Nasty accident

Noel said:

I hope to God I always
have and always will slow and assume the worst at
traffic-locked T-junctions.
Shook me up. I hope she is OK.

Nasty, I nearly saw something similar earlier this week, thankfully
just a near miss.
Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
stop to peer in front.

In article <[email hidden]>, POHB
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
stop to peer in front.

So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
hurt?

In article <[email hidden]>, Rob Morley
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, POHB
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
stop to peer in front.

So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
hurt?

Should have been 'incident', not 'accident". :-)

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, POHB
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
stop to peer in front.

So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
hurt?

More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

In news:[email hidden],
Noel <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

Witnessed a nasty accident coming off a London bridge yesterday.

[snip]

BTDTGTTS. In my case a WVM in the RH lane, me in the bus lane. White vans
being opaque, I couldn't see the car turning across my path until it was too
late to take any kind of action. Three-quarter somersault over the bars to
land flat on my back on the bonnet of the car, but no damage to car, bike or
me.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The System is well pleased with this Unit's performance, which
falls within expected parameters.

marc said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
POHB [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big
vehicle like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap
for someone to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have
to virtually stop to peer in front.

So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who
gets hurt?

More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

I'd say that the cyclist shares more of the blame - if you're riding
defensively you *expect* this sort of thing to happen rather than hoping it
doesn't (or not being aware that it could......)

marc said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
POHB [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
stop to peer in front.

So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who
gets hurt?

More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

Not sure I agree with that, Id put more blame on the car as the lorry
has only stopped to keep the junction clear, which is what he is meant
to do. Was the bike on the pavement or in the road, was there a cycle
path marked or not? But the cyclist should have been taking some
responsibility too, after all scooting up the inside of traffic is bound
to risk this with side roads. Great care is needed when cycling in
stationary/slow traffic and most people seem to think the opposite. The
other thing is where do people clonk their heads on cars? When I hit a
car (fairly fast pace) I scooted right over the top of it and bounced on
the floor!

I hope she gets better, not sure I like the sound of frothy white stuff
from the nose - sounds rather nasty.

Coyoteboy said:

marc said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
POHB [email hidden] says...

> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
> stop to peer in front.
>
So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who
gets hurt?

More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

Not sure I agree with that, Id put more blame on the car as the lorry
has only stopped to keep the junction clear, which is what he is meant
to do.

AIUI the cyclist and lorry were on the main road the 4x4 was on a minor
road on the right. The lorry has no requirement to keep the junction
clear as the only two routes the traffic from the minor road could take
are :-
Right , in front of the lorry.
Left, in which case the incident woudn't have occured.
If the lorry had not ceded the right of way the 4x4 coudn't have moved,
but this woudn't have affected the junction in any other way.
The lory driver was obvioulsy one of these that goes around searching
for a warm glo TM by ignoring the HC ,and the traffic behind and
around him.

Was the bike on the pavement or in the road, was there a cycle

Quoted message said:

path marked or not?

10%?

But the cyclist should have been taking some

Quoted message said:

responsibility too, after all scooting up the inside of traffic is bound
to risk this with side roads.

Not "bound to" if the lorry had followed the HC and the 4x4 had also
there would have been little risk.
Great care is needed when cycling in

Quoted message said:

stationary/slow traffic and most people seem to think the opposite.

Agreed
The

Quoted message said:

other thing is where do people clonk their heads on cars? When I hit a
car (fairly fast pace) I scooted right over the top of it and bounced on
the floor!

Depends on vehicle/ angle if your talking a 3 box saloon if you miss
the middle box you may end up on bonnet or windscreen, a one box
hatchback no bonnet...
If you hit the middle box you may go over depening on height
People mover or 4x4 more verticla surface to choose from ...

Coyoteboy said:

Not sure I agree with that, Id put more blame on the car as the lorry
has only stopped to keep the junction clear, which is what he is meant
to do. Was the bike on the pavement or in the road, was there a cycle
path marked or not? But the cyclist should have been taking some
responsibility too, after all scooting up the inside of traffic is bound
to risk this with side roads. Great care is needed when cycling in
stationary/slow traffic and most people seem to think the opposite. The
other thing is where do people clonk their heads on cars? When I hit a
car (fairly fast pace) I scooted right over the top of it and bounced on
the floor!

No cycle lane and she was on the road. This was not a wide road so
distance between lorry and kerb was about 1-1.30m.

The car in question was a small jeep thing so no chance of going over the
top. The left side of her head (thinking about the cut on her temple)
smashed the nearside passenger window. The timing was such that she hit
the passenger door and then was taken sideways with the car. There was a
bigger dent in the rear passenger door which could have been made by the
bike swinging round I guess.

Noel

marc said:

AIUI the cyclist and lorry were on the main road the 4x4 was on a minor
road on the right. The lorry has no requirement to keep the junction
clear as the only two routes the traffic from the minor road could take
are :-
Right , in front of the lorry.
Left, in which case the incident woudn't have occured.

