# Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?



## Cycling Dan (6 Apr 2014)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOkhwFCEf4A



Reading the description from the uploaded. Apparently the insurance lay sole blame onto the cyclist since he couldn't stop in time and it was no longer a cycle lane and should have stopped then proceed. Which I think is moronic.


----------



## TissoT (6 Apr 2014)

Who s driving the car "Ray Charles" .... driving without due care and attention . I would say


----------



## sight-pin (6 Apr 2014)

I agree with tissot, It's clear to see that their is plenty of room the other side of the box junction so no need to stop with the cars, The car driver should of checked all was clear first imo.
As for the cycle lane not being there, surly a bike using a road so same driving laws apply as the vehicles....no?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> Reading the description from the uploaded. Apparently the insurance lay sole blame onto the cyclist since he couldn't stop in time and it was no longer a cycle lane and should have stopped then proceed. Which I think is moronic.



Insurance company is talking shíte to protect itself, what a surprise. 

GC


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Apr 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Insurance company is talking shíte to protect itself, what a surprise.
> 
> GC


Indeed. They do not care who is at faulty. They just want to avoid paying out.


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Apr 2014)

The cycling lane is there isn't it - right across the junction, not that that has anything to do with it. The driver is 100% at fault.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Apr 2014)

Nobber-driver has nobber-insurer.


----------



## Colin B (6 Apr 2014)

OK let me play devils advocate here for a second . The cyclist is clearly behind d the motorcycle rider and he is behind a car . The car in front of the motorcycle applies his breaks and I'm speculating he has flashed the car waiting to turn right at the junction , the motorcycle rider has anticipated this and slowed down . The cyclist has come from behind d the rider and continued forwards not reducing his speed and gets smacked by the car . 
The insurance probably used the unable to stop cos of his speed because all the other road users in the video managed to do so 
Anyways just put it out there and not saying its my opinion


----------



## theclaud (6 Apr 2014)

Colin B said:


> OK let me play devils advocate here for a second



Driver's fault. No question whatever. It never ceases to amaze me, the knots people will tie themselves in to avoid the bleedin' obvious.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Apr 2014)

Colin B said:


> OK let me play devils advocate here for a second . The cyclist is clearly behind d the motorcycle rider and he is behind a car . The car in front of the motorcycle applies his breaks and I'm speculating he has flashed the car waiting to turn right at the junction , the motorcycle rider has anticipated this and slowed down . The cyclist has come from behind d the rider and continued forwards not reducing his speed and gets smacked by the car .
> The insurance probably used the unable to stop cos of his speed because all the other road users in the video managed to do so
> Anyways just put it out there and not saying its my opinion


 
Assuming your version is right: the driver that flashed the other car on is a contributing negligent party for encouraging the maneuver that lead to the collision without ensuring every other road user was aware of and in agreement with their unilateral decision. Advanced driving courses do not advocate any sort of flashed light 'come on' as it encourages people to think one persons reading of the situation gives them carte blanche over everyone else when it does nothing of the sort and they still have to be aware of all road users.


----------



## Andy_R (6 Apr 2014)

Colin B said:


> OK let me play devils advocate here for a second . The cyclist is clearly behind d the motorcycle rider and he is behind a car . The car in front of the motorcycle applies his breaks and I'm speculating he has flashed the car waiting to turn right at the junction , the motorcycle rider has anticipated this and slowed down . The cyclist has come from behind d the rider and continued forwards not reducing his speed and gets smacked by the car .
> The insurance probably used the unable to stop cos of his speed because all the other road users in the video managed to do so
> Anyways just put it out there and not saying its my opinion


Let me play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate. The cycle lane has not come to an end, and as can be seen, was clear ahead. The driver and the motorcyclist were in a different lane which was blocked ahead. The cycle lane was not blocked, so there was no need for the cyclist to stop.


----------



## Colin B (6 Apr 2014)

OK but from the cyclist POV can he see the other lanes ahead are blocked or does he just see vehicles slowing to a stop for whatever reason . I agree with the flashing thing and as a rule I never do it , but when I see brake lights coming on ahead of me I start thinking why and use caution as I approach and I plan to do likewise on a cycle .
All I'm saying here is a broker would have said all the other vehicles stopped and that's how they'll blame the cyclists because they can say his speed mea t he was unable to safely stop because the video clearly shows vehicles ahead of him stopping for something , but hey he its sunday I'm not here for a bar brawl enjoy your day


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Apr 2014)

Colin B said:


> OK but from the cyclist POV can he see the other lanes ahead are blocked or does he just see vehicles slowing to a stop for whatever reason . I agree with the flashing thing and as a rule I never do it , but when I see brake lights coming on ahead of me I start thinking why and use caution as I approach and I plan to do likewise on a cycle .
> All I'm saying here is a broker would have said all the other vehicles stopped and that's how they'll blame the cyclists because they can say his speed mea t he was unable to safely stop because the video clearly shows vehicles ahead of him stopping for something , but hey he its sunday I'm not here for a bar brawl enjoy your day


It's also a yellow box junction and a backlog of traffic. Nothing to say there is any suprise apart from a car not entering a yellow box junction.
Regardless the car is moving across two lanes and is soloy responsible for getting across without coming into conflict


----------



## Steady (6 Apr 2014)

Whilst I agree the car is at fault as it should be their responsibility to ensure it's safe to proceed, it's evident that the cyclist was travelling way to fast for their own safety. Traffic lights ahead turn red, brake lights are on, not only a large gap infront but no space ahead for the leading car to proceed forward = a high chance of a car turning from the opposite side, all cues missed. 

I think with the vast numbers of people cycling to work there should be some work/Gov scheme to get cyclists into training as the amount of cyclists with little road awareness or forward anticipation is very quickly increasing in numbers. A large number of cyclists see a road and are trying to cycle as fast as they can and usually into dangerous situations where any other road-vehicle would ease off and slow down, and exercise caution.


----------



## theclaud (6 Apr 2014)

Steady said:


> Whilst I agree the car is at fault as it should be their responsibility to ensure it's safe to proceed, *it's evident that the cyclist was travelling way to fast for their own safety*. Traffic lights ahead turn red, brake lights are on, not only a large gap infront but no space ahead for the leading car to proceed forward = a high chance of a car turning from the opposite side, all cues missed.
> 
> I think with the vast numbers of people cycling to work there should be some work/Gov scheme to get cyclists into training as the amount of cyclists with little road awareness or forward anticipation is very quickly increasing in numbers. A large number of cyclists see a road and are trying to cycle as fast as they can and usually into dangerous situations where any other road-vehicle would ease off and slow down, and exercise caution.



No it isn't. Like @User30090 above, I would suggest that the driver's fault here is a common one, and it's advisable to anticipate this kind of thing. However, if motorists take the responsibility that they should, then pedestrians and cyclists can exploit their natural advantages in an urban situation and get about less hindered by the dangerous driving of others. This implies, of course, a concomitant responsibility upon cyclists to take more responsibility around pedestrians, but that can only be a good thing.


----------



## Exile (6 Apr 2014)

For all the "could've, should've" that's being banded about here, I can't help but wonder if the insurance decision would have been the same had it been two lanes of cars the driver was crossing and had a car v car smash rather than car v bike. Also wonder how accepting of the insurers decision the motorcyclist would've been if it had been a right turning car flashed out of the side road which then knocked him off.

