Who is to blame

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:11:15 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2017 16:44, Nick wrote:
On 07/07/2017 16:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 07-Jul-17 3:48 PM, Nick wrote:
On 07/07/2017 15:26, wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:49:19 AM UTC+1, doug wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yc2x8slo

Opinions are divided on this.

Was the cyclist in the wrong lane?

Did he put himself in the blind spot?

On the face of it the cyclists was at fault.
It depends on whether the lorry driver knew the cyclist was there,
you can't just drive into someone just because you think you have
right of way.


The cyclist was in front of the Lorry. The Lorry driver could see a
lot of cyclists were on his inside at the lights. He tried to out
accelerate the cyclists as the road narrowed. I would ban him as
dangerous.

If lorry drivers cannot see in front they should be more careful.
They should ban lorries which do not have a proper field of vision.

It has been suggested that the cyclists were in a left hand turn lane.


Yes I understand that...

...but take no cognisance of it?

The Lorry driver could see that there were some
cyclists in the left hand lane. The road was narrowing and he was
effectively pulling in toward the curb. It doesn't take much skill to
realise the danger. That is why I think he should be banned.

Are you sure?

I am surprised you have the nerve to contribute to this thread.
The video shows an eclectic group of cyclists at an ordinary junction and they all stop for the red light.
Doesn't this go against your religion?

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:14:15 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 08/07/2017 07:52, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:48:07 +0100, Nick wrote:

The cyclist was in front of the Lorry. The Lorry driver could see a lot
of cyclists were on his inside at the lights. He tried to out accelerate
the cyclists as the road narrowed. I would ban him as dangerous.

You say the lorry driver should be banned because he dangerously tried
to out-accelerate the cyclists as the road narrows. Why not say the
cyclists should be banned because they tried to out-accelerate the
lorry as the road narrowed?

The cyclist was ahead of the lorry, was aware of the vehicles in
front of him and most critically of all did not significantly
endanger the life of another road user. So no I don't think the
cyclist should be banned.

This seems to be an argument predicated on an assumption that a
cyclist can do no wrong.

If a fellow throws himself in front of a train, is the train driver
automatically to blame? If a cyclist puts themselves in a lorry
blind-spot, then remains there for a prolonged period as the lorry
pulls away, is that such a different case?

This is the way cyclists ride in London, it was entirely
predicable. The lorry driver is likely to kill someone of he
continues to drive in that way.

I don't accept that argument. Shall we cease all enforcement of speed
limits because it's entirely predictable that some drivers break
them? Drop requirements for mandatory insurance because it's entirely
predictable that some drivers won't take it out?

The cyclist is likely to get themselves killed if they continue to
cycle that way, I agree.

If two cars were side-by-side and one in a left-turn lane decided
to go straight on, which would you consider to be to blame in any
resulting collision?

What if a child kicked a ball into the road and was running toward
it. A car driver saw this but didn't brake because he knew safety
campaigns warned children not to run into the road without looking.
Who would be to blame if there were a collision?

That's an different case. We are discussing two adults, both
operating vehicles on the highway, one of which was in the wrong lane.
We have no reason to believe the lorry driver saw this cyclist, and no
reason to believe the lorry driver proceeded despite knowing there was
a cyclist alongside him.

Your case has barely any resemblance to the case under discussion.

However, if the car driver had time to stop but didn't do so, the
motorist would be to blame. If the motorist did not have time to
stop, the child would be to blame. People can be to blame for events
even when they come off worse, you know. Being the injured (or dead)
party doesn't make you blameless.

So what argument we can draw from your irrelevant case would seem to
be that if the lorry driver didn't see this particular cyclist, the
cyclist was to blame. And we have no evidence that the lorry driver
did see this cyclist - so you seem to be in agreement with me.

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

On 10/07/2017 20:27, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:14:15 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 08/07/2017 07:52, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:48:07 +0100, Nick wrote:

The cyclist was in front of the Lorry. The Lorry driver could see a lot
of cyclists were on his inside at the lights. He tried to out accelerate
the cyclists as the road narrowed. I would ban him as dangerous.

You say the lorry driver should be banned because he dangerously tried
to out-accelerate the cyclists as the road narrows. Why not say the
cyclists should be banned because they tried to out-accelerate the
lorry as the road narrowed?

The cyclist was ahead of the lorry, was aware of the vehicles in
front of him and most critically of all did not significantly
endanger the life of another road user. So no I don't think the
cyclist should be banned.

This seems to be an argument predicated on an assumption that a
cyclist can do no wrong.


