Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

What a tosser this HGV driver is.
QUOTE:
Today’s breath-taking near miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.

The incident occurred on Thursday on Stoke Road in Sonning Common, at the junction with Gravel Hill.

Secret_squirrel writes: “I had some new kit arrive – ironically a fluoro gilet – and an hour to kill so I thought I would take it for a test ride. Turns out all the fluoro or lights in the world means nothing if the driver doesn’t look or has some very iffy looking wing (SIC) mirrors.”

Secret_squirrel said that even after he stopped and shouted, the driver continued, forcing him to get out of the way.

“When I challenged him on his driving, he replied that his view had been blocked by the silver deflectors on his wing (SIC) mirrors, and that he had to turn quickly as the oncoming traffic tended to be fast.

“After exchanging a few more words, he left without leaving any contact details.”

Secret_squirrel has submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police and also to the business in question. He was told that the firm would investigate which driver was involved and get back to him.

“The white 4x4 driver was really nice,” he added, “as was a lady from a nearby house who offered me a cup of tea.”

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...-corner-278927

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On Saturday, 21 November 2020 at 20:13:30 UTC, wrote:
What a tosser this HGV driver is.
QUOTE:
Today’s breath-taking near miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.

The incident occurred on Thursday on Stoke Road in Sonning Common, at the junction with Gravel Hill.

Secret_squirrel writes: “I had some new kit arrive – ironically a fluoro gilet – and an hour to kill so I thought I would take it for a test ride. Turns out all the fluoro or lights in the world means nothing if the driver doesn’t look or has some very iffy looking wing (SIC) mirrors.”

Secret_squirrel said that even after he stopped and shouted, the driver continued, forcing him to get out of the way.

“When I challenged him on his driving, he replied that his view had been blocked by the silver deflectors on his wing (SIC) mirrors, and that he had to turn quickly as the oncoming traffic tended to be fast.

“After exchanging a few more words, he left without leaving any contact details.”

Secret_squirrel has submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police and also to the business in question. He was told that the firm would investigate which driver was involved and get back to him.

“The white 4x4 driver was really nice,” he added, “as was a lady from a nearby house who offered me a cup of tea.”

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...-corner-278927

The driver did not cut the corner he 'swerved to avoid an unlit cyclist'.

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On 21/11/2020 20:13, wrote:
What a tosser this HGV driver is. QUOTE: Today’s breath-taking near
miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the
corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist
in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.

According to Nuglet the cyclist could have known the lorry was going to
do that and should have stopped half a mile from the junction. Instead,
in a fit of pique, he just ploughed on into the path of the lorry.

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 2:48:03 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/11/2020 20:13, wrote:
What a tosser this HGV driver is. QUOTE: Today’s breath-taking near
miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the
corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist
in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.
According to Nuglet the cyclist could have known the lorry was going to
do that and should have stopped half a mile from the junction. Instead,
in a fit of pique, he just ploughed on into the path of the lorry.

QUOTE:
Update (November 24): The driver has been suspended by his firm, pending further investigation.

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On 21/11/2020 20:13, wrote:

What a tosser this HGV driver is.

QUOTE:
Today’s breath-taking near miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.
The incident occurred on Thursday on Stoke Road in Sonning Common, at the junction with Gravel Hill.
Secret_squirrel writes: “I had some new kit arrive – ironically a fluoro gilet – and an hour to kill so I thought I would take it for a test ride. Turns out all the fluoro or lights in the world means nothing if the driver doesn’t look or has some very iffy looking wing (SIC) mirrors.”
Secret_squirrel said that even after he stopped and shouted, the driver continued, forcing him to get out of the way.
“When I challenged him on his driving, he replied that his view had been blocked by the silver deflectors on his wing (SIC) mirrors, and that he had to turn quickly as the oncoming traffic tended to be fast.
“After exchanging a few more words, he left without leaving any contact details.”
Secret_squirrel has submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police and also to the business in question. He was told that the firm would investigate which driver was involved and get back to him.
“The white 4x4 driver was really nice,” he added, “as was a lady from a nearby house who offered me a cup of tea.”

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...-corner-278927

QUOTE:
“After exchanging a few more words, [the lorry driver] left without
leaving any contact details.”
ENDQUOTE

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle user,
to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

It might be different if a traffic accident had occurred, but there is
none reported in the quoted story.

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut corner because of fast oncoming traffic
 

On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle user,
to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 10:42:30 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Didn't matter, as the dangerous driver has since been suspended, so his ID was not in question.

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Only a police officer has the right to demand and be given a citizen's
name and address.

Perhaps the cyclist impersonating a police officer as well?

Do you still say the lorry driver did something wrong by declining to
give his name and address to the cyclist?

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.

Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
 

On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.

The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.

In the circumstances as described, he was not entitled to that
information and neither did he have a need for it, credible or
otherwise. Only a police officer has the lawful power to demand a name
and address of a person who happens to be using the highway and police
officers usually have more important things to do than require the names
and addresses (sorry, "contact details") of random passers-by.

Of course, as per usual, you have recerted to your normal MO of snipping
the relevant context.

Here is the section in question:

QUOTE:
Secret_squirrel writes: ... “When I challenged him on his driving, he
replied that his view had been blocked by the silver deflectors on his
wing (SIC) mirrors, and that he had to turn quickly as the oncoming
traffic tended to be fast. After exchanging a few more words, he left
without leaving any contact details.”
ENDQUOTE

Clearly, Secret Squirrel "thinks" that he had a right to the information
he sought and of whose absence he complains. That he didn't officiously
and peremptorily demand it during the exchange of "a few ... words" is
simply not credible.

But you seem to believe it.

But apart from that, whether or not asked for his contact details (and
irrespective of how the request might have been framed), was the driver
*required* to give them?

Think before you answer.

It's what you've been trying to argue about, even though you don't seem
to have realised it.