# Cyclist hit by car in Cambridge - video



## martinclive (28 Apr 2016)

Sad thing is the way the driver seems preoccupied with trying to point out that the cyclist did something wrong ...................

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/WAT...nt-blackspot/story-29186873-detail/story.html


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

martinclive said:


> Sad thing is the way the driver seems preoccupied with trying to point out that the cyclist did something wrong ...................
> 
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/WAT...nt-blackspot/story-29186873-detail/story.html


Bike rider with no Hi Viz, in fact wearing dark clothing, dark wet night, poorly lit road. That was never going to end well. I feel sorry for the driver, and the cyclist on this one.


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Bike rider with no Hi Viz, in fact wearing dark clothing, dark wet night, poorly lit road. That was never going to end well. I feel sorry for the driver, and the cyclist on this one.


Nice victim blaming there. I could see the cyclist from the dash cam car's POV, which is some way back.


----------



## DaveReading (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Bike rider with no Hi Viz, in fact wearing dark clothing



Here we go again ...


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Nice victim blaming there. I could see the cyclist from the dash cam car's POV, which is some way back.


Where did I blame anyone again? I must have missed that bit.


----------



## steve50 (28 Apr 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Nice victim blaming there. I could see the cyclist from the dash cam car's POV, which is some way back.



Yes, i could also see the rider in the clip BUT we were not driving the car that hit him, nor were we there at the actual scene of the incident. We do not know the full circumstances of the actual incident , the footage clearly shows it was wet, dark and fairly poor street lighting, if I was to hazard a guess i would say the driver was to blame for not having seen the cyclist which imo would point to undue care and attention on the part of the car driver. The cyclist had right of way, the driver did not attempt to stop at the give way markings and his brake lights did not come on until after he had hit the cyclist................imo 100% driver fault.
edit; I contradicted myself


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

DaveReading said:


> Here we go again ...


What? If I was the driver, in those circumstances, in those conditions, I reckon a dark clad rider, coming from an oblique angle ( due to the position he was in, due in no small part to the poor design of the roundabout ) I reckon I'd have had a job to see him clearly. The view from the dash cam is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4254905, member: 9609"]Full marks to the ambulance service for the quick response.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing that they were nearby, and were there nice and promptly as a result.


----------



## Markymark (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> What? If I was the driver, in those circumstances, in those conditions, I reckon a dark clad rider, coming from an oblique angle ( due to the position he was in, due in no small part to the poor design of the roundabout ) I reckon I'd have had a job to see him clearly. The view from the dash cam is totally irrelevant.


Is your eyesight worse than a £200 camera at making things out. Should you be driving?


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

steve50 said:


> Yes, i could also see the rider in the clip BUT we were not driving the car that hit him, nor were we there at the actual scene of the incident. We do not know the full circumstances of the actual incident , the footage clearly shows it was wet, dark and fairly poor street lighting, if I was to hazard a guess i would say the driver was to blame for not having seen the cyclist which imo would point to undue care and attention on the part of the car driver. The cyclist had right of way, the driver did not attempt to stop at the give way markings and his brake lights did not come on until after he had hit the cyclist................imo 100% driver fault.
> edit; I contradicted myself


Technically / legally speaking you're correct, lack of due care and attention from the driver. However, in those conditions, I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> Is your eyesight worse than a £200 camera at making things out. Should you be driving?


Top trolling.


----------



## Markymark (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Top trolling.


Why? It's a reasonable question. You suggest a camera which clearly shows the cyclist in a situation that you don't think you could. Maybe this time an answer?


----------



## steve50 (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Technically / legally speaking you're correct, lack of due care and attention from the driver. However, in those conditions, I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.



I agree with you about the conditions etc but the driver should have at least dabbed the brakes at the give way and taken a cursory glance to his right, he didn't and that was the end result.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> Why? It's a reasonable question. You suggest a camera which clearly shows the cyclist in a situation that you don't think you could. Maybe this time an answer?


