For me I have been and dealt with lots of incidents involving LGVs and Buses with cycles and I have also been a truck driver for 14 yrs so know what the drivers face out their in there daily drive.
The best way to sort it out is make it an offence or blameworthy if the cyclist enters the near side or offside blind spot of any of the above mentioned vehicle,s over 7.5t when they approach a junction that already has that class of vehicle waiting at it.
Then if a driver passes a cyclist on the approach to a hazard ie at ATS or junction and contact is made then the driver has to explain his/her actions.
Same way as the cyclist (if able) has to explain why they have approached a danger zone putting themselves at risk this would balance the imbalance at present and make the investigations a bit easier all round when good evidence is available.
At present when a pedal cyclist collides with a vehicle of any kind we the police always look to blame the driver don’t ask me why it just seems to be that way.
So it’s just a case of who’s to blame, how does that stop it happening? It’s not always the driver that’s blamed from the off, there are plenty examples of no charges being brought against them. As he has in this case then maybe, just maybe he was at fault.
Regardless of blame she isn’t coming back
muckles:
The problem with not cycling down the nearside of trucks is that’s where those stupid painted cycle lane are, stupid idea painting a line a foot or2 from the kerb and squeezing cyclists between truck large vehicles and the pedestrian crash barrier, this why in general it seems to be young women who are following the highway code are getting crushed under trucks not your Lycra clad road warrior, they’re down the offside and through the red light before the truck driver released the brake.
This. Someone said on here a little while ago thats its not those Lycra clad loonies that are copping it, its the poor sods who think they can follow that get squashed.
Stefluc:
For me I have been and dealt with lots of incidents involving LGVs and Buses with cycles and I have also been a truck driver for 14 yrs so know what the drivers face out their in there daily drive.
The best way to sort it out is make it an offence or blameworthy if the cyclist enters the near side or offside blind spot of any of the above mentioned vehicle,s over 7.5t when they approach a junction that already has that class of vehicle waiting at it.
Then if a driver passes a cyclist on the approach to a hazard ie at ATS or junction and contact is made then the driver has to explain his/her actions.
Same way as the cyclist (if able) has to explain why they have approached a danger zone putting themselves at risk this would balance the imbalance at present and make the investigations a bit easier all round when good evidence is available.
At present when a pedal cyclist collides with a vehicle of any kind we the police always look to blame the driver don’t ask me why it just seems to be that way.
Assuming that you’re saying the police institutionally often don’t/won’t even bother to establish wether it was a case of overtaking truck turning across a cyclist,as opposed to truck,or in fact any vehicle,turning across undertaking cyclist,when deciding to make a prosecution,that is/should be a frightening prospect for anyone who doesn’t like prison. 
Carryfast:
Stefluc:
For me I have been and dealt with lots of incidents involving LGVs and Buses with cycles and I have also been a truck driver for 14 yrs so know what the drivers face out their in there daily drive.
The best way to sort it out is make it an offence or blameworthy if the cyclist enters the near side or offside blind spot of any of the above mentioned vehicle,s over 7.5t when they approach a junction that already has that class of vehicle waiting at it.
Then if a driver passes a cyclist on the approach to a hazard ie at ATS or junction and contact is made then the driver has to explain his/her actions.
Same way as the cyclist (if able) has to explain why they have approached a danger zone putting themselves at risk this would balance the imbalance at present and make the investigations a bit easier all round when good evidence is available.
At present when a pedal cyclist collides with a vehicle of any kind we the police always look to blame the driver don’t ask me why it just seems to be that way.Assuming that you’re saying the police institutionally often don’t/won’t even bother to establish wether it was a case of overtaking truck turning across a cyclist,as opposed to truck,or in fact any vehicle,turning across undertaking cyclist,when deciding to make a prosecution,that is/should be a frightening prospect for anyone who doesn’t like prison.
That is total pish. The police investigate every incident thoroughly & pass information on to the cps, they decide wether to go ahead. We don’t have presumed liability here, although some are trying for it, until then up to the police to investigate. Why else would you have incidents where the driver has not been charged, either at the scene or subsequently. No side is always at fault, to suggest otherwise is stupid beyond belief.