The long and short of it is that it's a drivers responsibility to ensure each manoeuvre they make is carried out safely. Just because another driver flashes to say they're letting you turn across them doesn't mean it's safe to do so right at that moment. Whatever the cyclist could have done in the lead up to this collision in order to avoid it really doesn't have any bearing on who's responsible. After all, we could all remove the risk of being involved in a collision if we stayed at home all the time.


----------



## Feastie (6 Apr 2014)

I agree it's a ridiculous decision re: the laws of the road. The driver turned across a flow of traffic which had right of way, and did so without checking it was safe. The existence or not of a cycle lane is irrelevant because a cyclist is not being 'unsafe' simple by virtue of not being in a bike lane, that would be lunacy.

Although on a human level (and assuming there is no cycle lane to give the driver a clue) you do wonder in terms of visibility whether it's reasonable for the driver to have seen the cyclist under those circumstances. Seems like they're filtering along beside a load of cars at some speed and it would have to be quite a hypervigilant driver who'd spotted him or her come into their vision in time to react. I'm not sure if _I_ would have spotted that guy until the last moment if I were driving. The cyclist has hopefully also learnt a lesson from this in the sense that you can't be confident and look after yourself when you don't know if people can see you. Popping out at speed from behind a row of stationary cars is unwise to say the least. What he did was within the law but the law and self-preservation aren't the same thing sometimes. At least that's my experience.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Apr 2014)

Feastie said:


> ... it would have to be quite a hypervigilant driver who'd spotted him or her come into their vision in time to react. I'm not sure if _I_ would have spotted that guy until the last moment if I were driving.




No need for hypervigilance. If the driver had paused even briefly, rather than swinging through the turn as though nothing were coming, normal vigilance would have revealed the cyclist.


GC


----------



## PK99 (6 Apr 2014)

Almost an exact re run of my smidsy - except i was going *much *slower than the cyclist shown here.

Insurance company accepted liability immediately - £10k payout.
Magistrate court on careless driving: Case dismissed
Guy defended himself and the prosecuting solicitor was a total drip who could hardly string s sensible or coherent question together.


----------



## clockman (6 Apr 2014)

Feastie said:


> I agree it's a ridiculous decision re: the laws of the road. The driver turned across a flow of traffic which had right of way, and did so without checking it was safe. The existence or not of a cycle lane is irrelevant because a cyclist is not being 'unsafe' simple by virtue of not being in a bike lane, that would be lunacy.
> 
> Although on a human level (and assuming there is no cycle lane to give the driver a clue) you do wonder in terms of visibility whether it's reasonable for the driver to have seen the cyclist under those circumstances. Seems like they're filtering along beside a load of cars at some speed and it would have to be quite a hypervigilant driver who'd spotted him or her come into their vision in time to react. I'm not sure if _I_ would have spotted that guy until the last moment if I were driving. The cyclist has hopefully also learnt a lesson from this in the sense that you can't be confident and look after yourself when you don't know if people can see you. Popping out at speed from behind a row of stationary cars is unwise to say the least. What he did was within the law but the law and self-preservation aren't the same thing sometimes. At least that's my experience.



Totally agree. I think, that as a cyclist I would have been slowing. The driver of the car obviously didn't see the cyclist and obviously wasn't aware of the cycle lane he was also crossing. As far as I'm aware, it is the driver turning right in that instance, that has to make sure it is safe to do so, especially with the traffic which will be obscuring their visibility.
It would seem that the insurance company is looking for a way out. I'd look up the relevant yellow box junction rule in the highway code and quote it to them.


----------



## downfader (6 Apr 2014)

Colin B said:


> OK let me play devils advocate here for a second . The cyclist is clearly behind d the motorcycle rider and he is behind a car . The car in front of the motorcycle applies his breaks and I'm speculating he has flashed the car waiting to turn right at the junction , the motorcycle rider has anticipated this and slowed down . The cyclist has come from behind d the rider and continued forwards not reducing his speed and gets smacked by the car .
> The insurance probably used the unable to stop cos of his speed because all the other road users in the video managed to do so
> Anyways just put it out there and not saying its my opinion



To a lot of older drivers flashing your headlights is still a warning measure... and iirc it is still listed as a warning in the Highway Code.


----------



## Colin B (6 Apr 2014)

downfader said:


> To a lot of older drivers flashing your headlights is still a warning measure... and iirc it is still listed as a warning in the Highway Code.


Agree and that's why I don't acknowledge it nor do it , but I was speculating on that part the driver could have simply stopped because he thought he might block the box .


----------



## classic33 (6 Apr 2014)

110.*Flashing headlights.* Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

111. Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal for you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

I've never known flashing headlights to have had any other meaning given to them in the Highway Code, other than advising other road users of your presence.


----------



## Wobblers (6 Apr 2014)

Helmet: *check*
Hi-viz: *check*
Lights: *check*
Cockwomble who doesn't see cyclist _despite all the above_: *check*.

100% the fault of the motorist, despite his insurance company's protestations. You are required to check for oncoming traffic when making a right turn _and yield to them_. The cyclist needs to get himself a solicitor: it'll most likely encourage the insurers to pay up rather than incur expensive legal bills when they know they can't win.

A dishonourable mention needs to go to the cycle lane here. Traffic was slow moving: the safe place for the cyclist was in the traffic stream. Instead, the cycle lane funneled him into the junction, encouraging exactly this sort of conflict. And it would probably have made it harder for the cockwomble to spot the cyclist - though that certainly is no excuse for not bothering to look.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Apr 2014)

McWobble said:


> Helmet: *check*
> Hi-viz: *check*
> Lights: *check*
> Cockwomble who doesn't see cyclist _despite all the above_: *check*.



I'd add just one more to that: it was broad feckin' daylight!

GC


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Apr 2014)

We can talk all day about the benefits of anticipating incidents like this, but it's beside the point. The driver was wholly at fault for the collision.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Apr 2014)

Exile said:


> For all the "could've, should've" that's being banded about here, I can't help but wonder if the insurance decision would have been the same had it been two lanes of cars the driver was crossing and had a car v car smash rather than car v bike. Also wonder how accepting of the insurers decision the motorcyclist would've been if it had been a right turning car flashed out of the side road which then knocked him off.
> 
> The long and short of it is that it's a drivers responsibility to ensure each manoeuvre they make is carried out safely. Just because another driver flashes to say they're letting you turn across them doesn't mean it's safe to do so right at that moment. Whatever the cyclist could have done in the lead up to this collision in order to avoid it really doesn't have any bearing on who's responsible. After all, we could all remove the risk of being involved in a collision if we stayed at home all the time.



^^This^^

What the insurer is implying is that there is only a flow of singular traffic. Or in other words, cyclists should never filter.

Insurer's decision means jack in terms of right and wrong. I do hope the cyclist has/had a good solicitor as they should/would tear another hole in the insurer's ass if it went to court.

As we have more and more cyclists on the roads, in the short term more of this (accidents) will happen but might actually reduce longer term as car drivers get used to cyclists.


----------



## PK99 (6 Apr 2014)

400bhp said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> Or in other words, cyclists should never filter.
> 
> I.




There is a difference between filtering and undertaking at speed. 
The driver was in the wrong, but, from the video evidence, the cyclist was injudicious in his choice of speed - an event such as occurred is eminently possible at junctions like that


----------



## marzjennings (6 Apr 2014)

Driver is at fault and it's clear the cycle lane continues across the junction. I think, as mentioned, the insurance company is trying to pull a fast one.