Top trolling again. The position of the camera is not at the same oblique angle to the rider as the car. You're comparing apples to pineapples.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

steve50 said:


> I agree with you about the conditions etc but the driver should have at least dabbed the brakes at the give way and taken a cursory glance to his right, he didn't and that was the end result.


We don't know if the driver looked to the right or not.


----------



## steve50 (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> We don't know if the driver looked to the right or not.


True enough, I was making an assumption based on the incident.


----------



## Markymark (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Top trolling again. The position of the camera is not at the same oblique angle to the rider as the car. You're comparing apples to pineapples.


You are right, the position is not the same. The driver will be higher and have a clearer view.


----------



## steve50 (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Top trolling again. The position of the camera is not at the same oblique angle to the rider as the car. You're comparing apples to pineapples.



Who's trolling ? If that is a reference to me I am making comments based on what i can see, I would not call that trolling????


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Where did I blame anyone again? I must have missed that bit.


The bit where you said "Bike rider with no Hi Viz, in fact wearing dark clothing,"


----------



## Markymark (28 Apr 2016)

steve50 said:


> Who's trolling ? If that is a reference to me I am making comments based on what i can see, I would not call that trolling????


Nah, think it's me for suggesting that if a camera can pickup something a long way away then a much closer driver should too.


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> Nah, think it's me for suggesting that if a camera can pickup something a long way away then a much closer driver should too.


The very idea.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Bike rider with no Hi Viz



AKA in normal clothes. Cycling doesn't need specialist equipment, it needs drivers to look where they're going.

The rider is clearly visible on the dashcam (which are notoriously bad at picking out detail at night) but the driver still didn't see him. I can't see that this is anything but distracted driving.

GC


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

steve50 said:


> True enough, I was making an assumption based on the incident.


Never assume, it makes an ass out of u and me, It may have been wrong assumptions that made this incident as bad as it was.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> The bit where you said "Bike rider with no Hi Viz, in fact wearing dark clothing,"


Statement of fact, not apportioning blame.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> You are right, the position is not the same. The driver will be higher and have a clearer view.


Unless the window was ( possibly ) covered in rain, and the reflections from the street lights, and the oblique position of the ( not well illuminated ) rider, compromised that view, you mean?


----------



## Spinney (28 Apr 2016)

martinclive said:


> Sad thing is the way the driver seems preoccupied with trying to point out that the cyclist did something wrong ...................
> 
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/WAT...nt-blackspot/story-29186873-detail/story.html



The only speech I could hear on the video was the dash-cam driver swearing when he saw the accident ???


----------



## Spinney (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Unless the window was ( possibly ) covered in rain *(1)*, and the reflections from the street lights *(2)*, and the oblique position of the ( not well illuminated ) rider, compromised that view, you mean?


(1) that's why cars have windscreen wipers
(2) if reflections are making it difficult to see, then the driver should at least have paused before entry to the roundabout to check more carefully whether or not the way was clear


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Spinney said:


> (1) that's why cars have windscreen wipers
> (2) if reflections are making it difficult to see, then the driver should at least have paused before entry to the roundabout to check more carefully whether or not the way was clear


I agree with your second point, but I don't know of any cars, with windscreen wipers mounted on the side windows, as standard.


----------



## fossyant (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Bike rider with no Hi Viz, in fact wearing dark clothing, dark wet night, poorly lit road. That was never going to end well. I feel sorry for the driver, and the cyclist on this one.



Erm, I could clearly see the cyclist ?? Blind driver. Hope he sues the ass off her.


----------



## martinclive (28 Apr 2016)

I was always taught - if you cannot see clearly, you stop......................


----------



## fossyant (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> What? If I was the driver, in those circumstances, in those conditions, I reckon a dark clad rider, coming from an oblique angle ( due to the position he was in, due in no small part to the poor design of the roundabout ) I reckon I'd have had a job to see him clearly. The view from the dash cam is totally irrelevant.



Specsavers. You look and look again as anyone knows when entering a road, or indeed a roundabout. Driver 100% at fault


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

martinclive said:


> I was always taught - if you cannot see clearly, you stop......................