Radar19:
muckles:
The problem with not cycling down the nearside of trucks is that’s where those stupid painted cycle lane are, stupid idea painting a line a foot or2 from the kerb and squeezing cyclists between truck large vehicles and the pedestrian crash barrier, this why in general it seems to be young women who are following the highway code are getting crushed under trucks not your Lycra clad road warrior, they’re down the offside and through the red light before the truck driver released the brake.This. Someone said on here a little while ago thats its not those Lycra clad loonies that are copping it, its the poor sods who think they can follow that get squashed.
It’s mostly a case of cyclists colliding with turning vehicles having ‘entered’ the junction together with the turning vehicle.The cycle lanes don’t go across junctions for that reason.IE there is no cycle lane at the point where the cyclists and vehicles are getting into conflict.It is either a case of one or the other overtaking or undertaking at the point of turning.In the case of trucks etc v cyclist collisions numerous examples suggest it is mostly a case of the latter.The tour de france wannabees often being no different in that regard.
BillyHunt:
Carryfast:
Stefluc:
For me I have been and dealt with lots of incidents involving LGVs and Buses with cycles and I have also been a truck driver for 14 yrs so know what the drivers face out their in there daily drive.
The best way to sort it out is make it an offence or blameworthy if the cyclist enters the near side or offside blind spot of any of the above mentioned vehicle,s over 7.5t when they approach a junction that already has that class of vehicle waiting at it.
Then if a driver passes a cyclist on the approach to a hazard ie at ATS or junction and contact is made then the driver has to explain his/her actions.
Same way as the cyclist (if able) has to explain why they have approached a danger zone putting themselves at risk this would balance the imbalance at present and make the investigations a bit easier all round when good evidence is available.
At present when a pedal cyclist collides with a vehicle of any kind we the police always look to blame the driver don’t ask me why it just seems to be that way.Assuming that you’re saying the police institutionally often don’t/won’t even bother to establish wether it was a case of overtaking truck turning across a cyclist,as opposed to truck,or in fact any vehicle,turning across undertaking cyclist,when deciding to make a prosecution,that is/should be a frightening prospect for anyone who doesn’t like prison.
That is total pish. The police investigate every incident thoroughly & pass information on to the cps, they decide wether to go ahead. We don’t have presumed liability here, although some are trying for it, until then up to the police to investigate. Why else would you have incidents where the driver has not been charged, either at the scene or subsequently. No side is always at fault, to suggest otherwise is stupid beyond belief.
Taking the post at face value he said ‘we the police’ I ‘he’ is a copper.In the case of the typical left turning truck v cyclist collision there can only be one side at fault that resulted in the two being side by side at the point of turning.Either the vehicle over took and turned across the cyclist or the cyclist under took a turning vehicle.On that note the police can decide not to prosecute by not bothering to inform the CPS based on the above.IE not every case goes to the CPS for a decision regards wether to charge or not.Which is what we’re discussing.Unless you’re a copper and know better. 
I don’t believe he is a policeman, if so he’d best keep his identity safe lest someone take his statements further. Then again he wouldn’t be the first one to get caught out on social media.
You know I’m not a policeman. I do think however that they wouldn’t just ignore the fact that there had been an incident between cyclist & truck, regardless of who was to blame, if one had died due to the incident. We live in a blame culture these days, making it virtually impossible to have an incident of any kind without someone being blamed.
And we were actually discussing why cyclists still go up the side of trucks, not who to blame in the aftermath.
BillyHunt:
I don’t believe he is a policeman, if so he’d best keep his identity safe lest someone take his statements further. Then again he wouldn’t be the first one to get caught out on social media.
You know I’m not a policeman. I do think however that they wouldn’t just ignore the fact that there had been an incident between cyclist & truck, regardless of who was to blame, if one had died due to the incident. We live in a blame culture these days, making it virtually impossible to have an incident of any kind without someone being blamed.
And we were actually discussing why cyclists still go up the side of trucks, not who to blame in the aftermath.
On the basis that the CPS are the ‘next’ stage ‘after’ the police have decided to charge,as opposed to your idea which seems to suggest that you think that the decision to prosecute is all about the CPS,I’d give him the benefit of the doubt.In which case,assuming he is right,then those cases which don’t result in prosecution are just a matter of luck depending on what the CPS decide with the police taking a view of nick em all.