That seems to be a total non sequitur. I can only guess where it comes
from. Perhaps you meant it is predicated on the belief that cyclists
don't kill lorry drivers?

When discussing road safety related bans my prime concern is to
discourage actions where one person endangers another. Do you not think
that sensible?

If a fellow throws himself in front of a train, is the train driver
automatically to blame? If a cyclist puts themselves in a lorry
blind-spot, then remains there for a prolonged period as the lorry
pulls away, is that such a different case?


The train example is different. It is unlikely that people would be on
the track. The probability is so low that train drivers are expected to
discount it. However in this case if you waited at the Albert Bridge
junction you would see cyclists do exactly the same thing almost every
light change. In fact the lorry driver could clearly see a couple of
other cyclists had just done it.

It seems to me that if a lorry has a blind spot, it is the lorry driver
that should exercise extra care. In this case the lorry driver had good
reason to suspect there would be a cyclist in his blind spot. Having a
blind spot should not entitle a lorry driver to drive into things in
front of it.


This is the way cyclists ride in London, it was entirely
predicable. The lorry driver is likely to kill someone of he
continues to drive in that way.

I don't accept that argument. Shall we cease all enforcement of speed
limits because it's entirely predictable that some drivers break
them? Drop requirements for mandatory insurance because it's entirely
predictable that some drivers won't take it out?


Again this is a non sequitur. I'm wasn't commenting on the cyclist's
action. However I'm not sure that using the wrong lane is illegal and it
doesn't significantly endanger other road users.

The cyclist is likely to get themselves killed if they continue to
cycle that way, I agree.


Probably not. This is the way they ride all the time. Very few get killed.

If two cars were side-by-side and one in a left-turn lane decided
to go straight on, which would you consider to be to blame in any
resulting collision?

What if a child kicked a ball into the road and was running toward
it. A car driver saw this but didn't brake because he knew safety
campaigns warned children not to run into the road without looking.
Who would be to blame if there were a collision?

That's an different case. We are discussing two adults, both
operating vehicles on the highway, one of which was in the wrong lane.

It is a standard case that illustrates the principal that a motorist
should exercise care where they reasonably expect another road user to
act irresponsibly. The adult/child thing is just a red herring.
Yesterday I had a woman walk out into the road in front of my bike
without looking. I could see she wasn't looking and had to stop. I could
have continued and passed her at speed but she might have been startled
and moved unpredictably causing a collision.

We have no reason to believe the lorry driver saw this cyclist, and no
reason to believe the lorry driver proceeded despite knowing there was
a cyclist alongside him.


No but we have every reason to believe the lorry driver should have
realised that there was a significant probability that a cyclist was
there. The cyclist was actually in front of him until he accelerated to
tailgate the cyclists further forward. It wasn't even like he could
overtake the other cyclists he could see without changing lane.

Your case has barely any resemblance to the case under discussion.

However, if the car driver had time to stop but didn't do so, the
motorist would be to blame.

I had hoped that you would recognise this child example as a case where
a motorists should exercise extra care not because they can see the
child running into the road but because there is a significant risk that
the child might run into the road.

I find the fact you don't recognise this as worrying. I thought it was
taught when everyone learnt to drive.

You however seem to be hung up on blaming the other party for not taking
enough care of their own safety.

On 11/07/17 08:53, Nick wrote:
On 10/07/2017 20:27, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:14:15 +0100, Nick
wrote:
On 08/07/2017 07:52, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:48:07 +0100, Nick
wrote:

...

Again this is a non sequitur. I'm wasn't commenting on the cyclist's
action. However I'm not sure that using the wrong lane is illegal
and it doesn't significantly endanger other road users.

It is not illegal to use the wrong lane. What is required is to make a
proper judgement getting to the one you want. This case is similar to
two streams merging at the end of a motorway slip road; very often the
drivers on the main carriageway are co-operative but the prime
requirement is on the joiner. It is not obvious that the cyclist did a
life saver before making his lane change.

...

We have no reason to believe the lorry driver saw this cyclist, and
no reason to believe the lorry driver proceeded despite knowing
there was a cyclist alongside him.

No but we have every reason to believe the lorry driver should have
realised that there was a significant probability that a cyclist was
there. The cyclist was actually in front of him until he accelerated
to tailgate the cyclists further forward. It wasn't even like he
could overtake the other cyclists he could see without changing
lane.

The path of the lorry shows the driver had no immediate intention of
overtaking the other cyclists. Presumably he was also conscious of what
was on his right.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:53:42 +0100
Nick wrote:

Perhaps you meant it is predicated on the belief that cyclists
don't kill lorry drivers?