----------



## Schneil (6 Apr 2014)

The driver's insurance company will of course deny any claim or payout initially.
However the final decision on who is at fault does not lie with them, but with the courts.
I'm assuming the cyclist has instructed a solicitor and no doubt they will be proceeding to the next stage, which is to take the insurance company to the civil courts.
A civil case only needs to be won on the balance of probabilities, and there's video evidence in this case.
IMHO the court would rule it's the drivers fault. So the insurance company once given a court date will likely settle the claim.


----------



## Wobblers (6 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> There is a difference between filtering and undertaking at speed.
> The driver was in the wrong, but, from the video evidence, the cyclist was injudicious in his choice of speed - an event such as occurred is eminently possible at junctions like that



The cyclist was in a cycling lane. It this thus rather difficult to argue that he was undertaking.

Nor does his speed seem unduly high.


----------



## Schneil (7 Apr 2014)

McWobble said:


> The cyclist was in a cycling lane. It this thus rather difficult to argue that he was undertaking.
> 
> Nor does his speed seem unduly high.


Agreed. The cyclist was in a clearly marked cycle lane, so the driver should have checked for a cyclist before completing the manoeuvre. (The think cyclist poster reminds drivers of this).


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

Schneil said:


> *The driver's insurance company will of course deny any claim or payout initially.*
> However the final decision on who is at fault does not lie with them, but with the courts.
> I'm assuming the cyclist has instructed a solicitor and no doubt they will be proceeding to the next stage, which is to take the insurance company to the civil courts.
> A civil case only needs to be won on the balance of probabilities, and there's video evidence in this case.
> *IMHO the court would rule it's the drivers fault.* So the insurance company once given a court date will likely settle the claim.



As i pointed out in an earlier post, my smidsy was almost an exact carbon copy in term of road positioning: Insurance company accepted lability instantly, only issue was waiting till injuries resolved to sort out amount, but court dismissed the careless driving case against the driver. My insurance agreement in principle came before the decision to prosecute.

Those are facts, your post is opinion.


----------



## Labradorofperception (7 Apr 2014)

That's Woodhouse Lane in Leeds - one of the most heavily used and clearly marked cycle lanes in the city. To be honest, it's usually filled with private hire cabs and the charvers using the take away.

It's clearly marked and a continuation of a well used and obvious cycle lane. The driver should have anticipated cyclists and it is also downhill so the cyclist will be picking up speed anyway.

IMHO driver's faulty all the way - for the same reason they made a road one way further up in Headingley after numerous asshats turned right into cyclists.


----------



## CopperBrompton (7 Apr 2014)

The cyclist was being a bit dozy in not wondering why there was a gap in the traffic, but I'd say the car driver here is 100% liable.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

The cyclist can ride as fast has he likes, within the bounds of furious cycling.
The cyclist can filter as much has he likes.

The nobber-driver drove like a nobber-driver drives. Anyone who attaches any blame to the cyclist is probably a nobber-driver themselves who has yet to be re-educated to understand that might is not right and that the nobber driver is totally 100% at fault for this collision.

The insurance company will be populated by nobber-drivers and our courts are full of 'em too. That CycleChat is too distresses me.


----------



## cd365 (7 Apr 2014)

The driver was at fault, as others have said I hope he has a solicitor and gets it sorted.


----------



## Custom24 (7 Apr 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The insurance company will be populated by nobber-drivers and our courts are full of 'em too. That CycleChat is too distresses me.


Some of these CycleChat members may ride like they drive, in that they remain able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, and which can be reasonably be expected to remain so.
Are you saying this guideline ought no to apply to cyclists?


----------



## Leodis (7 Apr 2014)

I thought it you wore HiViz you would be seen? Shocking, I bet if he wore black he would have been seen 

Obvious it was the driver at fault for presuming the road was clear, the cycle lane is clearly marked. tbh the cyclist should have spotted it, he/she just didnt until the impact.


----------



## gaz (7 Apr 2014)

Highway code rule 183 " When turning give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction."


----------



## GrasB (7 Apr 2014)

Custom24 said:


> Some of these CycleChat members may ride like they drive, in that they remain able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, and which can be reasonably be expected to remain so.
> Are you saying this guideline ought no to apply to cyclists?


But what is 'clear'. The cyclist failed to anticipate the s**t driving by the motorist, this failure resulted in the cyclist being unable to stop in time only after their clear distance was dramatically reduced. The cyclist no doubt could easily have stopped in the distance they saw to be clear right up until a motorist decided to reduce that distance by an order of magnitude!


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

Getting away from the legalistic issue of fault, how would you advise that cyclist, or other cyclists, to use that junction in future?

Barrel along at speed as this guy did
or
Approach with caution, anticipating potential error by ano driver, rider or cyclist turning across the box junction?


----------



## NorvernRob (7 Apr 2014)

It's the drivers fault from an insurance liability point of view, he turned right across other lanes and didn't have right of way.

However, as a driver and cyclist I wouldn't have gone across the junction at the speed the cyclist did. It wasn't his fault, but had he been more cautious passing stationary traffic at a junction he wouldn't have gone flying into the side of the car.

There's a woman who lives across the road from me, she's had 7 or 8 car accidents - none of them actually her fault technically, but all could have easily been avoided had she got any road awareness whatsoever. Some cyclists are the same. Just because you have right of way doesn't mean nobody is going to put you in danger, and 'it wasn't my fault' doesn't help you when you're under a car.


----------



## Leodis (7 Apr 2014)

All with the exception of Rosa members and myself are numpties on the roads, you have to expect the unexpected and ride with a war face


----------



## HLaB (7 Apr 2014)

Maybe the cyclist could have adopted a defensive cycling technique but only one person is 100% to blame and I'll give you a clue its the one with five wheels!


----------



## Archie_tect (7 Apr 2014)

Do not enter box unless your exit is clear... where you can see the road ahead is blocked by traffic you should approach yellow hazard boxes with caution and not assume the way is clear *especially* when you can't see the cars on the other side of the road at the box junction.


----------



## Schneil (7 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> As i pointed out in an earlier post, my smidsy was almost an exact carbon copy in term of road positioning: Insurance company accepted lability instantly, only issue was waiting till injuries resolved to sort out amount, but court dismissed the careless driving case against the driver. My insurance agreement in principle came before the decision to prosecute.
> 
> Those are facts, your post is opinion.



There is a difference in the burden of proof between criminal and civil law.
In your case the insurance company admitted liablity as they would have lost a civil case - the burden of proof is the "balance of probabilities".
The careless driving would be a criminal charge. To be prsecuted in criminal law, it has to be "beyond reasonable doubt". 
So that's why the insurance company backed down, but the criminal case was unsuccessful.


----------



## gaz (7 Apr 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> It's the drivers fault from an insurance liability point of view, he turned right across other lanes and didn't have* right of way*.


You mean priority. Using right of way in that context is incorrect. Right of way is a term that is used to describe if you have right to use that way. e.g. pedestrians have right of way on the footpath. pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have right of way on bridal paths. It does not mean you have more right than others, just that you can use it. As such, both the cyclist and the motorist had right of way. I.e. right to use the road.

The cyclist had priority over the car turning right who should have given way to the cyclist. The cyclist, if cycling with more care, could have conceded their priority and given way to the car.


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

gaz said:


> The cyclist had priority over the car turning right who should have given way to the cyclist. The cyclist, if cycling with more care, could have conceded their priority and given way to the car.