The issue of drivers not being to blame in the case of cyclists undertaking turning traffic all being part of that issue,assuming the police have a policy of not differentiating that from traffic overtaking and then turning across cyclists.Being that it is obvious that making it clear that cyclists will be held to account and blamed in the case of those types of collisions is an essential part of that.As opposed to the situation now where cyclists are already making up their own rules of the road along the lines that they are immune from the accepted rules of the road because of their so called ‘vulnerability’.In which case an institutional view by the police which panders to that will just increase the problem while,as I said, putting drivers in a ( very ) scary difficult position.
I never said anything of the sort that we don’t investigate collisions we investigate all of them.
If you read my post again I was on about blameworthy ness and yes we do need to start educating all road users to interact more with each other and appreciate how hard it can be either in a truck or bus or on a bike.
CPS only get involved in the more serious of cases such as the one in this case along with life threatening or changing ones where it is more complex in deciding if there is any blame to apportion and to who.
In all other cases I will decide on what action should be taken and a full report as to why this is the case and all of the evidence taken into consideration or lack of it as sometimes happens this is then discussed with my supervisor who will normally agree with my findings or set me more tasks in order to satisfy my actions in years to come ie civil proceedings .
When I mention that we always look to blame the driver the reason for this is simple in the majority of the cases but not all. When a driver of any vehicle passes a pedal cycle prior to a turn being made then it is upto the driver to carry out more checks to establish were the cyclist is prior to turn.
Now then if a coming together occurs the duty of care is mainly on the driver based on what they say along with what if any witnesses say as well.
The same applies if a pedal cycle arrives at the side of a vehicle that is signalling its intention and places themselves in the danger zone why they put themselves there.
Cycle lanes and Advanced stop lines won’t stop collisions taking place the only thing that will stop this from happening is for everyone to take more care of themselves and be more understanding.
It is with regret that we are seeing too many lives being lost on a daily basis from pedestrians through to drivers of all classes of vehicles by moments of madness that can last the lifetime of who is involved.
All I would do is ask anyone who drives a restricted view vehicle of size then check your mirrors prior to and after your turn if you do that then hopefully we should see results .
Before anyone says about what do I know I have a class 1 and have driven them for 15 yrs prior to my job now and still do on occasions to keep my hand in along with testing for two of the big road safety groups. this is my opinion just like everyone on here has one so safe driving .
I never said anything of the sort that we don’t investigate collisions we investigate all of them.
If you read my post again I was on about blameworthy ness and yes we do need to start educating all road users to interact more with each other and appreciate how hard it can be either in a truck or bus or on a bike.
CPS only get involved in the more serious of cases such as the one in this case along with life threatening or changing ones where it is more complex in deciding if there is any blame to apportion and to who.
In all other cases I will decide on what action should be taken and a full report as to why this is the case and all of the evidence taken into consideration or lack of it as sometimes happens this is then discussed with my supervisor who will normally agree with my findings or set me more tasks in order to satisfy my actions in years to come ie civil proceedings .
When I mention that we always look to blame the driver the reason for this is simple in the majority of the cases but not all. When a driver of any vehicle passes a pedal cycle prior to a turn being made then it is upto the driver to carry out more checks to establish were the cyclist is prior to turn.
Now then if a coming together occurs the duty of care is mainly on the driver based on what they say along with what if any witnesses say as well.
The same applies if a pedal cycle arrives at the side of a vehicle that is signalling its intention and places themselves in the danger zone why they put themselves there.
Cycle lanes and Advanced stop lines won’t stop collisions taking place the only thing that will stop this from happening is for everyone to take more care of themselves and be more understanding.
It is with regret that we are seeing too many lives being lost on a daily basis from pedestrians through to drivers of all classes of vehicles by moments of madness that can last the lifetime of who is involved.
All I would do is ask anyone who drives a restricted view vehicle of size then check your mirrors prior to and after your turn if you do that then hopefully we should see results .
Before anyone says about what do I know I have a class 1 and have driven them for 15 yrs prior to my job now and still do on occasions to keep my hand in along with testing for two of the big road safety groups. this is my opinion just like everyone on here has one so safe driving .
Stefluc:
I never said anything of the sort that we don’t investigate collisions we investigate all of them.
