SMIDSY

[KenONeill]

Take note, I actually think this should be SMI Couldn't SY; reasoning in link.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33622318

[mac11irl]

I dont think it wouldve made a difference if that bimer had been in another truck. That dip**** was clearly paying no attention to anything other than the wall to his right while swinging round that corner, and assuming he wasnt going to be stopping at anypoint.

[FUBAR]

When you watch it, there isn't much of a time frame where the rider would have actually been visible to the driver and at that millisecond the driver with multiple other places to look and check failed to see him, you have lots of things to check for when making a turn like that (overhang swinging out to right and is that clear, near side for peds and cyclists is that clear etc etc). From point he begins turning in it is impossible without x-ray vision to see the biker and this continues up to the point of impact. This sort of thing is inherent with LGV's in urban areas unfortunately, but road safety remains everyone's responsibility. Rider had best view of the building situation and sat there and 'shouted' "wow, woooow" at the lorry rather than moving or using his horn to 'warn other road user of his presence' and didn't attempt to move out of it's way, after over 6 seconds of decision making time leaving the "wow" until the last moment. Driver afterwards, sought to get it all out of the way and asked biker was he alright, but at this stage you must remember, he doesn't know exactly what's happened and likely assumes rider binned it and went into him. Just one of those things, had either road user been 1 second earlier or later, it would never have happened, but the most unfortunate chain of events happened as they did. You have many blind spots and as many covered by mirrors, but you can't be physically looking at them all at the same moment. 

 

If you can't see the driver, the driver can't see you! This goes for any position not just behind. 

 

[Gizmo]

Spot on FUBAR

 

 

I dont think it wouldve made a difference if that bimer had been in another truck. That dip**** was clearly paying no attention to anything other than the wall to his right while swinging round that corner, and assuming he wasnt going to be stopping at anypoint.

 

So he didn’t see the woman and pushchair on the corner? he avoided clipping the curb near her and the one on his side when he turned.

The bike was clearly in his blind spot and the biker could easily have manoeuvred out of the way of the truck rather than waiting for the accident to happen.

[FUBAR]

Spot on FUBAR

 

 

 

So he didn’t see the woman and pushchair on the corner? he avoided clipping the curb near her and the one on his side when he turned.

The bike was clearly in his blind spot and the biker could easily have manoeuvred out of the way of the truck rather than waiting for the accident to happen.

Liability and fault will still lie firmly with the driver and that is correct, I just don't see any careless or reckless driving on his part. More an unfortunate consequence of the limitations and restrictions placed on the driver inherent with LGV driving. Biker could have lost a leg or been crushed to death hanging around so long using his voice as a horn though and that I find verging on suicidal! All road users must recognise and act upon the limitations of others for everyone's sake. Luckily in this case it was only a Ducatti muwhahahahaha 

[KenONeill]

When you watch it, there isn't much of a time frame where the rider would have actually been visible to the driver and at that millisecond the driver with multiple other places to look and check failed to see him, you have lots of things to check for when making a turn like that (overhang swinging out to right and is that clear, near side for peds and cyclists is that clear etc etc). From point he begins turning in it is impossible without x-ray vision to see the biker and this continues up to the point of impact. This sort of thing is inherent with LGV's in urban areas unfortunately, but road safety remains everyone's responsibility. Rider had best view of the building situation and sat there and 'shouted' "wow, woooow" at the lorry rather than moving or using his horn to 'warn other road user of his presence' and didn't attempt to move out of it's way, after over 6 seconds of decision making time leaving the "wow" until the last moment. Driver afterwards, sought to get it all out of the way and asked biker was he alright, but at this stage you must remember, he doesn't know exactly what's happened and likely assumes rider binned it and went into him. Just one of those things, had either road user been 1 second earlier or later, it would never have happened, but the most unfortunate chain of events happened as they did. You have many blind spots and as many covered by mirrors, but you can't be physically looking at them all at the same moment. 

 

If you can't see the driver, the driver can't see you! This goes for any position not just behind. 

 

 

That was exactly my point; the biker more or less deliberately places himself in the track driver's NS A-post blind arc, and then rides forward until the collision is inevitable.

