[Closed] JODA Truck driving WAAAAAAAAAY too close to cyclist

That's quite incredible but it's so incredible you wonder if the driver actually knows that he is there. There is no way that he can see him from his driving seat so you wonder if someone the cyclist had ended up in a position where he could be seen. Not deliberately, that would be mad, but without seeing what happened just before it's not quite so clear

There is a longer video that gives some idea of the lead up to it.
Hard to be sure, but from the traffic flow it looks like other vehicles had passed the cyclist already.

Hard to be sure, but from the traffic flow it looks like other vehicles had passed the cyclist already.

Is that Canal Rd Bradford ??,bit too close for comfort that !!!

Is a bit of an odd one, but either way the lorry is not crossing out of his lane at all so whether up the arse or moving alongside the bike, it's horribly close.

Mrs foo commutes that way by bike too, fortunately a new cycleway from Shipley bypasses that bit road, if you can find it!

here is no way that he can see him from his driving seat

Looks like the truck has a down-facing mirror stuck on the front so the driver [i]should[/i] be able to see that cyclist:

[img] [/img]

A driver posted his view of a similar mirror (in the [url=

FB comments[/url]):

[img] [/img]

He reckoned the cyclist [i]should[/i] have been clearly visibly in that mirror.

Could it be photo shopped ?

1. Why isn't the bike rider cracking his pants and trying to get on the the path.

2. I don't recall any news story's about a cyclist being killed to death by a lorry. The rate he was closing at it he wouldn't have missed him

3. Making the truck driver was just 'using the force'

[img] [/img]

Terrifying, hopefully they are forced to deal with it.

I complained about a courier firm for giving me an outrageous left hook recently; they honestly couldn't care less. By chance I saw the same driver today being pretty discourteous to a pedestrian with a pram who was hoping to cross in from of his (stationary) vehicle. No dice, he kept the lady and child waiting before enveloping them in a cloud of diesel fumes as he sped off. Shame on you, TNT. I'll take it straight to Twitter next time, with photos/videos.

^ I contacted Newcastle city council on one of their security trucks speeding on our road with a 20mph limit going around twice that or more.

Told them I knew it had GPS and telemetrics and to check them.

They emailed me back about a week later to say yes it was going faster than 30 in a 30 zone and the driver would be spoken to.

I told them it was a 20mph zone and I'll have your superiors contact details, thank you, as you don't know what you are talking about.

Received a personal letter of apology from someone higher up for the incident and the poor handling of it.

Good on you Quirrel!

By the way are you aware there is a [url= http://newcycling.org/event/campaign-and-friends-meeting/ ]meet-up of Newcastle Cycle Campaign, CTC, Sustrans and Re'cyke Y'Bike on next week (17th) at the Hub[/url]?

leffeboy - Member

That's quite incredible but it's so incredible you wonder if the driver actually knows that he is there. There is no way that he can see him from his driving seat so you wonder if someone the cyclist had ended up in a position where he could be seen. Not deliberately, that would be mad, but without seeing what happened just before it's not quite so clear
Posted 11 hours ago # Report-Post

The OP of the video is a pistonheads member. He reckoned the driver was laughing at the cyclist. It's on their 'dash cam idiots' thread.

Amazed people think this is unusual.

Amazed people are trying to say it's probably the cyclists fault.
Nah, always happens on these threads doesn't it.

Amazed people are trying to say it's probably the cyclists fault.

To be fair I don't think you can really tell in that video if the lorry came up behind the cyclist or if the cyclist undertook and put himself in a blind spot.

My gut says it is more likely to be the former, but I'm just as biased as a lorry driver, who would assume it was the latter.

The OP of the video is a pistonheads member. He reckoned the driver was laughing at the cyclist. It's on their 'dash cam idiots' thread.

Linky?

NVM found it: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1511801&mid=0&i=240

Amazed people are trying to [s]say it's probably the cyclists fault.[/s] apportion blame either way, on the basis of such limited information

Nah, always happens on these threads doesn't it.

Two things that suggest the driver is at fault:

1) the guy filming described the [i]"driver of truck looking down at cyclist grinning."[/i]

2) if the truck driver genuinely [i]doesn't[/i] know the cyclist is there then why is he driving at the speed of a bike when he is in a 40 limit with at least a 30 second gap in the traffic ahead of him?

[i]To be fair I don't think you can really tell in that video if the lorry came up behind the cyclist or if the cyclist undertook and put himself in a blind spot.[/i]

Exactly, and I don't presume to know either.. all I know is many lorries and cars go too close to cyclists on the road.