Very true, but it rarely happens.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Apr 2016)

Hi viz doesn't work at night, and reflection only when the headlights hit it. The cyclist is quite visible in headlights (see below) so I don't see how clothing could have helped







(rr has me on ignore, so he won't see this)


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> I agree with your second point, but I don't know of any cars, with windscreen wipers mounted on the side windows, as standard.



The cyclist was right in front of the driver, whose car headlights were on and illuminating the cyclist and his bike's reflectors. She still drove through him.
Rain-covered windows or otherwise, the onus is on her not to drive into stuff.

GC


----------



## Spinney (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> I agree with your second point, but I don't know of any cars, with windscreen wipers mounted on the side windows, as standard.


If you can't see through the side windows, and you _need_ to see through them to check that your way is clear, you stop until you can wind them down to look. How difficult is it to understand that if you cannot see clearly, the onus is on YOU  to stop until such a time as you _can_ see that your way is clear.

Yes, rain and reflections make it harder to see, but that just means that you should be more careful.


----------



## martinclive (28 Apr 2016)

With comments (facts!) like this on the CEN site - one has to worry................................... 

Fact: The cyclist, as should all other cyclists, should have worn hi-vis clothing


----------



## ianrauk (28 Apr 2016)

martinclive said:


> With comments (facts!) like this on the CEN site - one has to worry...................................
> 
> Fact: The cyclist, as should all other cyclists, should have worn hi-vis clothing




Fact. @jefmcg 's post #35 about Hi Viz above.


----------



## Jody (28 Apr 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The rider is clearly visible on the dashcam (which are notoriously bad at picking out detail at night) but the driver still didn't see him.



You can see him clearly even without the reflectors. I can't believe someone is on the side of the driver in this case. The only mitigating factor which you can’t really see from the video is whether the rider had a front light on.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Apr 2016)

So I don't have to keep going to the newspapers site


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmgdny-Rz4A


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Spinney said:


> If you can't see through the side windows, and you _need_ to see through them to check that your way is clear, you stop until you can wind them down to look. How difficult is it to understand that if you cannot see clearly, the onus is on YOU  to stop until such a time as you _can_ see that your way is clear.
> 
> Yes, rain and reflections make it harder to see, but that just means that you should be more careful.


I agree.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Jody said:


> You can see him clearly even without the reflectors. I can't believe someone is on the side of the driver in this case. The only mitigating factor which you can’t really see from the video is whether the rider had a front light on.


I never said I was on anyone's 'side'.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2016)

Jody said:


> You can see him clearly even without the reflectors. I can't believe someone is on the side of the driver in this case. The only mitigating factor which you can’t really see from the video is whether the rider had a front light on.



Appears to have front light. You can see it on the roundabout at 0:02 and on the bike as it lies on roadway (at 1:40) when it's moved by witness.

GC


----------



## Jody (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> I never said I was on anyone's 'side'.



I must have misinterpreted what you wrote. You felt sorry for the driver and the cyclist, but the cyclist should have been more visible. Sounds like you had more sympathy with the driver than the rider.


----------



## Jody (28 Apr 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Appears to have front light. You can see it on the roundabout at 0:02 and on the bike as it lies on roadway (at 1:40) when it's moved by witness.
> 
> GC



So the colour of his clothing is irrelevant and the driver is bang to rights.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Jody said:


> I must have misinterpreted what you wrote. You felt sorry for the driver and the cyclist, but the cyclist should have been more visible. Sounds like you had more sympathy with the driver than the rider.


I had equal lack of sympathy for both.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Jody said:


> So the colour of his clothing is irrelevant and the driver is bang to rights.


Driver was a tool for driving like that, rider was unwise to ride attired like that, in those conditions.


----------



## Glow worm (28 Apr 2016)

That roundabout is on my commute and it is *extremely* well lit. (Perhaps the vid makes it look darker).
100% driver fault end of story.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> rider was unwise to ride attired like that, in those conditions



Please explain why.

GC


----------



## Jody (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Driver was a tool for driving like that, rider was unwise to ride attired like that, in those conditions.