There's a couple who might have been found with a chainring imprinted
on their skulls if they'd got down from their cabs to discuss with me
the standard of their driving.
But I think you're being a bit precious about a dimwit on a bike who
deliberately put himself in harm's way. That was a predictably unsafe
manoeuvre and he shouldn't have been surprised to get a nudge. That
the outcome wasn't a whole lot worse must be attributed to the driver's
skill and awareness.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:53:42 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 10/07/2017 20:27, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:14:15 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 08/07/2017 07:52, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:48:07 +0100, Nick wrote:

The cyclist was in front of the Lorry. The Lorry driver
could see a lot of cyclists were on his inside at the
lights. He tried to out accelerate the cyclists as the road
narrowed. I would ban him as dangerous.

You say the lorry driver should be banned because he dangerously
tried to out-accelerate the cyclists as the road narrows. Why
not say the cyclists should be banned because they tried to
out-accelerate the lorry as the road narrowed?

The cyclist was ahead of the lorry, was aware of the vehicles in
front of him and most critically of all did not significantly
endanger the life of another road user. So no I don't think the
cyclist should be banned.

This seems to be an argument predicated on an assumption that a
cyclist can do no wrong.

That seems to be a total non sequitur. I can only guess where it
comes from. Perhaps you meant it is predicated on the belief that
cyclists don't kill lorry drivers?

Cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, but they are perfectly capable of
getting themselves killed by lorries. The fact that cyclists don't
kill lorry drivers is irrelevant. You are apparently convinced that
whoever is likely to come off worse must be blameless. The fact that
the cyclist is at risk of getting killed doesn't excuse them of all
blame, and yet you seem to be assuming the cyclist is blameless,
apparently only because "cyclists don't kill lorry drivers".

You said it - you said that the most critical issue "of all" was that
the lorry driver's life was not at risk. Nothing about who caused the
risk, everything about who suffers the consequences of the risk - that
seems to be all that matters to your allocation of blame.

I'm saying that approach is wrong. The assumption that the most
critical matter of all in allocating blame is to decide who is at most
risk of death is simply wrong. It's not valid. It's a bogus
assumption, the wrong approach.

The cyclist in this clip endangered themselves. I don't know who got
to the line first (but I suspect it was the lorry, because otherwise
why is the cyclist in the wrong lane?) However, the cyclist certainly
expended significant effort to remain in the lorry blind-spot and,
disregarding the lane markings, apparently tried to barge a lorry
aside.

If someone commits suicide by HGV, I don't assume the driver is
automatically to blame.

When discussing road safety related bans my prime concern is to
discourage actions where one person endangers another. Do you not
think that sensible?

Not when someone embarks on a course of action that endangers
themselves, no. Your assumption that a road user who is endangered
must have been endangered by another road user and that other road
user is automatically to blame is utterly bogus.

As I have said, the notion that whoever comes off worse must be
blameless is false. The fact that the lorry driver was not in danger
and the cyclist was in danger is irrelevant. The lorry driver did not
endanger the cyclist - the cyclist endangered the cyclist.

It seems to me that if a lorry has a blind spot, it is the lorry
driver that should exercise extra care. In this case the lorry
driver had good reason to suspect there would be a cyclist in his
blind spot. Having a blind spot should not entitle a lorry driver
to drive into things in front of it.

Your argument would prevent any lorry ever moving away from this
junction. No lorry driver will ever be certain that there isn't
something they can't see in their blind spots - that's the nature of
blind spots.

I think you should be careful what you wish for. The only ways to
prevent cyclists in lorry blind spots would seem to be banning lorries
or banning cyclists. Given a choice between banning cyclists, and
having goods on the shelf in their local supermarket, I'm pretty sure
I know which way society as a whole will swing. The society we have
now won't work if lorries are banned from the road, but it would cope
if cyclists were banned - sure there'd be a bit more congestion, a
less healthy (on average) population, and life (on average) would be
diminished, but society would keep functioning. It wouldn't if we
banned any motor vehicle with blindpsots (which I guess would be
anything bigger than a Transit).

By all means require that the operators of lorries take reasonable
care, but the key factor in that equation is reasonable - and
assuming that that there's always a cyclist doing what this muppet did
is not, in my opinion, reasonable. As I said - no HGV would ever be
able to pull away from stationary on any road where there's a
reasonable chance there could be a cyclist.

The cyclist is likely to get themselves killed if they continue to
cycle that way, I agree.

Probably not. This is the way they ride all the time. Very few get
killed.

So that's all right then. If the cyclists ride like this and the
lorries drive like that, and very few get killed, what are you
complaining about?