GrahamS - Member

Two things that suggest the driver is at fault:

1) the guy filming described the "driver of truck looking down at cyclist grinning."

2) if the truck driver genuinely doesn't know the cyclist is there then why is he driving at the speed of a bike when he is in a 40 limit with at least a 30 second gap in the traffic ahead of him?

Yep.

Good for you Quirrel, your post it prompted me to get back in touch with TNT to chase them up. I mentioned the latest incident with pram.

Back on topic, JODA have been quiet so far..

To be fair I don't think you can really tell in that video if the lorry came up behind the cyclist or if the cyclist undertook and put himself in a blind spot.

Having watched the longer video I can't see how the driver doesn't know that the cyclist is there.

There is such a gap between the lorry and cars in front that he must have been behind the cyclist for some time.

That and the original poster said the driver was "Grinning" (Though it's not caught on camera).

Amazed people are trying to say it's probably the cyclists fault.

I don't think anyone has done that have they? Just saying nothing is conclusive from the original (very short) video.

According to [url=

"tn":"R9"}]a

FB commenter who works for Joda[/url]:

[i]"Well I've just had the facts,all I'm gunna say is this video doesn't show all the facts!....you've obviously never been on canal road in Bradford at rush hour!..."[/i]

Not sure what that means, but I can understand if he doesn't want to clarify on social media when the company hasn't issued a statement.

don't think anyone has done that have they

Well, ok "maybe" at fault. That's how I read them anyway.

[i] it's not impossible for the cyclist to have been heading up the inside[/i]

[i] so you wonder if someone the cyclist had ended up in a position where he could be seen.[/i] (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in English.)

Actually to me, it's obvious that the truck had caught up with the bike and was pissed off that he couldn't get past.
I'd put money on that. That is how people drive!
There's no gap for the cyclist to have gone up the inside.

No indicator either.

According to a FB commenter who works for Joda:

Hmm, given his earlier comments I'm less than convinced of his lack of bias, even if he does claim to have the "facts" (from one side). As pointed out, the truck has a mirror which the driver must be able to see the cyclist in, the driver wouldn't be leaving the big gap if the cyclist wasn't there, therefore he must know the cyclist is there. It doesn't really make any difference how the cyclist got there in that case.

The facts are a truck was about as close as you could get to a bike and remains so for several seconds despite clear road ahead of the cyclist. The possible explanations do not really include one which allows the truck driver to emerge without severe criticism in my view.

"didn't see him" ->

Didn't check mirrors, or mirrors not adjusted properly. The footage is long enough to include a time gap which you might expect a routine mirror check.

"did see him" ->

Playing roulette with a person's life.

The clear road ahead is the clincher imo, the truck driver very likely knows the cyclist is there.

Even if the bike had performed a poor move further up the road or they otherwise had some off-cam 'previous', it hardly gives a person a right to extract punishment, especially by threatening him with his life.

Even if the bike had performed a poor move further up the road or they otherwise had some off-cam 'previous', it hardly gives a person a right to extract punishment, especially by threatening him with his life.

Was going to post words to this effect.

If the driver knows he is there there then is no excuse for that behaviour, no matter how or why the cyclist got there you do not put someone's life in danger like that.

If the driver doesn't know he is there then this either suggests poor observation/negligence, or if we give him the benefit of the doubt, at the very least goes to highlight how inappropriate such vehicles are for mixing in urban traffic, with cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable squishies.

Actually I'm guessing the "facts" the FB bloke has are something to do with the cyclist upsetting the driver, which therefore gave the driver the "right" to do that because the cyclist "was asking for it"

I see Joda Freight are getting some nasty reviews on their facebook page.
Not sure I agree with that, especially when we clearly don't know all the facts, but I suppose it at least makes them aware of it.

Difficult to see how the driver wouldn't have been aware of the cyclist to me.

Anyone criticising others for attempting to blame the cyclist, but then going ahead and blaming the lorry driver are just rank hypocrites, who show themselves as unable to be objective due to their predisposed opinions. The only FACT is that there is not enough information available from the footage to allow a decent conclusion to be made. Speculation either way is just that, speculation. Scenarios that put the cyclist at fault, the driver at fault, or (shock, horror) a shared culpability scenario, are all entirely possible. But no, this is highhorsetrackworld, isn't it... 😆

The only FACT is that there is not enough information available from the footage to allow a decent conclusion to be made.

Id like to see someone define under what possible circumstances the lorry driver driving like that can be considered being reasonable?

