One consideration is that what if the crossing wasn’t there at all the cyclist had looked truck had been out of sight and crossed because the truck was speeding he didn’t have time to stop for the cyclist then the chances are he wouldn’t have had time to stop for the red light due to excessive speed I do not agree with cyclists disobeying red lights but pedestrian crossings wouldn’t generally be intended for cyclists anyway
Dipper_Dave:
shuttlespanker:
highway code regarding cyclingRule 69
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)I give in, cyclist to blame as well…
not asking you to give in chap, but, it always seems that the driver is to blame, not just in this instance
it is about time that the cyclists started taking responsibility for their own actions
in this particular incident, i have already stated that BOTH parties are to blame
the driver has lived to learn his mistake, unfortunately, the cyclist did not
but, if a cyclist wants to blatantly ignore the law, then why should they cry when they get hurt?
that is a generalisation, not meant in this particular incident, due to the fact that the driver was being a total arse
Everyone is seeming to miss the point here, if the driver had been on the limiter instead of ■■■■■■■ about at 51 mph he’d have cleared the crossing BEFORE the cyclist reached it. Simple! (That was NOT a serious comment btw, before the humour challenged start)
However, in all seriousness I’d like to make a heartfelt plea to all cyclists reading this; ladies and gentlemen cyclists I as the driver of a powered vehicle will do the absolute utmost in my power to avoid causing injury or death to you. I absolutely acknowledge your right to use the highway, and as such will behave in a safe, responsible and courteous manner towards you at all times, I will happily sit behind you at a safe distance if I judge it unsafe to overtake you, I will also do everything in my power to protect you from any mistakes you may make. The one and only thing I want in return is that you will promise to take the same amount of care for yourselves and stop placing yourselves in potentially life threatening positions whilst expecting me to prevent your death.
There, can we all shake on that then?
jay0:
I think they were both in the wrong but the difference is that as a driver you have a duty of responsibility towards cyclists and pedestrians and by doing 51 in a 40 (which in all honesty is way to fast) he showed a blatant disregard of that responsibility but I do feel sorry for him because I don’t believe that any of us are complete angels out on the road even though some will make themselves out to be.
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just mungling around the internet and came across this FYI: you can zoom in on this particular incident (and many many others of course):- ctc.org.uk/news/20140808-190 … 013-mapped
I don’t think there is anything other than a set of traffic lights at that junction - i.e. no lights for pedestrians or cyclists to actually contravene after all. Assuming the cyclist came off the cycletrack into traffic (dangerous without checking), then it seems to me that, if the driver had not been driving somewhat erratically (speeding/texting etc.) then, even if he had gone into the cyclist, he would not at all have been held responsible - it would have been concluded that he had done nothing wrong and there was nothing he could do. But then again, as has been stated, probably nothing would have happened had he not been driving poorly. P.S. the time of this incident appears to be wrong so not sure about the exact location, but it indicates the cycletrack.
Snudger:
Both share some blame, though it’s pretty harsh to say the cyclist deserved it - please consider how his family might be affected by reading such callous remarks. I think he was expecting approaching vehicles to be adhering to the speed limit and would normally have had the time to cross the road safely but made a grave misjudgement. By the sound of the WMN article though, it seems that the driver was a right liability and thoroughly deserved whatever he got. People’s phones these days have become comforters for some - I seriously think they just can’t bear to be parted from them for an instant - seems like immaturity to me.
+1