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.

In article 70,
(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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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?

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

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.

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.

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

The penalty is appropriate, is it?

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.

It is up to ALL road users not to hit other road users. If not sure,
the rule is to stop. You are not allowed to kill someone just because
they are somewhere unexpected. If you can't see, you stop and get
someone to guide you. Some drivers seem to think that signalling will
make everyone else get out of their way.

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.

Colin McKenzie

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.

Adrian wrote:

Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much
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

3. Cyclist rides, or pedestrian steps, off the pavement
4. Cyclist starts off from side of road
5. Two roads merge, one lane each, and cyclist and HGV arrive at the
merge simultaneously and proceed in parallel
6. Cyclist emerges from side turning onto multi-lane road
7. Lorry turns right onto wide road next to cyclist

and I'm sure there are more, without getting too exotic.

Colin McKkenzie

-

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.

Martin Underwood wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote in
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.
...
So no matter how stupid other road users are, it's always the vehicle
driver's fault?

Not always, no. The point is you do everything you can to avoid a
collision, regardless of whose fault it would be. If someone comes out
of a side turning in front of you you don't keep going, thinking, "oh,
well, it won't be my fault I hit him." You jam on all the brakes
and/or swerve to try to miss the idiot.

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.

Yes, but best endeavours means looking even when you're sure no-one
should be there.

Have you never started to move into the middle lane on the motorway
just as someone else does the same from the other side?

Colin McKenzie

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:


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.


The problem with what you are saying is that you are
using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road.

IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that
the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the
designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also
culpable is quite another.

tim

In article ,
(tim \(in sweden\)) wrote:

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

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.

The problem with what you are saying is that you are
using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road.

IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that
the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the
designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also
culpable is quite another.

The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see the
cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't" implies a
system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to other road
users should not be on the roads.

--
Colin Rosenstiel