The cyclist could have queried the parentage of the driver's first born, it still doesn't give the driver permission to drive like an arse.

I've had similar with a coach in Cambridge before - could feel the heat from the engine as he was so close. A driver in traffic on the other side of the road was waving frantically at him to back off, needless to say he didn't. I've rarely pedalled as fast as that, once the parked cars were cleared and he went past me it was quite a relief!

[i]Anyone criticising others for attempting to blame the cyclist, but then going ahead and blaming the lorry driver are just rank hypocrites, who show themselves as unable to be objective due to their predisposed opinion[/i]

🙄 Not [i]opinions[/i]. [i]Experience[/i].

Not opinions. Experience.

Indeed. As always it's not a symmetrical situation. Cyclists don't endanger the lives of truck drivers. Nor is there equal likelihood of either party being at fault based on what does happen on the roads. Sure there are some idiot cyclists, but actually a lot, lot more careless drivers.

Though most fundamentally, what most of us are pointing out is that the truck driver must have seen the cyclist. Given that is the case, the truck driver is quite clearly at fault, whatever went on before the start of the video. No speculation at all needed to determine that.

Scenarios that put the cyclist at fault

Go on then. What scenario can you think of where the driver hasn't seen the cyclist (despite the mirror he has pointing that way) yet is still driving along at the speed of the cyclist with a large gap in front. Or were you suggesting a scenario where the cyclist is at fault for the truck driving that close despite having seen him?

If you separate the reason and the action, and drop all the speculation you're left with only one fact

1. that was dangerous

Argue the toss about why it happened all you want, but that's what we know. We also know that there are very few possible situations where that ^ could happen in which the driver of the lorry could not have removed that danger if he had wanted to.

The only possble one I can think of is if the cyclist crept up the inside while the lorry was stationary/slow moving, and was in the drivers blind spot the entire time, and none of his mirrors allowed him to see him, and that there is some other explanation for the clear road ahead of them.

If all of that happened as above* then as I said earlier, all that does is demonstrate how unsafe such vehicles are when mixing with more vulnerable road users.

*which seems unlikely given the balance of probabilities, experience, and the comments from the source of the video.

Any coincidence that JODA in Spanish is, more or less, "**** him"?

Not opinions. [s]Experience.[/s][b]bias based on very personal experience of different incidents, with a different roads, different vehicles and different people.[/b]

Edit; Amedias is bang on.

so you wonder if someone the cyclist had ended up in a position where he could be seen. (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in English.)

Looking at the longer version of the video it looks like there may have been a widening of the road next to the house on the right at the end of the video. If the truck was stationary at that point out would have been tempting to run up the inside and then the truck might have started moving

But to be clear we don't know and the only reason for speculating is that the situation looks so mad it is worth long at to see if there is anything to be learned

Yeah, that's invaluable in this instance, ta.

More useful than your bias I'd suggest. Particularly given it looks like lots of other roads in this country, lots of other trucks in this country etc. What have you spotted which makes you think this incident is in some way special and different to what normally happens?

whatever the bias, personal or otherwise, lets break this down

-> that was dangerous, would you disagree?

I'm going to assume you do agree, because quite frankly I don't asee how anyone could not consider that dangerous.

so, that leaves 2 possibilities

1. He knew the cyclist was there = deliberately dangerous
2. He didn't know the cyclist was there = accidentally dangerous

1 is not justifiable under any circumstances, EVER.
2 is barely justifiable, and the only situation where it would be involves a disproportionately large number of improbable events to have occurred, however, improbable things happen all the time so it's not outside the realms of possibility.

We don't know the full facts, as we rarely do in these cases... I have my own opinions and bias going on here, but I'm trying very hard to leave them out and not make any judgements based on them.

More useful than your bias I'd suggest

What is anybody making up?

Your bias appears to be in assuming that the situation on roads is symmetrical.

...until proven otherwise, that ALL other road users are either incompetent, or homicidal maniacs...

I find that this is a perfectly valid assumption. I always make a point of rewarding considerate driving with a friendly wave and a smile. It takes the stress out of the situation too.

Your bias appears to be in assuming that the situation on roads is symmetrical.

the truck driver must have seen the cyclist

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.815484,-1.763993,3a,75y,354.83h,80.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-lK29NOSMgLlQ7YYKvf2Uw!2e0

The chevrons in the centre of the road quickly disappear, leaving a single carriageway from where the cyclist/truck emerge, and there appear to be few if any sideroads that a cyclist could emerge from in a hurry to place themselves in a driver's blindspot.