If you read my post again I was on about blameworthy ness and yes we do need to start educating all road users to interact more with each other and appreciate how hard it can be either in a truck or bus or on a bike.
CPS only get involved in the more serious of cases such as the one in this case along with life threatening or changing ones where it is more complex in deciding if there is any blame to apportion and to who.
In all other cases I will decide on what action should be taken and a full report as to why this is the case and all of the evidence taken into consideration or lack of it as sometimes happens this is then discussed with my supervisor who will normally agree with my findings or set me more tasks in order to satisfy my actions in years to come ie civil proceedings .
When I mention that we always look to blame the driver the reason for this is simple in the majority of the cases but not all. When a driver of any vehicle passes a pedal cycle prior to a turn being made then it is upto the driver to carry out more checks to establish were the cyclist is prior to turn.
Now then if a coming together occurs the duty of care is mainly on the driver based on what they say along with what if any witnesses say as well.
The same applies if a pedal cycle arrives at the side of a vehicle that is signalling its intention and places themselves in the danger zone why they put themselves there.
Cycle lanes and Advanced stop lines won’t stop collisions taking place the only thing that will stop this from happening is for everyone to take more care of themselves and be more understanding.
Within that are the two clearly defined reasons for the left turning vehicle v cyclist type of collision which I’ve described.On that note assuming the undertaking cyclist type of scenario mirror checks aren’t really the answer. Because realistically at best that means concentrating on the nearside mirrors to the point of compromising all round observation thereby increasing the risks of conflict ahead and on the offside accordingly.With still no guarantees that such suicidal antics won’t get missed during the remaining minimal diversion to all round observation.
While assuming the other type of scenario of the overtaking vehicle that then turns across the cyclist that obviously isn’t an issue of mirror use either.That’s a matter of a dangerous overtake of a cyclist who’s already been seen ahead and taken account of before the overtake.
Assuming the former,if the law aren’t going to make it clear,that the driver in question will automatically be seen as innocent in such a case,then expect more cyclist casualties and more innocent drivers facing prison.On the basis of the law giving carte blanche to cyclists which reinforces their suicidal ideas that their vulnerability gives them immunity to the accepted rules of the road.
While assuming the latter then it should be made equally clear that is an automatic charge of causing injury/death by dangerous driving not careless with a penalty to match.
danthetrucker:
I am a cyclist. Been cycling on the road since I was 5. I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists accordingly and say the below as a cyclist and not as a driver.That said, and even before I became a driver, I have always said that the quickest and cheapest way to cut lorry related cyclist deaths is to teach cyclists under no circumstances whatsoever do you go anywhere near the nearside of a lorry. Ever, full stop.
If at all you can help it don’t go anywhere near the offside either. Stay behind it and the chances of something bad happening are very much reduced.
Blind spot cameras etc are not the answer. Just another distraction.
Imo roads are so busy now there should be done kind of adult cycling proficiency test that people are encouraged to go on before they start cycling on the roads.
Wake up everybody, serious sense being talked here…
Would help if tipper drivers slowed down.
rambo19:
Would help if tipper drivers slowed down.
Never happen unless giving drivers daily load targets and bonus schemes based on load scores/radial miles etc are banned. Too many companies give drivers shopping lists based on the distances between sites, not taking into account site delays never mind traffic.
I’ve worked for such firms, they don’t consider the prospect of being loaded by a Dinky Toy that can take 20 minutes a time to load you. Or wasted time waiting for machine drivers to have their breaks or delays waiting to load or tip at a quarry.
Anyone who loads out of Hansons at Kidlington knows that the ■■■■■■ on the shovel and weighbridge there can waste an hour per load of your time and Hansons take no notice. Thankfully after an argument with said employee I’m banned from there. 
rambo19:
Would help if tipper drivers slowed down.
I have driven for tipper companies and without exception they want the maximum number of loads in a day. Trouble is as with all sectors of haulage you will always get the ‘brown noser’, the driver that thinks creeping and crawling up his bosses backside is more important than driving safely on the roads. If folks want to drive like nutters to appease their bosses and get an extra load in over the other drivers, that is their choice, but I go to the yard in an undamaged truck and back home with a clean license every day.
If a driver is checking his mirrors like we were trained to do ie watch the hazard into your mirrors then out and adjust your speed and or position according to the hazard information,then these types of incidents should be very rare.