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

On 11/07/2017 16:44, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:53:42 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 10/07/2017 20:27, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:14:15 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 08/07/2017 07:52, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:48:07 +0100, Nick wrote:

The cyclist was in front of the Lorry. The Lorry driver
could see a lot of cyclists were on his inside at the
lights. He tried to out accelerate the cyclists as the road
narrowed. I would ban him as dangerous.

You say the lorry driver should be banned because he dangerously
tried to out-accelerate the cyclists as the road narrows. Why
not say the cyclists should be banned because they tried to
out-accelerate the lorry as the road narrowed?

The cyclist was ahead of the lorry, was aware of the vehicles in
front of him and most critically of all did not significantly
endanger the life of another road user. So no I don't think the
cyclist should be banned.

This seems to be an argument predicated on an assumption that a
cyclist can do no wrong.

That seems to be a total non sequitur. I can only guess where it
comes from. Perhaps you meant it is predicated on the belief that
cyclists don't kill lorry drivers?

Cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, but they are perfectly capable of
getting themselves killed by lorries. The fact that cyclists don't
kill lorry drivers is irrelevant. You are apparently convinced that
whoever is likely to come off worse must be blameless. The fact that
the cyclist is at risk of getting killed doesn't excuse them of all
blame, and yet you seem to be assuming the cyclist is blameless,
apparently only because "cyclists don't kill lorry drivers".

More or less yes. I think people should be blamed for actions that
damage other people. I think people have a right to damage themselves
and hence should not be blamed for it.

When assessing a level of blame we base this both on the level of damage
and the risk/responsibility. Like a weighted average or like excepted
value with respect to probability.

This gives a view of blame that we can work with when considering how
much we want to deter or punish an action.

So even if you believe a cyclist's actions more likely to unreasonably
cause the collision with a lorry, the blame would tend to be less
because the negative effect on the lorry is much smaller than the
negative effect on the cyclist.

If you want to argue that a lorry driver should not be expected to take
into account certain risks caused by cyclist behaviour you can do so
without needing to consider the blameworthiness of the cyclist.

This is what I was trying to do. Independently assess the
blameworthiness of the lorry driver.


You said it - you said that the most critical issue "of all" was that
the lorry driver's life was not at risk. Nothing about who caused the
risk, everything about who suffers the consequences of the risk - that
seems to be all that matters to your allocation of blame.


No. You seem to have a problem with hyperbole. It was the dominating
factor but not the only factor.


I'm saying that approach is wrong. The assumption that the most
critical matter of all in allocating blame is to decide who is at most
risk of death is simply wrong. It's not valid. It's a bogus
assumption, the wrong approach.

This appears to be argument by assertion. Why do you think it wrong?
Perhaps you have confused yourself into thinking that most critical
factor means only factor?


The cyclist in this clip endangered themselves. I don't know who got
to the line first (but I suspect it was the lorry, because otherwise
why is the cyclist in the wrong lane?) However, the cyclist certainly
expended significant effort to remain in the lorry blind-spot and,
disregarding the lane markings, apparently tried to barge a lorry
aside.

Perhaps the cyclist didn't see the road markings? Perhaps the cyclist
thought he was ahead of the lorry and that vehicles should not drive
into other vehicles in front of them?

If someone commits suicide by HGV, I don't assume the driver is
automatically to blame.


Nether do I but that isn't what I was discussing.

I was discussing the lorry driver's actions and whether he should have
reasonably suspected that a cyclist might be in front of him on his
nearside.

When discussing road safety related bans my prime concern is to
discourage actions where one person endangers another. Do you not
think that sensible?

Not when someone embarks on a course of action that endangers
themselves, no. Your assumption that a road user who is endangered
must have been endangered by another road user and that other road
user is automatically to blame is utterly bogus.


But clearly not bogus in this case. A lorry on the road does present a
risk or danger to other road users. The question is if that level of
risk is reasonable or not. Which is what I was discussing, you instead
seemed to want to talk about the cyclist.

[snip]


Your argument would prevent any lorry ever moving away from this
junction. No lorry driver will ever be certain that there isn't
something they can't see in their blind spots - that's the nature of
blind spots.


In this case I believe the lorry driver could have driven more carefully
and was explaining why.

I think you should be careful what you wish for. The only ways to
prevent cyclists in lorry blind spots would seem to be banning lorries
or banning cyclists. Given a choice between banning cyclists, and
having goods on the shelf in their local supermarket, I'm pretty sure
I know which way society as a whole will swing.

Paris has banned lorries in commuter hours. London is looking at forcing
lorries to have fewer blind spots. Which way do you think it is swinging?