Don't think any of this looks very good for the driver imo. Pure speculation of course.

Amedias, apologies, however, see my edit. I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of both of your posts.

If the truck driver didn't know he was there, he would have just accelerated over him, if the cyclist had suddenly popped out in front of the truck, then the driver would have braked and probably used his horn, he was aware and keeping pace that could only be deliberate intimidation.

Amedias, apologies, however, see my edit. I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of both of your posts.

Apology accepted, but er, what did you say that might have upset me? I must have missed it! 😀

Things like this are always emotive as generally, as a rule, cyclists have to put up with a lot of crap on the roads and our lives are put at unnecessary risk far too regularly, it's hard for anyone to remain objective and not let past experiences taint you view of the world, and it's hard not to jump to conclusions, but I always try my best to stick to the facts and give people the benefit of the doubt.

No matter what the particulars of this incident, wider media coverage of events like this is only a good thing, hopefully if even one person (truck driver/cyclist/car driver/pedestrian, whatever) gets a better understanding of how dangerous it is around vehicles like this (even exceptionally well driven ones) in an urban environment and modifies their behaviour accordingly then it's worth while in my eyes.

I do know one thing, and that's that if I were the cyclist in that video, I'd be needing new underpants.

Well this is all very civil

Well this is all very civil

Speculation! nothing but wild speculation!

look at the evidence man, we are all seething pots of internet rage underneath!

You addresed me in a post, (I think) and it was only on re-reading it that I realised. I'm apologising for not responding to your post. 🙂

Interestingly the various Joda employees who showed up in the FB comments have all gone very quiet.

I wonder if:
a) the company has told them to shut up, or
b) when they got the story from the driver they realised he was an idiot?

more likely a) I should think, pending a proper lawyer approved 'statement'

Is a made up assumption. I see evidence on the video that both supports and refutes that assertion.

Go on then, what are you seeing which suggests the driver hasn't seen the cyclist?

I wonder if:
a) the company has told them to shut up, or
b) when they got the story from the driver they realised he was an idiot?

I'm going with (a) given that one of them said he'd heard the story and everyone else was wrong (Or words to that effect.)

Yeah that Joda guy was quite vocal earlier on, and posted several times about [i]"needing the facts"[/i], and then later said [i]"I've just had the facts,all I'm gunna say is this video doesn't show all the facts!"[/i] and then went completely quiet.

So I think either those facts were not to his liking, or the company told them all to shut up, or a bit of both.

Be interesting to see how the company manages the damage limitation.

I'm still thinking the "facts" are that the cyclist did something a bit silly - or possibly even slightly aggressive - and the driver decided to "teach him a lesson". I suspect that plenty of other truck drivers would think there was nothing wrong with the driver's actions in that case.

Happy to admit that is all speculation, but still struggling to see a factual interpretation of the evidence we do have in which the truck driver is totally blameless.

It seems to be a fact that you have a very tenuous grasp of what the word 'fact' actually means, Aracer.

Go on then, what are you seeing which suggests the driver hasn't seen the cyclist?

Of course, this is only one side, and I don't dispute the alternative point of view, but that has already been stated plenty. I have an open mind about the whole thing. It would be interesting to find out the truth of the matter.

I am not a lorry driver apologist, but there's been a distinct lack of clarity of thinking on this thread.

Meanwhile, in the US, a driver does a dangerous overtake and then slams on the brakes causing two cyclists to crash into the back of him.

He get convicted of [i]"mayhem; assault with a deadly weapon, his car; battery with serious injury; and reckless driving causing injury."[/i] and gets FIVE years.

-- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/cyclist-sentenced.html

I wonder if it would have even made court here? 😕

the LGVs constant speed and direction apparently regardless of the cyclists presence does at least allow for the possibility that the driver has not seen the cyclist.

It does - but you have to agree it also seems a [i]bit[/i] odd that he would choose to drive at a bike pace, notably slower than the other traffic, when he is in a 40 and there is a big gap ahead of him.

I think the one positive point that we can definitely take from this video is that someone in a motor vehicle (maybe even a white van?) was prepared to film and post the video, and was obviously concerned for the cyclist.

Maybe the increase in vehicle dash cams might actually help cyclists?

I wonder if it would have even made court here?

You think the US looks after its cyclists better than we do? Not in my experience!

GrahamS, It is undoubtedly a bit odd; but we can't see what the lorry driver can (and indeed can't) see. He could just be anticipating the changing conditions ahead; which would actually go some way to explaining how he could of missed something in one of his many mirrors. What I would say is that if the driver DID know the cyclist was there, he should have his licence revoked at the very least, to bring about that situation deliberately would be unforgivable.