Or straight on over the main road (which is where the car wanted to go).
It was a crossroads with the lorry and the static traffic on the other
side of the main road allowing the crossing traffic to move between the
side roads.

Noel

Noel said:

marc said:

AIUI the cyclist and lorry were on the main road the 4x4 was on a minor
road on the right. The lorry has no requirement to keep the junction
clear as the only two routes the traffic from the minor road could take
are :-
Right , in front of the lorry.
Left, in which case the incident woudn't have occured.

Or straight on over the main road (which is where the car wanted to go).
It was a crossroads with the lorry and the static traffic on the other
side of the main road allowing the crossing traffic to move between the
side roads.

Noel

" Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."

Make up your mind.

Then we have
Bike 30%
4x4 60%
lorry 8%
opposing traffic 2%

Noel said:

No cycle lane and she was on the road. This was not a wide road so
distance between lorry and kerb was about 1-1.30m.

See nipping up the inside of traffic, imo, is always a risky business.
If you know there are junctions there its safer to stop. If it had been
cycle lane I could give her more leeway in that she might assume she was
safe to keep riding and the traffic should not cross without checking
first, but IMO when you scoot up the inside of traffic its on your own
head. No pun intended. I do it, but i make damn sure Im careful about
it, and sometimes still get caught out, so i prefer to go up the outside
instead, but either side has the same dangers.

Quoted message said:

The car in question was a small jeep thing so no chance of going over the
top.

Side impact, fair enough - thats going to smart. Still makes me wonder
how fast she was going to end up with such severe injuries? That said,
thinking about it, I've hit the side of a 20ft, 1.5ton boat at ~15mph
and managed to shift it on its trailer by about 10mm - that nearly
knocked me out and left me with a chipped hip bone. Ive never pulled
down the drive so fast since! My car incident saw me meet the back of a
saloon, leaving the bike behind, spreading my nose over the back window
and leaving a trail right over the bonnet onto the floor in front of it.
Ahh them were the days... 🙂 Now i think i'd break something.

Quoted message said:

The left side of her head (thinking about the cut on her temple)
smashed the nearside passenger window. The timing was such that she hit
the passenger door and then was taken sideways with the car. There was a
bigger dent in the rear passenger door which could have been made by the
bike swinging round I guess.

Noel

Hope she recovers fully. The skull was never designed to meet solid
objects so fast.

marc said:

" Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."

Make up your mind.

Yes 'jeep thing' exited one T-junction and entered another on the other
side of the main road.

Noel said:

marc said:

" Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."

Make up your mind.

Yes 'jeep thing' exited one T-junction and entered another on the other
side of the main road.

I think most of us regard a T junction as one where a minor road
terminates in a junction with a more major one. A junction in which the
minor road continues on the other side of the more major one would be
described as a crossroads.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

Legally its 100% car driver. In law, you can't rely on signals another
driver might give you, responsibility rests with you to ensure it is
clear and safe to proceed. He didn't do that. It may be wise to check
as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way it was for the
driver, not her, to check that it was safe to proceed.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

More like

10% bike
50% 4x4 for not checking
40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

Legally its 100% car driver. In law, you can't rely on signals another
driver might give you, responsibility rests with you to ensure it is
clear and safe to proceed. He didn't do that. It may be wise to check
as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way it was for the
driver, not her, to check that it was safe to proceed.

I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear some as
she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop within the
distance she could see to be clear" - with a truck obscuring most of the
road ahead it's crazy not to take extreme care, and you should bever
rely on having ROW.

Rob Morley said:

I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear
some as she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop
within the distance she could see to be clear"

Actually, she might have been (you can't tell).

Note that the requirement is NOT to proceed at such speed as you can
stop within the distance that will remain clear irrespective of any
possible occurrence.

You can see a clear road and then have something pull out from the
side into what was previously your clear stopping distance.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Brian G said:

Noel said:

marc said:

" Suddenly 'bang' and she is wiped out along the length of a
jeep thing crossing into the T-junction."

Make up your mind.

Yes 'jeep thing' exited one T-junction and entered another on the other
side of the main road.

I think most of us regard a T junction as one where a minor road
terminates in a junction with a more major one. A junction in which the
minor road continues on the other side of the more major one would be
described as a crossroads.

Probably a staggered crossroads.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

You guys got something against spam? (Vriess, in _Alien 4_)

In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear
some as she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop
within the distance she could see to be clear"

Actually, she might have been (you can't tell).

Note that the requirement is NOT to proceed at such speed as you can
stop within the distance that will remain clear irrespective of any
possible occurrence.

You can see a clear road and then have something pull out from the
side into what was previously your clear stopping distance.

I conject that she couldn't see the full width of the road, so should
have been proceeding more cautiously - it's not enough simply to see
that the way ahead is clear, as will have been noted by anyone who has
had oncoming vehicles suddenly perform an unexpected (but not altogether
unlikely) right turn or overtaking manoeuvre.