HWC:
*1. Overview*
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. T*he rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance,* _but they advise you when you should give way to others._ Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


----------



## Tony Smith (7 Apr 2014)

Driver 100%. He failed to keep proper look-out


----------



## snorri (7 Apr 2014)

The driver was on the wrong side of the centre line as she entered the side road too, so in need of driver training on at least two counts.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> Getting away from the legalistic issue of fault, how would you advise that cyclist, or other cyclists, to use that junction in future?
> 
> Barrel along at speed as this guy did
> or
> Approach with caution, anticipating potential error by ano driver, rider or cyclist turning across the box junction?


They should stay home and ride a turbo thus avoiding any and all risk of a collision at that location caused by nobber-drivers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

Philosophical question

'if a grand piano were to drop for the sky and land on a law abiding road-going cyclist would some nobber-drivers in this forum still blame the cyclist for cycling there?'


----------



## glenn forger (7 Apr 2014)

Driver 100% liable and 100% inattentive, cyclist 100% not liable but 11.43% Not Very Sensible.

The end, plz lock thread.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

Custom24 said:


> Some of these CycleChat members may ride like they drive, in that they remain able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, *and which can be reasonably be expected to remain so*.
> Are you saying this guideline ought no to apply to cyclists?


That bit in bold, which nobber-driver taught you that? The Road Traffic Acts and the Highway Code, and RoadCraft manuals and IAM 'instruction' iirc make no mention of reasonable expectations.
-and-

If we allow this reasonable expectation mentalism to prevail is it not a reasonable expectation from the cyclist that the the nobber driver won't turn right across the path of another road user unless said nobber is CERTAIN it is safe to do so?

Or should all road users, on seeing the right hand indicators on an oncoming car light up simply stop dead on the basis one can be reasonably certain that the oncoming car is operated by a nobber-driver?


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> They should stay home and ride a turbo thus avoiding any and all risk of a collision at that location caused by nobber-drivers.



No, they should go out and ride according to the wise guidance of John Franklin in Cyclecraft (at such junctions) ....always ensure that you leave yourself a sufficient margin of error for the aggressive driver who flouts all the rules....


----------



## vickster (7 Apr 2014)

Being knocked off hurts regardless of who is at fault.
Ride cautiously in light of the prevailing conditions. I unfortunately didn't see the driver coming so couldn't take evasive action.
Frankly knowing that he was at fault doesn't stop my leg hurting nor help me sleep better at night. Pretty grumpy about it all right now!

Currently reading cyclecraft, an excellent book IMO


----------



## 400bhp (7 Apr 2014)

GrasB said:


> But what is 'clear'. The cyclist failed to anticipate the s**t driving by the motorist, this failure resulted in the cyclist being unable to stop in time only after their clear distance was dramatically reduced. The cyclist no doubt could easily have stopped in the distance they saw to be clear right up until a motorist decided to reduce that distance by an order of magnitude!



And, the cyclist wasn't going particularly quick.


----------



## Custom24 (7 Apr 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Philosophical question
> 
> 'if a grand piano were to drop for the sky and land on a law abiding road-going cyclist would some nobber-drivers in this forum still blame the cyclist for cycling there?'


No one blamed the cyclist.


----------



## vickster (7 Apr 2014)

No


----------



## NorvernRob (7 Apr 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Philosophical question
> 
> 'if a grand piano were to drop for the sky and land on a law abiding road-going cyclist would some nobber-drivers in this forum still blame the cyclist for cycling there?'



That would be a completely unforeseen, surprising event. There's no way anyone could avoid it.

A car turning right in front of you isn't surprising or unexpected in the slightest, and the cyclist in the video could quite easily have avoided running into the car. If I drove like he cycled I'd have regular crashes but I don't, I expect people to turn in front of me, pull out on me etc and that's why I've never had a car accident.

It wasn't the cyclists _fault _but he most certainly could have avoided it and saved himself some pain just by being aware of the situation and what could happen.


----------



## Garethgas (7 Apr 2014)

The cyclist seems to be inexperienced to me. Blame is somewhat irrelevant.
Had the cyclist been more experienced, he would have anticipated the possibility of someone turning right.
In fairness to the driver, he only had a few seconds to see the cyclist zoom from the inside of the lane. 
Had the cyclist been a bit more sensible he would have slowed down and been in a position to stop sooner.
I do agree though that it was the driver who was in the wrong
But being right is a fool's epitaph


----------



## format (7 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> But being right is a fool's epitaph



Being right also matters in terms of compensation. If you wreck your bike in a crash that wasn't your fault, then being right matters quite a bit.


----------



## Rouge79 (7 Apr 2014)

Legally and morally the car driver is at fault.

However some crap riding by the cyclist. He has passed both the motorcycle and car whose brake lights have come on. I know whenever i'm in that situation i will always slow down. 

Being in the right or staying alive?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> No, they should go out and ride according to the wise guidance of John Franklin in Cyclecraft (at such junctions) ....always ensure that you leave yourself a sufficient margin of error for the aggressive driver who flouts all the rules....


precisely. Ride a turbo.


----------



## Labradorofperception (7 Apr 2014)

I drove past that spot on the way home tonight and paused to look at it. For a car turning right, you have a good view of the opposite bike lane - riders are framed nicely in front of the white walls of the Packhorse pub. also, note another cyclist immediately behind in the splat - it's a busy bike lane.

Basically, to fail to see a rider takes a lot of doing. Also, it is box junction, the gap is expected and the traffic stops for a pelican a little further down, then a full set of lights and traffic is generally slow there. The Brake lights will be on and off all the time, no real indicator sadly.


----------



## vickster (7 Apr 2014)

If it's a busy potentially risky junction, all the more reason to be cautious


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

Best bet? Drive to work, or at least get the bus.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Apr 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> That would be a completely unforeseen, surprising event. There's no way anyone could avoid it.
> 
> A car turning right in front of you isn't surprising or unexpected in the slightest, and the cyclist in the video could quite easily have avoided running into the car. If I drove like he cycled I'd have regular crashes but I don't, I expect people to turn in front of me, pull out on me etc and that's why I've never had a car accident.
> 
> It wasn't the cyclists _fault _but he most certainly could have avoided it and saved himself some pain just by being aware of the situation and what could happen.


SMIDSYs are foreseeable and unsurprising


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Apr 2014)

Is a cycle lane legally its own lane or not. I cant find anything in the highway code and I am unsure. 
I thought that a cycle lane was like any other lane.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Apr 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> SMIDSYs are foreseeable and unsurprising


I disagree

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvVouuH4tLQ


----------



## vickster (7 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> Is a cycle lane legally its own lane or not. I cant find anything in the highway code and I am unsure.
> I thought that a cycle lane was like any other lane.


That one has a broken line so cars are allowed to enter, solid white line they are not. I'd say it's part of the left hand lane


----------



## snorri (7 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> In fairness to the driver, he only had a few seconds to see the cyclist zoom from the inside of the lane.


......but the cyclist did not "zoom from the inside of the lane", the cyclist was occupying the lane that is marked for the use of cyclists. It was the driver who "zoomed " through the box and crossed the cycle lane without checking for traffic in the lane, and failed to enter the side road on the appropriate side of the road markings.Things could easily have been worse had there been a vehicle approaching the junction from the side road.
I can't understand why you should want to plead for fairness to a driver who showed a disregard for road traffic law and a callous disregard for the safety of other road users.