 

There's a very good "rider's eye" diagram of said blind arc in the link as long as you don't get hung up by the (speeded up?) video.

[Gizmo]

Yes he was clearly 100% at fault, the accident could have been avoided by the bike quite easily though.

 

I have lost count the amount of times that I have been reversing my truck into a customers yard and a car or bike squeezes past the front of the cab mid manoeuvre (so the cab of the truck is still making the 'gap’ smaller for someone to come round the front) rather than wait an extra 10 seconds. 

 

Ken yes the video has been speeded up, the version I saw on Facebook was not speeded up and the driver actually took the corner quite slowly.

[KenONeill]

I don't actually agree that the trucker was "100% at fault" because the biker deliberately rode into the arc the truck cab was swinging through and then stopped, meaning that the trucker's only options (as a matter of physics, not legal liability) were "stop mid-turn" or "hit motorcycle", neither of which is a good choice!

 

Or to put it another way, I don't think you can ever be 100% at fault if another road user makes it impossible for you to complete a manoevre like that without hitting them.

[FUBAR]

Yes he was clearly 100% at fault, the accident could have been avoided by the bike quite easily though.

 

I have lost count the amount of times that I have been reversing my truck into a customers yard and a car or bike squeezes past the front of the cab mid manoeuvre (so the cab of the truck is still making the 'gap’ smaller for someone to come round the front) rather than wait an extra 10 seconds. 

 

Ken yes the video has been speeded up, the version I saw on Facebook was not speeded up and the driver actually took the corner quite slowly.

 

It always bemused me how drivers differ in their perception and actions around LGV's. Some are so proactive and obliging that you'd think that must be a trucker on their day off and some are utter knobs! The corner in that video is pretty normal looking, but I have been pulling my hair out at comments since it first started circulating. It's such a shallow turn in for the driver without being able to swing out wide due to traffic, he is causing as little interference with traffic flow as possible. Some comments online though you'd think he was sat on the limiter and near rolled it just spinning the wheel, while watching hard core porn on a 50" TV on the inside of windscreen with cruise control on and necking a bottle of whiskey.... bahhhh 

[FUBAR]

I don't actually agree that the trucker was "100% at fault" because the biker deliberately rode into the arc the truck cab was swinging through and then stopped, meaning that the trucker's only options (as a matter of physics, not legal liability) were "stop mid-turn" or "hit motorcycle", neither of which is a good choice!

 

Or to put it another way, I don't think you can ever be 100% at fault if another road user makes it impossible for you to complete a manoevre like that without hitting them.

Yea the riders actions are part of the contributing factors, it's just the ultimate liability not 100% at fault (thinking more of how insurers will likely just pay up and not bother spending time/money arguing for a 50/50). Rider did perceive the hazard to a point as he stopped short of the junction, there ended his proactive actions. Easily said by us say watching it after the fact I know, but I wouldn't like to think I would have acted in the same way given the fairly lengthy amount of time he had to react. Even if I had assumed the driver would somehow see/hear me and stop, I would have not been on the bike at the point it was inevitable and too late to move. SOD THAT gamble!  

[KenONeill]

Yea the riders actions are part of the contributing factors, it's just the ultimate liability not 100% at fault (thinking more of how insurers will likely just pay up and not bother spending time/money arguing for a 50/50). Rider did perceive the hazard to a point as he stopped short of the junction, there ended his proactive actions. Easily said by us say watching it after the fact I know, but I wouldn't like to think I would have acted in the same way given the fairly lengthy amount of time he had to react. Even if I had assumed the driver would somehow see/hear me and stop, I would have not been on the bike at the point it was inevitable and too late to move. SOD THAT gamble!  

I pretty much agree with you; what I'm trying to do is separate the concepts of fault and liability.

 

You are "at fault" whenever you actively take an action that makes a collision inevitable or omit to take one that does not involve emergency evasion that prevents a collision from happening.

 

You are "liable" when the law says so, irrespective of whether another party was "at fault" and hence fault should be shared, or not.

[FUBAR]

I pretty much agree with you; what I'm trying to do is separate the concepts of fault and liability.

