particularly as he failed to move right out into the opposite lane - probably because he felt that it would have been inappropriate and unsafe to do so, given that he would have been head-on with the traffic waiting at the opposite side of the junction, and was coming up to a pinch point).
Let’s assume the road was a major road passing a T-junction. A driver on the side road pulls up at the T-junction, observes that a car is at sufficient distance on the major road, pulls out safely across the car’s path, and then finds the car was concealing an bike that was overtaking at much higher speed (but maintaining a very close distance to the car being overtaken). Who’s to blame? Possibly the motorbike to some extent, for not being sufficiently visible and apart from the car he was overtaking.
If the HGV driver violated a red light (and he clearly wasn’t prepared to stop as he came swinging out - he wasn’t edging forward), there’s no doubt he would attract the lion’s share of any blame - he can’t run a red, which is a serious violation, then complain that he’s encountered someone else whose driving was merely poorly judged. But a court might decide that the biker’s overtake wasn’t executed prudently in the circumstances, and shares a minor part of the fault.
Edit: And looking again at the video, it cannot be taken for granted that the HGV did pass a red light. Some junctions don’t have a fully red phase, and a red on the route being stopped immediately triggers an amber on the route which is about to receive a green. Since the HGV clearly enters the junction on the biker’s amber phase, and the biker didn’t react (because he was psychologically committed to the overtake), then possibly the biker would have been 100% to blame (since the HGVs only possible fault would have been passing a prior red light - he could not have been faulted for failing to observe the biker in this situation, if the HGV was otherwise proceeding lawfully and safely within what he could see at crucial moments).
Rjan:
A green light does indeed mean “Go!”
With the caveat that you’re responsible for doing everything ‘reasonably possible’ to avoid a collision that’s the only common sense answer.Bearing in mind that in many cases it’s not possible to comply with both the junction markings and have vision of potentially conflicting traffic approaching the junction as in this case.While if they want to apply the rule proceed with caution and give way/stop if required that means flashing amber not green.As for emergency vehicles that’s what the audible warnings are for.
As for the biker in this case the suicidal approach to the red and amber light obviously didn’t meet the definition of doing everything possible to avoid a collision.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
A green light does indeed mean “Go!”With the caveat that you’re responsible for doing everything ‘reasonably possible’ to avoid a collision that’s the only common sense answer.
Well, no, because one of the things you could possibly do to avoid a collision, is go into light-controlled junctions at a crawl being prepared to stop for red-light-jumpers, and the law says you don’t need to do that.
The only thing you need to do at a light-controlled junction is obey the norms and rules of the road in general, and react reasonably to is what is observationally apparent, bearing in mind that you have the right of way and are entitled to be of the frame of mind that traffic from all other routes will be stopped and will obey the law.
It is no different to being on the major road passing a T-junction. You don’t have to pass every side road in a way that compensates for those who may not stop.
It doesn’t mean you can form the intention of causing an unnecessary collision, by deciding not to react to an impending collision that you fully apprehend and narrowly have time to avoid - effectively punishing a driver whose unexpected and annoying behaviour will otherwise force you to react, but nevertheless within your capability to do so.
But you don’t have to pre-empt such collisions by riding the brake past every side road, or slamming on every time a driver on a side road comes too quickly up to the give-way line, on the off chance he does not stop at all.
As for the biker in this case the suicidal approach to the red and amber light obviously didn’t meet the definition of doing everything possible to avoid a collision.
I think we can agree it was bad form for a biker. What he did wasn’t normal in the circumstances, or necessary for enabling traffic in general to flow efficiently through the junction - he wasn’t just going on green, he was performing an overtake past the cars already waiting and driving in a manner and at a speed that pre-empted the green. His own view on approach was partly obscured by the cars he was overtaking at speed (the same cars which obscured him from the HGV driver), and he’d put himself under pressure to complete the planned maneouver in a limited time and distance (given the traffic on the opposing side), and that will have contributed to an unnecessarily high mental workload and impaired his ability to react.
If the road had been clear, and he had merely approached the changing lights at a cruising speed in the centre of the lane, he probably would have perceived and reacted to the HGV immediately and braked heavily in a straight line, with ample margin of error.
If the HGV driver didn’t run the red, then really the only possible party at fault is the biker (or as a remote possibility, the highway engineer who timed the lights). But if the HGV driver did run the red, then that is overwhelmingly a more serious fault, and the majority (if not all) of the blame must rest there.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
A green light does indeed mean “Go!”With the caveat that you’re responsible for doing everything ‘reasonably possible’ to avoid a collision that’s the only common sense answer.
Well, no, because one of the things you could possibly do to avoid a collision, is go into light-controlled junctions at a crawl being prepared to stop for red-light-jumpers, and the law says you don’t need to do that.
The only thing you need to do at a light-controlled junction is obey the norms and rules of the road in general, and react reasonably
It would be fair to say that the biker didn’t approach the junction and the red and amber light ahead in a ‘reasonable’ way. 
While green might indicate go, red doesnt mean batter up to it at full pelt and accelerate through a split second after it goes red/amber then green.
Biker comes across as someone who will come a cropper some day in the near future based on the driving style in that video. Hes not exactly blameless