----------



## Garethgas (7 Apr 2014)

snorri said:


> ......but the cyclist did not "zoom from the inside of the lane", the cyclist was occupying the lane that is marked for the use of cyclists. It was the driver who "zoomed " through the box and crossed the cycle lane without checking for traffic in the lane, and failed to enter the side road on the appropriate side of the road markings.Things could easily have been worse had there been a vehicle approaching the junction from the side road.
> *I can't understand why you should feel any need to plea for fairness to a driver who showed a disregard for road traffic law and a callous disregard for the safety of other road users*.



It's quite simple really.
My interest is in self preservation not self righteousness. I (and I'm sure many others) would never have put myself in that position.
I've already agreed that he motorist was at fault but my point was that the cyclist could/should have adjusted his speed accordingly.
I am always having to compensate for others' shortcomings, it's how I survive.
I know it shouldn't be but it just seems to be a fact of life.


----------



## theclaud (7 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3016560, member: 9609"]It is a question I would love to know the answer too; How many accidents involving two vehicles (bikes, cars, vans, lorries) could have been completely avoided had the person who was not technically to blame had been a better and more observant driver/rider?[/QUOTE]

_Technically? _

I confess I'm baffled by the logic.


----------



## theclaud (7 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3016593, member: 9609"]you know exactly what I mean - to blame within the rules of the highway code.
We're all human and we all make mistakes, a good driver / rider anticipates when other road users are likely to get it wrong.

example, driving along a road at 30 mph you see a child running along the pavement.... technically if that child suddenly runs out the driver is not to blame. But what terrible driving not to have slowed or moved away from the kerb in anticipation[/QUOTE]

Of course drivers are to blame if they run children over. There's no "technically" about it.


----------



## snorri (7 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> I've already agreed that he motorist was at fault but my point was that the cyclist could/should have adjusted his speed accordingly.I am always having to compensate for others' shortcomings, it's how I survive.
> I know it shouldn't be but it just seems to be a fact of life.


It was your call for "fairness" towards the driver that caused me to post.


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> _Technically? _
> 
> I confess I'm baffled by the logic.



In my smidsy in almost the exact same circumstances, had I been more observant and not assumed the box junction would be respected I would not have missed 6 months cycling and would not have needed months of physio. Better observation on my part, and the errant driver would not have hit me. Technically I did nothing wrong, but ........


----------



## theclaud (7 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> In my smidsy in almost the exact same circumstances, had I been more observant and not assumed the box junction would be respected I would not have missed 6 months cycling and would not have needed months of physio. Better observation on my part, and the errant driver would not have hit me. Technically I did nothing wrong, but ........



You seem to imagine that I don't grasp the point. I understand perfectly well - I just happen to find the attitude abject and self-abasing. If we don't communicate the expectation that drivers will take responsibility for the danger they present to others, they will feel justified in not taking that responsibility, and continue to expect us to make allowances for their behaviour. Most drivers don't actually want to kill us, but they would quite like us to get out of their way. The trick is not to oblige.


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> You seem to imagine that I don't grasp the point. I understand perfectly well - I just happen to find the attitude abject and self-abasing. If we don't communicate the expectation that drivers will take responsibility for the danger they present to others, they will feel justified in not taking that responsibility, and continue to expect us to make allowances for their behaviour. Most drivers don't actually want to kill us, but they would quite like us to get out of their way. The trick is not to oblige.



Do I take it then, that you would advise the cyclist in the video, or other cyclists, to in future approach the junction as he did?


----------



## theclaud (7 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> Do I take it then, that *you would advise the cyclist in the video, or other cyclists, to in future approach the junction as he did?*





theclaud said:


> Like @User30090 above, I would suggest that the driver's fault here is a common one, and *it's advisable to anticipate this kind of thing*.



Anticipating poor driving is a useful ability, not a condition of being allowed out. What he does about it is his call. I would save my instructions for the driver.


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Anticipating poor driving is a useful ability, not a condition of being allowed out. What he does about it is his call. I would save my instructions for the driver.



You are ducking the question, how would you advise a cyclist to approach that junction: barreling along or with caution?


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2014)

User said:


> What do we know of how the cyclist approached the junction?



From the video we know that the cyclist approached at significant speed and that when the car's front wheels entered the box the cyclist was at least one car length back from the front of the queue of cars


----------



## theclaud (8 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> You are ducking the question, how would you advise a cyclist to approach that junction: barreling along or with caution?



I'd advise him, should he be of the very small "What Would TeeCee Do?" school of cycling, that expecting drivers to behave more responsibly inevitably entails occasional disappointment, but is nonetheless worthwhile. It's not really my concern what he does with the advice - perhaps he'd get himself up like Traffic Droid and start on miscreants; or maybe hone his awareness, mechanical control and traffic skills until he is a swift and agile urban rider; or perhaps he'd shrug his shoulders and potter along harmlessly in the cycle lane as before. Who cares? Stop tolerating drivers hitting and maiming people, and it ceases to matter.


----------



## theclaud (8 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> From the video we know that the cyclist approached at significant speed



Significant speed? He's hardly @Origamist. The guy was pretty much ambling along.


----------



## theclaud (8 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3016683, member: 9609"]Out of curiosity, if you could see a very drunk person climbing into a car,* would you cycle along the road he was about to drive*, happy in the knowledge that if he killed you it would not be your fault.[/QUOTE]

No - I'd ring the old bill.


----------



## Wobblers (8 Apr 2014)

For those who are keen to declaim that the cyclist was travelling "too fast": exactly how fast was he going?

The impact was not that severe: from the video clip it seems to have been at less than 10 mph. Had it been much more, the cyclist would not have bounced down the side of the car, but instead would have broken the side windows at the very least. The cyclist yelled a second before the collision - it can reasonably be assumed that this is the time in which he perceived his path to be blocked. You're not going to be able to scrub off much speed in that second (a few mph at most). In short, I see no evidence for "significant speed".


----------



## Wobblers (8 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3016698, member: 9609"]excellent 10/10 you would see the potential danger and react. But the big question is would beano, because he is only interested in blame.[/QUOTE]

If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights at green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ. You'll not drive onto that roundabout because that motorist on the next exit might not stop. You won't walk across that zebra crossing, because that car might not stop. A bus might mount the pavement, so let's not walk to the shops. In fact, let's not use the car, the mechanic might have botched servicing the brakes...

You can't do it: it's not possible to anticipate _every _mistake someone might make. Experience may help you anticipate some mistakes - but not all. The question is then: was it reasonable for the cyclist to be cycling in that manner? Given that he does not appear to have been travelling at an unwise speed, that it was a box junction and it would thus been reasonable to expect a gap there anyway, that it has been commented that traffic queues mean brakes are applied often, hence the appearance of brake lights isn't a useful warning and _he was very visible if the motorist had bothered to look _I would be very hesitant before condemning him.


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Even better, stay in bed.


15% off accidents in the home, in the over 50's, are falls from the bed. *ROSPA*


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2014)

User said:


> What speed, and how are you measuring it? How do you know where the cyclist was when the car driver made the move?



Stop motion on the video. The car wheels enter the box and the video shows the cyclist has not yet passed the rear of the car at the front of the queue.


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2014)

User said:


> I am sorry but I must be being a bit thick here, where do you see the cyclist before the impact?



That's the point... You have a clear view of the cycle lane where it passes the car in front until the turning car enters the box, ie the cyclist is still behind that point when the car enters.


