Published in Truckstop News August 2017.

In this issue Steven Hinchliffe of the professional drivers’ “go to” Personal Injury specialists Hinchliffes Solicitors considers “CONFLICTS BETWEEN HGV DRIVERS AND CYCLISTS”

HGV drivers, in general, have an unhappy relationship with cyclists.  The problems between the two are particularly evident in towns and cities where there is busy traffic, multiple road junctions and traffic lights, and where traffic often moves on a stop/start basis.  Cyclists can weave amongst vehicles and may seem to appear from nowhere.  Many sensibly wear hi-visibility clothing and comply with road traffic law, but there are some who seem to think that the road and adjoining footpaths are interchangeable, that traffic lights do not apply to them, and that they can dodge in and out at speed with impunity.

For many years trucks have been fitted with signage, warning cyclists not to pass on the inside because of the driver’s difficulty in being able to see them.  Regrettably these warnings have often gone unheeded, giving rise to some HGVs being fitted with CCTV cameras to offer the driver some evidential support if a collision occurs.  Similarly, some cyclists now use helmet cams.

Like all motorists, truck drivers have a duty to drive safely and keep a watchful eye on other road users, but how far does this responsibility extend?

In February 2017 the Court of Appeal considered a case where a cyclist had been run over by a HGV.  This was not a case handled by my firm, but I felt it was sufficiently important to examine its implications for professional drivers.

A female cyclist was approaching a hump back bridge in Ellesmere Port in May 2011.  Ahead of her at traffic lights was a stationary HGV waiting to turn left and signalling accordingly.  There were two lanes approaching the traffic lights and as the left turn was tight the HGV straddled both lanes, to give the driver more turning room.  There was nothing wrong with this and it is a common practice.

The lights turned green and the driver of the HGV checked his nearside mirrors.  At that time he could not see the cyclist, although it was accepted at the trial that she was in the nearside lane.  The HGV moved off, and to help with his turning angle the driver initially moved a little to his right before starting the left turn.  Behind the HGV was a car, and as the HGV commenced its left turn the cyclist undertook the car on its nearside and a collision occurred with the HGV in which the cyclist suffered severe injuries.  It was accepted that at all times the HGV was signalling a left turn.

The cyclist made a claim for compensation against the driver of the HGV for her injuries.  The claim was defended and at the initial trial she had no recollection of the accident.  It was assumed by the judge that even if she had seen the indicators, she may have been misled into thinking that the vehicle was actually turning right because of its initial movement to the right.  The HGV driver confirmed that when he set off he could not see the cyclist in his nearside mirrors, and had assumed that at that time she may have been on the other side of the hump back bridge.  The judge found the HGV driver to have been negligent in failing to see the cyclist and awarded her compensation.

The decision was appealed, however the Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s view and went on to state that not only was the HGV driver under a duty to check his mirrors when he set off (which he did), but that he had a continuing duty to check again as he carried out the manoeuvre.  The driver’s lawyers argued that this was a “counsel of perfection”, ie it set the standard of his duty of care to other road users at too high a level, but the Court of Appeal rejected this argument.

The crucial decision of the Court was that as HGV drivers are well aware that cyclists often undertake on the nearside, they have a duty to take extra care when manoeuvring.  Neither the initial trial judge, nor the Court of Appeal felt that the HGV driver had a duty to be constantly rechecking his nearside mirrors, but the fact that he did not do so again immediately before moving to his left was critical and found to be the cause of the accident.  The cyclist did not escape criticism and her actions were found to have contributed 30% to the outcome, and she therefore only recovered 70% of the compensation assessed by the Court.

I anticipate that opinion will be divided on the outcome of this case, but as the HGV driver is in control of a vehicle that can do far more harm to a cycle and its rider than the cyclist can do to the truck, it seems reasonable to assume that in similar situations the Courts will favour the position of the cyclist.

Steven Hinchliffe, solicitor and Principal of Hinchliffes Solicitors

© Copyright 2017 Hinchliffes Solicitors

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM SOLICITORS:-

If you have suffered any form of accident or contracted an industrial disease contact personal injury claims specialists Hinchliffes Solicitors for immediate legal advice, to find out if you are entitled to make a claim for personal injury compensation.  All cases are conducted on a No Win No Fee and No Risk basis.

Call now on 01684 580900 to speak direct to one of our specialist claims lawyers or go to our Start Your Claim  page to submit details of your accident compensation claim online.

If you would like to know what your injury claim may be worth, please go to our Value Your Injury page.

Confused by the claims process?  Please look at our extensive FAQs.

The post CONFLICTS BETWEEN HGV DRIVERS AND CYCLISTS appeared first on Hinchliffes Solicitors.