On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 10:14:15 AM UTC+1, 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 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.


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 is not a fair comparison.
Certainly if you are diving a car on a residential street you have to be prepared for such but where does the driver's responsibility end and the parent's begin?
If you are driving on a NSL road do you slow to walking pace at every side turning or do you expect those joining the main road to cede priority?
At some point you have to expect adults to behave as adults.