 

You are "at fault" whenever you actively take an action that makes a collision inevitable or omit to take one that does not involve emergency evasion that prevents a collision from happening.

 

You are "liable" when the law says so, irrespective of whether another party was "at fault" and hence fault should be shared, or not.

100% agreed, im just typing off the cuff from bed here  :zzz:

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

Impressive ninja skills getting off in time, easy to say the biker could have done this/that/the other watching on a computer screen but not so easy when it's unfolding in front of you. Agree with the comments on the lorry drivers vision etc, having driven some larger vehicles it's amazing how much can hide behind a mirror. 

[fabiamk2SE]

Impressive ninja skills getting off in time, easy to say the biker could have done this/that/the other watching on a computer screen but not so easy when it's unfolding in front of you. Agree with the comments on the lorry drivers vision etc, having driven some larger vehicles it's amazing how much can hide behind a mirror.

Blind splots are rhe prob arent they.

You get em in cars, you get em more in vans, and i dont even know about lorrys and such, other than the obvious ones ad to stay back.

Not much that bikes could of done, short of a reverse gear lol

[StripleR675]

Goldwings have that.

[KenONeill]

Not much that bikes could of done, short of a reverse gear lol

You don't think he could have braked earlier or even just gone a bit left in his lane?

[fabiamk2SE]

You don't think he could have braked earlier or even just gone a bit left in his lane?

Given he was actually living the moment and not watching the vid, probably not.

It was the lorry driver whos clearly at fault imo.

Edit: he does seem to be looking at something on his right. Dno what that is. I didnt spot anything tastey looking lol.

Edited 26 July, 2015 by fabiamk2SE

[KenONeill]

Given he was actually living the moment and not watching the vid, probably not.

It was the lorry driver whos clearly at fault imo.

Edit: he does seem to be looking at something on his right. Dno what that is. I didnt spot anything tastey looking lol.

For the 3rd time in 18 posts, look at the diagram at the bottom of my link; He rode right at the truck down the A-post/mirror blind arc.

[fabiamk2SE]

For the 3rd time in 18 posts, look at the diagram at the bottom of my link; He rode right at the truck down the A-post/mirror blind arc.

As a professional driver, are you not expected to check you blind spots to the best of your ability?

[FUBAR]

 

Blind splots are rhe prob arent they.

You get em in cars, you get em more in vans, and i dont even know about lorrys and such, other than the obvious ones ad to stay back.
 

 

If you admittedly don't know about lorries blind spots, it's hard to assess this incident. It's not uncommon that other road users remain dangerously unaware of the risk they can put themselves in with large vehicles and at the end of the day, it's very easy to drive over someone and know nothing about it, not even feel a thing and carry on, as if you never saw them due to their own actions which may just have been out of ignorance of the danger, you can't do a thing about it. 

 

As a car driver most so called 'blind spots' don't really exist as the driver can turn their head and look at where they claim to be and poof, they are gone! (so not blind unless driver is lazy. Vans create one rear blind spot depending on design, in the form of a collapsing cone directly behind for a single standing person of about 50 meters. In a vehicle where you are sat up high and you have a thicker pillar and a big load of large tall mirrors surrounding it, you have actual blind spots that remain 'dead' to a humans field of vision, nothing can be done about them. That is why and where other roads users responsibility to road safety around large vehicles comes in.

 

For the above video, here is roughly what the driver can and cannot see due to the fact even Jesus couldn't see through lorries either, this is just how it is. Markings over screenshots for view in relation to the junction only. 

 

RED = DEAD / blind spots

YELLOW = what driver can see 

 

remembering drivers seating position will be about a meter back from windscreen.

 

 

 

 

 

Find the point in the video where you can physically see the drivers face....... that would be the only point he could see the biker in his specific position, but you won't find it as he never saw him. It's not ideal in todays H&S world, but it's how it is and has to be if lorries are allowed on our road to deliver our entire way of life. 

 

 

Not much that bikes could of done, short of a reverse gear lol

 

 

Ride off to left (pavement) / right off to right / get off bike before being hit by a big lorry (rather than taking such a gamble with his legs and or life) and then the classic as mentioned above find some effective way of alerting the lorry driver...... like his horn since that's what it's there for lol. 