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2014)

User said:


> He could be at any point up to the limit of the camera's field of view.



check out the video again - at the point the front wheel enter the box there is a clear view of the back of the mini - the bike has not yet passed that point.


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Apr 2014)

Labradorofperception said:


> Also, it is box junction, the gap is expected


That's kind of the point here: box junctions indicate the likelihood of traffic turning right across them. As many others have pointed out, the blame for the collision is with the driver, but this was an avoidable collision on the part of the cyclist. Defensive riding and driving is the skill of staying out of other people's accidents; personally, I think it's a useful skill.

There will be exceptions, such as the motorcycle video posted where there was no way at all to anticipate what would happen, but this one was a predictable risk.


----------



## Nortones2 (8 Apr 2014)

As above. The cyclist has a part to play in saving his own skin. IF going too fast to stop, contributory negligence is relevant. That doesn't make it 50:50. As ever, there are several factors involved which an impartial investigator might weigh up. Should there be such a creature


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2014)

McWobble said:


> If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights t green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ. You'll not drive onto that roundabout because that motorist on the next exit might not stop. You won't walk across that zebra crossing, because that car might not stop. A bus might mount the pavement, so let's not walk to the shops. In fact, let's not use the car, the mechanic might have botched servicing the brakes...



When approaching green lights and a car is approaching their red at speed - approach at a moderate speed and make a judgment call.
Ditto entering a roundabout.
Don't step out onto a crossing in front of moving traffic, claim priority and wait for the cars to stop


----------



## Wobblers (8 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> Stop motion on the video. The car wheels enter the box and the video shows the cyclist has not yet passed the rear of the car at the front of the queue.



That's not what I see. The back of the stopped car is out of the field of view before the other car moves into the box. It is not possible to tell where the cyclist is at all from the video.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3016560, member: 9609"]It is a question I would love to know the answer too; How many accidents involving two vehicles (bikes, cars, vans, lorries) could have been completely avoided had the person who was not technically to blame had been a better and more observant driver/rider?[/QUOTE]
It is a question I would love to know the answer too; How many accidents involving two vehicles (bikes, cars, vans, lorries) could have been completely avoided had the person who was not technically to blame had been a slower or faster driver/rider?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Even better, stay in bed.


I can't stay upright on my turbo when I put it on the bed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Apr 2014)

classic33 said:


> 15% off accidents in the home, in the over 50's, are falls from the bed. *ROSPA*


What percentage involve cyclists on turbo's that's what I want to know....

...I just wanna be safe, will no one think of the kiddies?


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> What percentage involve cyclists on turbo's that's what I want to know....
> 
> ...I just wanna be safe, will no one think of the kiddies?


How many are going to own up to taking their bikes to bed though!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Apr 2014)

It is a fair bet that, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of folks in CC drive cars.

The vast majority of these are 'cyclists who drive.'

The minority are 'drivers who cycle.' 

Within that minority there is clearly a further sub-set...

'Nobber-drivers who cycle.' 

If the cap fits...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (8 Apr 2014)

This must be how the Spanish Inquisition started. Or was that a helmet debate?...


----------



## Wobblers (8 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> When approaching green lights and a car is approaching their red at speed - approach at a moderate speed and make a judgment call.
> Ditto entering a roundabout.
> Don't step out onto a crossing in front of moving traffic, claim priority and wait for the cars to stop



What is moderate speed?

How do you know that the car waiting at the roundabout isn't suddenly going to pull out just when you get there? You don't - so how's any sort of judgement call going to help? It certainly won't stop you going into the side of the car, will it?

Your judgement call is about assessing risks. How high a risk is too high? If you see a car approach that roundabout at 60, you know there's a very high risk of collision, so you slow or stop. But there's also the risk that the motorist will stop, then pull out just as you pass his entrance to the roundabout. From experience, you know that doesn't very often, so your judgement call would be to proceed, yes? The important point is, your judgement excludes low probability incidents, exactly because they have a low probability of happening. Yet, occasionally, they do - and it is impossible to foresee them all. It is impossible to adapt your behaviour to reduce the consequences of all possible incidents. Which means that the rational response is to adapt your behaviour to counter the most likely incidents.

Yes, we can certainly say that the cyclist could have done things differently. It's easy to be wise after the event. Filtering on the outside, as the motorcyclist did, would most likely have meant that the collision wouldn't have taken place. But note that filtering on the outside increases the probability of a collision with a car pulling out of that side road! And of course the presence of the cycle lane discourages offside filtering. It must also to be pointed that, since this is a busy cycle lane, the presence of cyclists in that position was something that readily could - _and should _- have been anticipated by the motorist.


----------



## benb (8 Apr 2014)

Just because the cyclist could possibly have avoided this, doesn't make it any less than 100% the fault of the driver for proceeding when it wasn't safe to do so.


----------



## vickster (8 Apr 2014)

Given in the letter of the law the car was at fault, did the cyclist engage legal advice, challenge the insurance company decision and proceed to settle. Was the cyclist hurt, the bike damaged? If the fault was with the cyclist according to insurance did they go after the cyclist for damage to the car, injury to the driver? Be nice to know after 7 pages of discussion!?
This is where British cycling membership comes in handy.


----------



## Schneil (8 Apr 2014)

vickster said:


> Given in the letter of the law the car was at fault, did the cyclist engage legal advice, challenge the insurance company decision and proceed to settle. Was the cyclist hurt, the bike damaged? If the fault was with the cyclist according to insurance did they go after the cyclist for damage to the car, injury to the driver? Be nice to know after 7 pages of discussion!?
> This is where British cycling membership comes in handy.



I got this reply
"
You would think so but it was the driver who claimed against the cyclist for damage to his car and the insurance went in the drivers favour and as far as I know he won the case, this is because the cyclist was technically speeding and should have already been slowing for the red light, the way he was riding and the speed he was going indicated no intention of slowing and also suggests that he plans on running the red light, due to the ridiculous layout it's apparently the cyclists job to make sure the junction is clear before crossing and although the cyclist hit the side of the car it still counts as him going across the cars path as the car had already made the maneuver before the cyclist was anywhere near the junction.
It's all pretty controversial and i would say it's the fault of the council and their crap lane layout."

If I was the cyclist I'd be getting a better solicitor! Viewing the video it appears the car does not pause to check the cycle lane is clear before proceeding into the junction.
So moral of the story is to have legal cover (through ctc or bc)


----------



## glenn forger (8 Apr 2014)

The same chap reckons he called the insurance company and they told him the outcome of the case, which seems unlikely.


----------



## NorvernRob (8 Apr 2014)

McWobble said:


> If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights at green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ.
> 
> But if you're observant, you'll take note of the truck approaching the lights slowing or not slowing and hence act accordingly. You never take a green light alone as a go, you check the traffic flow too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Profpointy (8 Apr 2014)

I think there's a bit of stubborn silliness in this thread; arguing for the sake of even.
No one at all has said car driver not to blame.

However, if you are going down the inside, cycle lane or not, only particularly observant car drivers are going to be aware of this when the traffic stops leaving you a nice gap for your right turn - cyclo-drivers like ourselves most likely. The cycle lane per se may not even be visible to them to be fair.

Whizzing through regardless has a likely outcome.

Cycle lanes leading to false sense of security and hence "a bad thing" might be said too.