The society we have
now won't work if lorries are banned from the road, but it would cope
if cyclists were banned - sure there'd be a bit more congestion, a
less healthy (on average) population, and life (on average) would be
diminished, but society would keep functioning. It wouldn't if we
banned any motor vehicle with blindpsots (which I guess would be
anything bigger than a Transit).


The blind spot in this instance was the road directly in front of the
nearside of the lorry.

By all means require that the operators of lorries take reasonable
care, but the key factor in that equation is reasonable - and
assuming that that there's always a cyclist doing what this muppet did
is not, in my opinion, reasonable.

The question of the cyclist behaviour being reasonable or not is
separate to whether the lorry driver should expect it. Given the way
cyclists do ride in London I believe the lorry driver should expect it.
You may argue that a lorry drivers right to drive rapidly is more
important than an expectation that he might seriously injure or kill
another road user and that is largely the situation we grew up with.
However I think attitudes are changing and there is no more emphasis on
incentivising lorry drivers to take more care.

As I said - no HGV would ever be
able to pull away from stationary on any road where there's a
reasonable chance there could be a cyclist.


Yes you have said that. In this case however the driver could reasonably
have driven with more care. Realising that a cyclist might be on his
nearside he should not have accelerated just prior to the road narrowing
or he should have moved to the outside lane.


The cyclist is likely to get themselves killed if they continue to
cycle that way, I agree.

Probably not. This is the way they ride all the time. Very few get
killed.

So that's all right then.

I didn't say right or wrong. It is just the truth.

If the cyclists ride like this and the
lorries drive like that, and very few get killed, what are you
complaining about?


A lot of people are intimidated and discouraged from cycling and walking.

On 12/07/2017 13:

A lot of people are intimidated and discouraged from cycling and walking.



Cyclists discourage pedestrians from walking for certain.
Cyclists themselves could be much safer if they all just obeyed the
rules of the road.
In the case in question, the cyclists ignored the very clear 'turn left'
lane and went straight ahead, regardless of the very obvious danger to
themselves of a GBFO lorry that was going ahead in accordance with the
road signage.

On 12/07/2017 13:08, Nick wrote:

On 11/07/2017 16:44, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:53:42 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 10/07/2017 20:27, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 10:14:15 +0100, Nick wrote:
On 08/07/2017 07:52, Ian Smith wrote:
Nick wrote:

The cyclist was in front of the Lorry. The Lorry driver
could see a lot of cyclists were on his inside at the
lights. He tried to out accelerate the cyclists as the road
narrowed. I would ban him as dangerous.

You say the lorry driver should be banned because he dangerously
tried to out-accelerate the cyclists as the road narrows. Why
not say the cyclists should be banned because they tried to
out-accelerate the lorry as the road narrowed?

The cyclist was ahead of the lorry, was aware of the vehicles in
front of him and most critically of all did not significantly
endanger the life of another road user. So no I don't think the
cyclist should be banned.

This seems to be an argument predicated on an assumption that a
cyclist can do no wrong.

That seems to be a total non sequitur. I can only guess where it
comes from. Perhaps you meant it is predicated on the belief that
cyclists don't kill lorry drivers?

Cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, but they are perfectly capable of
getting themselves killed by lorries. The fact that cyclists don't
kill lorry drivers is irrelevant. You are apparently convinced that
whoever is likely to come off worse must be blameless. The fact that
the cyclist is at risk of getting killed doesn't excuse them of all
blame, and yet you seem to be assuming the cyclist is blameless,
apparently only because "cyclists don't kill lorry drivers".

More or less yes. I think people should be blamed for actions that
damage other people. I think people have a right to damage themselves
and hence should not be blamed for it.

When assessing a level of blame we base this both on the level of damage
and the risk/responsibility. Like a weighted average or like excepted
value with respect to probability.

This gives a view of blame that we can work with when considering how
much we want to deter or punish an action.

So even if you believe a cyclist's actions more likely to unreasonably
cause the collision with a lorry, the blame would tend to be less
because the negative effect on the lorry is much smaller than the
negative effect on the cyclist.

But IS had just demolished that argument as bogus (and it is).

[snip]

On 12/07/2017 14:06, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/07/2017 13:

A lot of people are intimidated and discouraged from cycling and walking.



Cyclists discourage pedestrians from walking for certain.
Cyclists themselves could be much safer if they all just obeyed the
rules of the road.

Yes I know the argument. If cyclist/pedestrians/children obeyed the
rules they would be safe.

For themselves, though, people consider this too hard so they keep
themselves safe by buying themselves a 4x4 and driving everywhere.
Driving at walking pace because the extra traffic causes huge traffic jams.