 

 

As a professional driver, are you not expected to check you blind spots to the best of your ability?

Flippancy will attract a similar response, so I will go for 'no they are not'. :p

 

ps biker doing a right shoulder check on approach to a T-junction may be due to reducing speed and anticipating coming to a stop and or about to change his position in lane in relation to his desired direction of travel at the same. 

[KenONeill]

FUBAR, I can only like #20 once, or else it would have 20 likes already. Trying to help get this point across was why I posted at all, and in particular it was why I chose the title SMIDSY, and then corrected it in post #1.

[fabiamk2SE]

If you admittedly don't know about lorries blind spots, it's hard to assess this incident. It's not uncommon that other road users remain dangerously unaware of the risk they can put themselves in with large vehicles and at the end of the day, it's very easy to drive over someone and know nothing about it, not even feel a thing and carry on, as if you never saw them due to their own actions which may just have been out of ignorance of the danger, you can't do a thing about it.

As a car driver most so called 'blind spots' don't really exist as the driver can turn their head and look at where they claim to be and poof, they are gone! (so not blind unless driver is lazy. Vans create one rear blind spot depending on design, in the form of a collapsing cone directly behind for a single standing person of about 50 meters. In a vehicle where you are sat up high and you have a thicker pillar and a big load of large tall mirrors surrounding it, you have actual blind spots that remain 'dead' to a humans field of vision, nothing can be done about them. That is why and where other roads users responsibility to road safety around large vehicles comes in.

For the above video, here is roughly what the driver can and cannot see due to the fact even Jesus couldn't see through lorries either, this is just how it is. Markings over screenshots for view in relation to the junction only.

RED = DEAD / blind spots

YELLOW = what driver can see

remembering drivers seating position will be about a meter back from windscreen.

Find the point in the video where you can physically see the drivers face....... that would be the only point he could see the biker in his specific position, but you won't find it as he never saw him. It's not ideal in todays H&S world, but it's how it is and has to be if lorries are allowed on our road to deliver our entire way of life.

Ride off to left (pavement) / right off to right / get off bike before being hit by a big lorry (rather than taking such a gamble with his legs and or life) and then the classic as mentioned above find some effective way of alerting the lorry driver...... like his horn since that's what it's there for lol.

Flippancy will attract a similar response, so I will go for 'no they are not'. :p

ps biker doing a right shoulder check on approach to a T-junction may be due to reducing speed and anticipating coming to a stop and or about to change his position in lane in relation to his desired direction of travel at the same.

Im not arguing fubs, ive admitted i dont drive a lorry, never even sat in one and dont know about their blind spots.

Cheers for the pics, very informative.

I know full well about shoulder checks, i probably did my bike test more recently than alot of people on here, and routinely do them on a very regular basis. Dno why i didnt click thats what he was doing on the vid though, im not on top form tonight haha. But would i of done a lifesaver there, probably not, unless i felt i wasnt on top form with my mirror checks.

On the other hand, the collision happened on the bikers side of the road, so its the lorrys fault isnt it.

The biker probably didnt think he was going to keep on coming until it was too late tbf.

I usually give lorrys huge space and am aware of some blindspots, but didnt know that he was in one all of the time. Nore will alot of road users that havent got their hgv.

Edited 26 July, 2015 by fabiamk2SE

[FUBAR]

Im not arguing fubs, ive admitted i dont drive a lorry, never even sat in one and dont know about their blind spots.

Cheers for the pics, very informative.

I know full well about shoulder checks, i probably did my bike test more recently than alot of people on here, and routinely do them on a very regular basis. Dno who i didnt click thats what he was doing on thr vid though, im not on top form tonight haha. But would i of done a lifesaver there, probably not, unless i felt i wasnt on top form with my mirror checks.

On the other hand, the collision happened on the bikers side of the road, so its the lorrys fault isnt it.

The biker probably didnt think he was going to keep on coming until it was too late tbf.

