Colin McKenzie wrote in
:

Adrian wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

This is a classic case of the difference between what vulnerable road
users are advised to do and what dangerous road users should expect
them to do. E.g. pedestrians are advised to wear something white at
night, but drivers need to see them in time to avoid them even if
they're matt black from top to toe.

There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal
could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle. The
driver is required to ensure that no-one is there. Deciding that
no-one ought to be there is not good enough.

So no matter how stupid other road users are, it's always the vehicle
driver's fault?

Car drivers are required to conform to all sorts of rules (a combination of
the Highway Code and motoring law) and if they contravene them, they may be
prosecuted. But if a pedestrian or a cyclist offends, they are to be pitied
instead of criticised for causing the accident?

If, at night, a pedestrian wearing black crosses the road in front of a
moving vehicle, too close for the vehicle to be able to stop, or if a
cyclist strays into the path of a moving vehicle and has no lights, it's the
driver's fault for not being able to see them, rather then the pedestrian's
or cyclist's fault for doing something dangerous, irresponsible and stupid?

Yes, *everyone* on the road should drive/walk/cycle defensively, but this
should be on a "best endeavours" basis: if an accident still occurs, the
fault lies with the person who cocked up, not with the driver of the vehicle
who had priority.

Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

The penalty is appropriate, is it?

They obviously thought the risk worth taking, bearing the rather obvious
price of failure in mind.

There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal
could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle.

No, there's precisely two.

1. The long vehicle overtakes them then turns left.
2. They undertake a long vehicle which is starting to turn left

In either case, the person who is primarily at fault is blindingly obvious.

In article . 170,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left
without injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from
the roads. If it was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe.
Two Cambridge cyclists have been killed in the last year because
of such unsafe vehicles.

It's quite straightforward. The vehicle isn't to blame. One of the
road users is.

If the bus started to overtake the cyclist then turned left, the
bus driver is to blame.
If the cyclists started to undertake the bus about to turn left,
the cyclists are to blame.

And if the design of the vehicle makes it impossible for the driver
to see which vehicles it is about to collide with the designers of
the vehicle are to blame and all similar vehicles should be banned
from the road until the defect is fixed, as would be the case with
railway vehicles.

If you stuck your head in the blades of a combine harvester, would
that make it an inherently unsafe design of vehicle?

Irrelevant. Any road vehicle has not inherently to be a danger to other
road vehicles that have every right to be there too.

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

You don't know that.

I'm sure the mirrors on the bus do allow for the driver to see all
the way down the nearside, and, yes, the driver should very probably
have paid more attention to them - But the fact remains that the
cyclist carries the majority of the fault for being there.

The point with the lorries was that the drivers claimed they couldn't
see the cyclists.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

If you stuck your head in the blades of a combine harvester, would
that make it an inherently unsafe design of vehicle?

Irrelevant. Any road vehicle has not inherently to be a danger to other
road vehicles that have every right to be there too.

Do combine harvesters fly between fields, then?

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

You don't know that.

So the bus started to pass the cyclists, then turned left whilst still half
way past them? Why didn't you say so? That's a very different kettle of
fish, as I've said all along.

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

It doesn't say anything about turning. However, if it's stopped at a bus
stop you're stuffed either way. Because they are so long you can't pass
either side in the time it is stopped.

It should not pull off until anything overtaking it has passed,
assuming it was stopped when the overtake begins. If it doesn't, the
driver should be booked as he is breaking the law (and being
dangerous).

However, any vehicle that can't see if it safe to turn left without
injuring someone on its nearside should be banned from the roads. If it
was a railway vehicle it would be as unsafe. Two Cambridge cyclists have
been killed in the last year because of such unsafe vehicles.

The vehicles aren't dangerous, and they can see down their left hand
side (except for the blind spot that any vehicle has). However, it is
inappropriate for a cycle to overtake a bus (or any other vehicle) on
the left, unless there is a mandatory cycle lane. A reminder for the
(annoying minority of) cyclists who forget this is not a bad thing.

Neil

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There has to be a duty on drivers of large vehicles to ensure no other
vehicles are in their way, no matter where they are going.

There is also a (moral) duty on the drivers of smaller vehicles to have
consideration for other vehicles on the road, including larger ones.
This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other
vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also includes,
for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It would
include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower one. It
would include many other courtesies.

Sadly, many drivers (of vehicles of all kinds, large and small, powered
and unpowered, passenger and goods) do not drive with this in mind. If
they did, the roads would be a far more pleasant and far safer place
for everyone on them.

Neil

In article .com,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There has to be a duty on drivers of large vehicles to ensure no
other vehicles are in their way, no matter where they are going.

There is also a (moral) duty on the drivers of smaller vehicles to
have consideration for other vehicles on the road, including larger
ones.
This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other
vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also
includes, for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It
would include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower
one. It would include many other courtesies.

I'm not sure where the left turning vehicle is coming from behind, how a
cyclist or anyone else is supposed to do that.

Sadly, many drivers (of vehicles of all kinds, large and small,
powered and unpowered, passenger and goods) do not drive with this in
mind. If they did, the roads would be a far more pleasant and far safer
place for everyone on them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article . 170,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

If you stuck your head in the blades of a combine harvester, would
that make it an inherently unsafe design of vehicle?

Irrelevant. Any road vehicle has not inherently to be a danger to
other road vehicles that have every right to be there too.

Do combine harvesters fly between fields, then?

Again irrelevant. If a combine harvester is only a public road it must
ensure the public are not endangered by it.

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

You don't know that.

So the bus started to pass the cyclists, then turned left whilst
still half way past them? Why didn't you say so? That's a very
different kettle of fish, as I've said all along.

There was no bus involved. Do keep up! In both cases, as I understand
it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In one case
it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

You don't know that.

So the bus started to pass the cyclists, then turned left whilst
still half way past them? Why didn't you say so? That's a very
different kettle of fish, as I've said all along.

There was no bus involved. Do keep up!

Apart from the bendibuses that we started off talking about.

In both cases, as I understand
it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In one case
it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane.

The field of vision in the mirrors on the vehicle is irrelevant in those
cases, then. Rather a different kettle of fish.

In article 70,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Stop trying to pass the buck.
The cyclists died because of their stupid manouvre.

You don't know that.

So the bus started to pass the cyclists, then turned left whilst
still half way past them? Why didn't you say so? That's a very
different kettle of fish, as I've said all along.

There was no bus involved. Do keep up!

Apart from the bendibuses that we started off talking about.

In both cases, as I understand
it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In one
case it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane.

The field of vision in the mirrors on the vehicle is irrelevant in
those cases, then. Rather a different kettle of fish.

No. A vehicle should never impinge on an area of road where is doesn't
know what is already there. A blind spot is no excuse, but an indication
of inadequate mirrors.

--
Colin Rosenstiel