You think the US looks after its cyclists better than we do? Not in my experience!

Depends on the state from what I have heard.

But no, I was more just surprised at an actual conviction that reflected he was using the car as a deadly weapon, rather than just treating it as "careless driving".

[quote=v8ninety ]the LGVs constant speed and direction apparently regardless of the cyclists presence does at least allow for the possibility that the driver has not seen the cyclist.

Well it seems you have a rather tenuous grasp of the meaning of "evidence that... refutes".

The long gap between traffic could easily be explained by the much slower acceleration of the lorry, combined with the driver anticipating a potential slowing traffic down the road.

I do find it interesting how those who accuse others of speculation for assuming by far the most likely explanation, when asked for an alternative explanation always seem to propose something so... well...

I do find it interesting how those who accuse others of speculation for assuming by far the most likely explanation, when asked for an alternative explanation always seem to propose something so... well...

[quote=v8ninety ]Lol. You specially ask me to postulate

No, I asked you to provide the evidence which refuted the assertion that he'd seen the cyclist.

I'm not commenting on the relative likelyhoods of the various possibilities, but merely offering an alternative

Ah, well in that case another alternative is that there was an invisible alien spaceship flying directly in front of the truck.

I wish that had been me.

I would have sprinted ahead, stopped, raised two one-finger salutes and ****** off. Possibly also mooned 😀

A remarkable number of people seem to think that it is all fake or photoshopped somehow.

I suppose it is reassuring in a way that they can't believe what they are seeing.

Another Joda guy has shown up in the road.cc Facebook comments. He says he has talked to the driver and:

A couple of things need to be clarified. The cyclist undertook the truck effectively putting himself in the position you see here. Just in front of the truck is a set of traffic lights which are just changing to red so that is where his concentration is at this precise moment. Irrespective of how many mirrors are fitted to a truck due to the human field of vision it is impossible to view them all and maintain a view of the road simultaneously.
So the cyclist has put himself in a very dangerous situation.
All Joda vehicles have cyclist stay back warnings on the rear of the trailer to avoid this very situation.

Did he mention anything about homicidal maniac drivers? Or truck driver organised vendettas against cyclists? No? Totally implausible explanation then. Not worth the bandwidth it was written on.

No real explanation for the truck's low speed though.

The lights may well be red, but the long gap in the traffic suggests the truck has been crawling for a while. And it doesn't account for the eyewitness saying the driver was "looking down at cyclist grinning".

At the moment I'm with aracer's theory on this: the cyclist undertook the truck (which everyone will agree is an idiotic thing to do) and the driver decided to teach him a lesson.

But yeah, the driver may well have been completely oblivious because he was watching the lights rather than his mirrors.

I think the main lesson to be learnt is NEVER UNDERTAKE HGVs, which hopefully most people here already know.

[i]The cyclist undertook the truck effectively putting himself in the position you see here[/i]

Of course they'd say that! I call CYA bullshit

[i]All Joda vehicles have cyclist stay back warnings on the rear of the trailer to avoid this very situation.[/i]
Of course they do.

Anyway, at the time of the video, the cyclist had got in front, so he's passed safely. [more!] The [i]danger[/i] has come from the lorry driver being pissed off that a cyclist has safely got in front and "punishing" him for it.

so the driver admits he knew the cyclist was there then and was deliberately driving like a ****!

Hmm, something in that story doesn't quite add up. Mainly I'm curious if the driver hasn't seen the cyclist, how he knows the cyclist undertook him... and indeed how he subsequently could come up with that amount of detail about an incident he was completely unaware of. That and if the lights are just changing, the truck would have made it through if there wasn't a ~15s gap between the car in front and the truck, which makes hanging back such a long way extremely strange behaviour, and not at all typical of what I see trucks doing (time gap taken from video, from where truck first appears to lights is ~5s at normal speeds approximating from camera car driving past lights, hence if lights are just starting to change truck would already have been well through lights at that point if keeping up).

I acknowledged quite a while ago that it was most likely the cyclist had done something stupid.

"looking down at cyclist grinning".

As I said before; I don't fully subscribe to either possible scenario. There's not enough info to be sure. It just seems right to offer alternative explanations, rather than join in with lynchmobtrackworld... 🙂

I don't think the driver has admitted that he knew he was there. I suspect that the first he knew about the cyclist was an uncomfortable meeting in the bosses office...

That's mental! If he [i]didn't know he was there[/i] he would've driven straight over him!