Let's try another thought experiment - clear road, doted whites, legal to over take - but a junction on RHS. Do the overtake - car comes up to junction turning left - duly looks left - clear - smack into overtaker !
It may be technically the puller-outer's fault, but two drivers are dead, so it's little consolation to anyone.
Puller outer made a mistake - but understandable all the same - you just don't expect cars coming the wrong way


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Apr 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Let's try another thought experiment - clear road, doted whites, legal to over take - but a junction on RHS. Do the overtake - car comes up to junction turning left - duly looks left - clear - smack into overtaker !
> It may be technically the puller-outer's fault


Both are at fault there.

*Highway code rule 167*
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road


----------



## glenn forger (8 Apr 2014)

Cyclist wasn't overtaking, he was in his lane. Driver 100%


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Y8HKhMais


----------



## CopperBrompton (8 Apr 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Cyclist wasn't overtaking


My response was to Profpointy's thought experiment.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Apr 2014)

beg your pardon.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Both are at fault there.
> 
> *Highway code rule 167*
> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
> ...


 very sensible of it. double whites as well in such places would be even better. For avoidance of doubt I'd never overtake in such circumstances anyway.


----------



## Wobblers (8 Apr 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights at green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ.
> 
> But if you're observant, you'll take note of the truck approaching the lights slowing or not slowing and hence act accordingly. You never take a green light alone as a go, you check the traffic flow too.
> 
> ...



Please read my reply to pk99. I deal with the issues you bring up there. Also, please refrain from replying within the quote, as it makes it extremely hard to read, and breaks the forum's reply mechanism.


----------



## davefb (8 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Both are at fault there.
> 
> *Highway code rule 167*
> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
> ...


who's overtaking? [edit] aaarggggh got confused sorry trikeman 

if it was two car lanes of traffic and the outside lane stopped, flashed the guy... but the other car lane was okay, would anyone call it "overtaking" or even question this?

its' completely the drivers fault.. Yes the cyclist might have been more defensive ( though who knows they might have backed off ?) but theres only one person making a mistake here.

Bah, like probably all of us, I had a driver flash a learner turning right recently, not at a box, the bloke had just stopped in the main road for god knows what reason... obviously I was slowing down, but still had to lock up as he turned across.

the problem with the flashing is that it takes the drivers attention, its a stupid thing to do.. Thing is, I thought good lawyers also sue the car doing the flashing since they were part of the incident?


----------



## benb (8 Apr 2014)

It's not necessarily stupid to flash someone across.
If you are completely sure it's safe, then it's OK. Say for example they are coming out from a side road, you have checked for cycles and motorcycles filtering in the same direction as you, and you can see it is clear in the other direction.

But you do have to be completely certain, and correct in your certainty.


----------



## vickster (8 Apr 2014)

The onus is on the car manoeuvring to ensure the road is clear before they do so, it's not the responsibility of the person flashing, they have a different view of the road. As much as it may not be advised, it's not an offence.


----------



## Garethgas (8 Apr 2014)

If YOU were riding your bike instead of the chap we saw, would you
a) Ride exactly the same as he did
b) Slow down as you were crossing a junction
c) Stay in bed


----------



## vickster (8 Apr 2014)

b)


----------



## Colin B (8 Apr 2014)

b


----------



## 400bhp (8 Apr 2014)

Which did the chap do?


----------



## Garethgas (8 Apr 2014)

400bhp said:


> Which did the chap do?


Is the question to difficult for you?


----------



## 400bhp (8 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Is the question to difficult for you?



Do you always answer a question with a question?


----------



## Garethgas (8 Apr 2014)

400bhp said:


> Do you always answer a question with a question?


fair comment 
what was the question again?


----------



## 400bhp (8 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> fair comment
> what was the question again?



The answer is a


----------



## Origamist (8 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> If YOU were riding your bike instead of the chap we saw, would you
> a) Ride exactly the same as he did
> b) Slow down as you were crossing a junction
> c) Stay in bed



As this is a forum where posturing, over-estimating one's own ability and self-deception are never in short supply, I'm going to opt for b) too.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Apr 2014)

a=b

a>b

b>a

?

question implies b>a

Question = bollox


----------



## Wobblers (8 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Is the question to difficult for you?



We don't have any evidence to say whether or not he slowed down before the junction or not.None of us were there, so every one of us is indulging in supposition. The best we can say is "I don't know".


----------



## theclaud (9 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3018355, member: 9609"]excellent 10/10 you would see the potential danger and react.[/QUOTE]
He'd address the source of the danger - the drunk (substitute careless, inattentive, aggressive, impatient as required) driver. This isn't difficult.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Apr 2014)

It looks pretty simple to me. It's a junction , not a roundabout. The car does a right turn into a road user going straight ahead in the other direction. Of course the shysters in the insurance trade will attempt to paint a different picture. What's new?


----------



## Origamist (9 Apr 2014)

I'd take the comments concerning the insurance claim favoring the motorist with a pinch of salt. The guy with the YoutTube channel seems very keen to solicit more views, likes and subs - what better way to generate more traffic to his channel than concocting a story about a tendentious insurance claim?


----------



## benb (9 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3018380, member: 9609"]I wouldn't have thought it was difficult either. Considering what other road users may or may not do is all part of keeping safe.[/QUOTE]

No one is suggesting for a moment that we cycle without any consideration of what other road users may or may not do.
What people are saying is that regardless of whether the cyclist might have been able to do more to avoid it, the driver was 100% at fault.


----------



## CopperBrompton (9 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3019018, member: 45"]Maybe he thought that the car would follow the correct line rather than cutting a huge chunk out of the corner.[/QUOTE]
He does indeed seem to have been an optimist.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (9 Apr 2014)

My rule is to always assume everyone else is about to do something stupid, and a 44 ton HGV is about to appear round every corner.
Good philosophy on a bike, but get's you tailgated a lot in a car for some reason


----------



## PK99 (9 Apr 2014)

A thought experiment.... Imagine a similar road set up with a significant difference. It is a two lane road. 

Same traffic light set up. Same box protecting the side junction.

Rh lane is stopped as in the video. 

Cyclist is coming toward the camera. He intends to turn into the side road.

Cyclist turns into the box and across the first lane of stationary traffic, and is taken out by the car proceeding legitimately across the box junction as his exit is clear.

Who is to blame?


----------



## Feastie (10 Apr 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> No need for hypervigilance. If the driver had paused even briefly, rather than swinging through the turn as though nothing were coming, normal vigilance would have revealed the cyclist.



I think 'pausing briefly' counts as hypervigilance. For me anyway. Once I've seen that there's apparently nothing coming and have begun turning into somewhere where everybody else seems stationary and the way seems clear, I rarely pause half way through turning into something to look left and right again. On a bike or in a car. Unless I'm in a super busy place where the situation is constantly changing, or if I'm expecting the possibility of a cyclist filtering up the side having seen a bike lane or something - but then that would just be vigilance appropriate to the situation. I think it's not outside the realms of normal human decision making and fallibility that you don't constantly check side to side or pause if you think you're doing a completely safe turn. Which, in seemingly stationary traffic, isn't totally unreasonable to think.


----------



## Profpointy (10 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> A thought experiment.... Imagine a similar road set up with a significant difference. It is a two lane road.
> 
> Same traffic light set up. Same box protecting the side junction.
> 
> ...



Where's the car coming from ?
(unless by "two lane" you mean the cycle lane in the OP's example is not a "car" lane)


----------



## 400bhp (10 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3020031, member: 30090"]Cyclist[/QUOTE]

+1

Have we missed something here? The OP must have had a point to prove?