No one is asking a driver to concentrate on one area of danger more than others,the fact is a lot of these collisions occurr when both hazards Ie vehicle and cycle see each other but do not take sufficient care .
God only knows the amount of times that I have seen drivers peck their mirrors rather than check and absorb the information that they are getting through then and formulate a driving plan to deal with that information.
Tipper drivers I would agree on what I have seen over the years both on and off work is disgraceful and I will be addressing this soon probably to the discussed of most posters on here for in my opinion they are a fatality waiting to happen a few examples of bad driving which give truck drivers in general bad names.
1.Motorway roundabout near work and their depot 3 to 4 running together all lot will jump a red light.
2.same road at night inward journey one lane made into 2 to 3 will run along footpath rather than queue.
3.Numerous on mobile phones
4.on Motorway dedicated off slip with queuing traffic 1 or more will drive to the split with the bull nose and push in if more than one one will block whilst the others pull in over solid white lines.
I could go on does anyone here think that this type of driving is acceptable from what we class as professional drivers,I for one don’t .
We need to educate us all from two wheels right through to however many wheels we have.
How strange, in 20+ years of tipper driving I never encountered any of the above and I was paid on bonus and/or earnings? 
I don’t doubt that it must happen though as virtually every poster on here slags them off, it is just that luckily I didn’t run with any of them! I can’t really see that speed is the issue in Central London though, more that the driver has to have eyes in his arse as there is that much going on around him at any one time.
Pete.
Stefluc:
If a driver is checking his mirrors like we were trained to do ie watch the hazard into your mirrors then out and adjust your speed and or position according to the hazard information,then these types of incidents should be very rare.
No one is asking a driver to concentrate on one area of danger more than others,the fact is a lot of these collisions occurr when both hazards Ie vehicle and cycle see each other but do not take sufficient care .
God only knows the amount of times that I have seen drivers peck their mirrors rather than check and absorb the information that they are getting
Explain how you’re going to ‘watch’ undertaking cyclists ‘into the mirrors’ then out again,who may or may not be there when you start watching but who may well be as soon as you follow your advice to not concentrate on that area of danger more than others.So you check the nearside and they aren’t there to watch.You then divert attention ahead and/or to the offside and at ‘that’ point one ‘then’ runs along the side of the wagon.In which case you haven’t seen them ‘into’ the mirrors to see them leave because you weren’t looking in the nearside mirrors at the time.It’s then just a matter of luck that they won’t be sitting in any blind spots as you make the turn.While even at best,assuming the idea of watch them into the mirrors and out,it’s still obvious that you’ll need to compromise on the amount of attention given to other areas of danger.In order to provide the required amount of attention to the potential undertaking cyclist.Bearing in mind that indicators and even a truck starting an actual turn won’t stop them from making that suicidal lunge along the nearside.
On that note it is obvious that no one is going to make a turn while knowing that a cyclist is along side.In which case the only possible scenario,in which your description of the driver actually seeing the cyclist and then turning,is that of the overtake and turning in across example.Probably based on the homicidal idea that they’ll make the overtake and clear the cyclist in time before turning.Unfortunately that type of driver can probably only be dealt with by the penal system after the fact.Because they certainly won’t be listening to any advice given here.In which case surely the automatic charge of causing injury/death by dangerous driving not careless is the correct one to send the required message.
danthetrucker:
I am a cyclist. Been cycling on the road since I was 5. I have a lot of sympathy for cyclists accordingly and say the below as a cyclist and not as a driver.That said, and even before I became a driver, I have always said that the quickest and cheapest way to cut lorry related cyclist deaths is to teach cyclists under no circumstances whatsoever do you go anywhere near the nearside of a lorry. Ever, full stop.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this myth, it is simply not true. Undertaking is not what’s killing cyclists. Lack of lights is not what’s killing cyclists. Illegal or risky cycling is the causal factor in less than 6% of KSI RTCs. Usually it’s the driver’s fault.
More lives would be saved if lorry drivers stopped playing with mobile phones than if cyclists stopped filtering injudiciously.
This offensive rubbish about cyclists being the agents of their own death has to stop, you should know it is untrue or at least check before coming out with nasty stuff like that.