 

It's not a matter of 1 person will be held over the coals as 'their fault'. This video is just a fantastic example and teaching aid essentially now, for blind spot awareness around large vehicles. As I said above, liability will most likely be on lorries side (cheapest option for insurers as 50/50 would cost them time and money to establish). This has nothing to do with the drivers decision making or actions, but ultimately he drove into a stationary vehicle, regardless of if he saw it or not, it happened. Can we break down how it unfolded and understand why? I think yes and it could happen to any lorry driver in the same position with the same circumstances surrounding him 20 times a day. The biker did little to help himself, only form of action was stopping short initially (fantastic 1st thing to do) and second mouthing off at a lorry like it's from the movie 'Cars' (fruitless). Once the lorry didn't stop and he could see it on full lock and knowing it wouldn't morph into the other lane before running him over, he really should have moved his position or stepped off and protected himself in that way (s#it or get off the pot). He had a way of trying to alert the driver in line with the highway code and failed to utilise it and also seemed to totally underestimate the blind spots of the vehicle (real contributing factors to the collision). The lorry being on 'his side of road' doesn't matter, he must only drive on left to give way to oncoming vehicles in this instance and I highlighted his rear axles positions to show how he used every mm he had to make that turn designed for horse and carts back in the day, with his long rigid vehicle. 

 

It's just one of those things, no one party was in the absolute wrong, but from my point of view, only one party could see the other and decided to 'talk to the hand'.

 

 

I reiterate again as a life saving rule of thumb 'if you can't see the drivers face, he/she definitely cannot see you!' - Genuinely though, get a sit in a lorry some time, it would scare you what you can't see in comparison to all other vehicles! 

[FUBAR]

I did a similar demonstration in work following a classic T-Bone collision with one of our vehicles. I used my at the time Yellow Mk1 Fabia vRS the high vis of cars! Parked it on nearside of a lorry at a distance as if it was in the next lane and half in front of the cab. It was impossible to see it, stuck a Mondeo in same position, still nothing. It wasn't really for the aid of our drivers, but to shut up the ignorance coming from management on a collision we were fighting as DNTB (driver not to blame) (car drove into the lorry and T-boned itself).

 

To point out in this video the hight of the artic in question is much lower than many on our roads. The higher the drivers seating position the larger a dead zone they have around the cab essentially.

 

[fabiamk2SE]

It's not a matter of 1 person will be held over the coals as 'their fault'. This video is just a fantastic example and teaching aid essentially now, for blind spot awareness around large vehicles. As I said above, liability will most likely be on lorries side (cheapest option for insurers as 50/50 would cost them time and money to establish). This has nothing to do with the drivers decision making or actions, but ultimately he drove into a stationary vehicle, regardless of if he saw it or not, it happened. Can we break down how it unfolded and understand why? I think yes and it could happen to any lorry driver in the same position with the same circumstances surrounding him 20 times a day. The biker did little to help himself, only form of action was stopping short initially (fantastic 1st thing to do) and second mouthing off at a lorry like it's from the movie 'Cars' (fruitless). Once the lorry didn't stop and he could see it on full lock and knowing it wouldn't morph into the other lane before running him over, he really should have moved his position or stepped off and protected himself in that way (s#it or get off the pot). He had a way of trying to alert the driver in line with the highway code and failed to utilise it and also seemed to totally underestimate the blind spots of the vehicle (real contributing factors to the collision). The lorry being on 'his side of road' doesn't matter, he must only drive on left to give way to oncoming vehicles in this instance and I highlighted his rear axles positions to show how he used every mm he had to make that turn designed for horse and carts back in the day, with his long rigid vehicle.

It's just one of those things, no one party was in the absolute wrong, but from my point of view, only one party could see the other and decided to 'talk to the hand'.

I reiterate again as a life saving rule of thumb 'if you can't see the drivers face, he/she definitely cannot see you!' - Genuinely though, get a sit in a lorry some time, it would scare you what you can't see in comparison to all other vehicles!

But you have to understand that from the riders point of view, it all happened very quickly and out of the blue.

Its okay saying he could of done this that and the other whilsy analysing the video time over time. But he only had a split second to make his decision and act upon it. He didnt get a 'rewind and rethink' option