----------



## Dragonwight (11 Apr 2014)

Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.


----------



## uclown2002 (11 Apr 2014)

Dragonwight said:


> Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.


Oh ffs!
#gobsmacked.


----------



## oldroadman (11 Apr 2014)

I give up. The car driver made a turn without properly checking that it was safe to do so. Simple fact. All other comment is pointless. Whether lights were flashed or not is of no consequence. The cyclist had perfect right to proceed, therefore the other vehicle is at fault. On advanced driving courses, trainers emphasise observation and NEVER using the silly flashing lights which indicate NOTHING. You may as well say that before making the turn horn was sounded as a warning to others to stay clear as something dangerous was about to happen.
Insurers are just stalling, get a lawyer (the crashed rider would have if he/she was a BC/CTC member) on it and screw them.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Apr 2014)

Dragonwight said:


> Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.



Quoted for ridicule.


----------



## PK99 (11 Apr 2014)

oldroadman said:


> I give up. The car driver made a turn without properly checking that it was safe to do so. .



The video is not as clear on that point as you seem to think. as the still below shows.

As the driver enters the box, the cyclist is still some way behind the stopped mini (the section of video preceeding the still frame shows a clear cycle lane)


----------



## PK99 (11 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Where is the cyclist and how fast are they travelling?



The cyclist has not yet appeared and is somwhere to the rear of the mini. Speed unknown, estimate possible from ground measurements and video evidence.


----------



## oldroadman (11 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> View attachment 42053
> 
> 
> The video is not as clear on that point as you seem to think. as the still below shows.
> ...


It is still the responsibility of the driver making the turn to check that it's OK and safe to do so. A pause and check look would have been required to do this, there is no evidence of this. I'll reiterate, if you turn across a line of traffic on the indication of someone else, the responsibility is all yours as you are effectively turning "blind". You are supposed to be able to see it's clear to make the turn before doing so. How difficult is that concept to grasp?
The cyclist may have been on a cycle lane and moving briskly, but had every right to be there and to proceed, all the fault is with someone who turns across without properly checking it is safe to do so. Case closed.


----------



## PK99 (12 Apr 2014)

oldroadman said:


> It is still the responsibility of the driver making the turn to check that it's OK and safe to do so. A pause and check look would have been required to do this, there is no evidence of this. I'll reiterate, if you turn across a line of traffic on the indication of someone else, the responsibility is all yours as you are effectively turning "blind". You are supposed to be able to see it's clear to make the turn before doing so. How difficult is that concept to grasp?
> The cyclist may have been on a cycle lane and moving briskly, but had every right to be there and to proceed, all the fault is with someone who turns across without properly checking it is safe to do so. Case closed.



you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.

case closed?


----------



## 400bhp (12 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.
> 
> case closed?


Which proves what exactly?


----------



## Profpointy (12 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.
> 
> case closed?



There are actually two cases here - the criminal / traffic law one - where the man got off (ie driving not bad enough for a conviction) - case closed.
And the "was it his fault" case - where it seems it was - so insurance paid out for his mistake - different case closed.

(not arguing with you, but there's risk of deja vue all over again...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Oh ffs!
> #gobsmacked.


Post of the month.

Very well said.


----------



## boydj (12 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.
> 
> case closed?



Yes. In your case the insurance company accepted the driver's liability. I had a similar accident where the driver's insurance paid out and the police decided not to prosecute, though they did say the driver was 100% at fault. As pointed out above, civil liability does not depend on a decision to prosecute.


----------



## Garethgas (15 Apr 2014)

User said:


> How do you know how the cyclist was riding?


What on earth do you mean?
I asked a very simple question, I even gave you three options and you still don't understand?
Everyone who reads this thread has seen the video, if you don't know how the cyclist was riding then you're not in any position to comment.


----------



## Garethgas (15 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3018329, member: 30090"]A[/QUOTE]
And you'd expect a different result?
I think you're just teasing me


----------



## Garethgas (15 Apr 2014)

Dragonwight said:


> Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.


Yes he did but that's simply because the car was trying to get across the junction right in front of the cyclist.
There is no if's or but's , the car driver is at fault.
My earlier point is simply that had the cyclist exercised more caution at a busy junction by simply slowing down, he may have been able to avoid the impact.
There are a few very self righteous on here that seem to think that it's all about right and wrong.
I disagree.
I think it's more important to anticipate any danger and adjust accordingly.
That's how I stay safe, not by ranting and getting irate and filming everyday incidents as if they were some sort of 'event'
Most of my cycling is far more incident free than my driving.


----------



## Garethgas (15 Apr 2014)

User said:


> What do I mean? I mean that you do not see the cyclist before the collision, so you do not know where they are or how fast they are travelling. The only solid bit of information you have is that the cyclist is further back than the edge of the camera's field of view. Everything else is supposition.


I asked a simple question regarding what would you do if you were the cyclist.
It has nothing to do with supposition.
As it happens, the fact that the cyclist is not visible suggests he was going at a fair rate up to the impact.
The question I posed was clearly rhetorical yet you still failed to grasp the notion of slowing down approaching a junction, preferring instead to introduce a different point which has no bearing on what I asked.


----------



## Garethgas (15 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Your question is unanswerable, all the time it is predicated on an assumption as to how the cyclist was riding.


Oh come off it Adrian, others got the message.
I'll spell it out for you...as a cyclist, my prime concern is my safety. I will do whatever it takes to keep out of harms way.
I'm not interested in ranting, filming, blaming others, I just want to keep safe.
If anyone thinks I'm wrong then that's fine but I'm fairly confident that there are a considerable number of readers/lurkers on here that don't post 
much but would adopt a similar attitude.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> Oh come off it Adrian, others got the message.
> I'll spell it out for you...as a cyclist, my prime concern is my safety.* I will do whatever it takes to keep out of harms way.*
> I'm not interested in ranting, filming, blaming others, I just want to keep safe.
> If anyone thinks I'm wrong then that's fine but I'm fairly confident that there are a considerable number of readers/lurkers on here that don't post
> much but would adopt a similar attitude.



No you won't.


----------



## theclaud (15 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> I will do whatever it takes to keep out of harms way.


----------



## Garethgas (15 Apr 2014)

Why on earth would anyone be offended by that posting?
There are no implications whatsoever. My words are still there for all to see. 
Your lame attempt to undermine my view on cycling safely will be seen for what it is.
Anyone who's been involved in an accident will be constantly thinking of what they could have done to avoid it, running through their options 
and decisions, especially when lying in bed late at night.
I have no intention of falling out with you over this (or any other) issue but I maintain that that incident could have been avoided by a more experienced cyclist who can read the road better.

I'm sorry but I really must get to bed now.


----------



## theclaud (15 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> that incident could have been avoided by a more experienced cyclist who can read the road better.


Let's have roads that are safe for everyone - not just expert practitioners.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Apr 2014)

Garethgas said:


> I'm sorry but I really must get to bed now.



Is that your risk mitigation technique?


----------



## PK99 (15 Apr 2014)

User said:


> What do I mean? I mean that you do not see the cyclist before the collision, so you do not know where they are or how fast they are travelling. The only solid bit of information you have is that the cyclist is further back than the edge of the camera's field of view. Everything else is supposition.



You can make a reasonable guesstimate of or indicative Range for his speed from an estimate of the distance he travelled from the back of the mini to the collision point taking the timing from the video


----------