Again, the colour of his clothing is irrelevant as the driver didn't even spot the shiny thing on the riders bars.


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Hi viz doesn't work at night, and reflection only when the headlights hit it. The cyclist is quite visible in headlights (see below) so I don't see how clothing could have helped
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Depends on your definition of Hi Viz. In my world (construction sites, railway lines) Hi Viz is the yellow or orange clothing (fluorescent) with reflective stripes, so it covers both options. They do depend on someone looking though. (I can't see how clothing could have helped either).


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Glow worm said:


> That roundabout is on my commute and it is *extremely* well lit. (Perhaps the vid makes it look darker).
> 100% driver fault end of story.


I love it when people write "end of story" and the like. It isn't. That makes me.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Depends on your definition of Hi Viz. In my world (construction sites, railway lines) Hi Viz is the yellow or orange clothing (fluorescent) with reflective stripes, so it covers both options. They do depend on someone looking though. (I can't see how clothing could have helped either).


Having hi viz could have helped, by 'catching the eye' of the driver, so to speak. Or giving the driver a better chance to have spotted the cyclist a bit earlier. Let's also not forget the difference between this.






and this.







.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Apr 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Depends on your definition of Hi Viz. In my world (construction sites, railway lines) Hi Viz is the yellow or orange clothing (fluorescent) with reflective stripes, so it covers both options. They do depend on someone looking though. (I can't see how clothing could have helped either).


Are we violently agreeing with each other? I was separating hi viz into it's two components, the colour and the reflection. The yellow/orange is grey under most street lighting, so doesn't help at night. The reflective material only works when it's hit by a direct light.

Now, for no reason, this:


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Jody said:


> Again, the colour of his clothing is irrelevant as the driver didn't even spot the shiny thing on the riders bars.


I'm surprised the driver didn't spot a tiny ineffective front light, coming from an oblique angle, in the dark, when it was raining, in amongst the other reflecting road lights, either..


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

The driver still _could and should_ have noticed the rider, but the rider _could and should _have made a better choice of attire.


----------



## Jody (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> The driver still _could and should_ have noticed the rider, but the rider _could and should _have made a better choice of attire.



I'll remember that excuse for if I ever hit a dark colour car at night. "Sorry pal, its your fault for buying a dark colour. Should stick with yellow or white next time so I don't have to be as vigilant!"


----------



## derrick (28 Apr 2016)

Hi viz does not make any difference.After seeing my wife get hit by a 4×4. If the driver ain't looking he or she will not see you. I hope they check the drivers phone. When my wife got hit the police would not check the drivers phone. I am she was on it.


----------



## Glow worm (28 Apr 2016)

User said:


> I know that roundabout well (I drive and cycle round it on a regular basis). The cyclist was coming from Wadloes Road. If the driver had bothered looking they'd have easily been able to see the cyclist. No 'oblique angle' crap...



Quite. There are no mysterious oblique angles. Drivers simply have to check to their right- it can't be that hard! 
I've cycled around that roundabout probably thousands of times both day and night and there is absolutely no excuse for such a pish poor piece of inattentive driving. The rider's attire is completely irrelevant.


----------



## classic33 (28 Apr 2016)

Jody said:


> I'll remember that excuse for if I ever hit a dark colour car at night. "Sorry pal, its your fault for buying a dark colour. Should stick with yellow or white next time so I don't have to be as vigilant!"


Could be grey at night though!

There is a Bright Pink* VW Beetle, often seen in the town centre. Stands out like anything, in the daytime. Nighttime is another matter.


Picture added
*No.202 Aurora Pink


----------



## martint235 (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> The driver still _could and should_ have noticed the rider, but *the rider could and should have made a better choice of attire*.


You asked earlier in the thread how you had blamed the victim. There you go, that's how you blamed the victim.


----------



## gavintc (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Where did I blame anyone again? I must have missed that bit.


LOL, what you typed and what you meant to type may be different. But IMO, this is pure victim blaming.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Apr 2016)

Looks good visability to me.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2...4!1scAT0sAnk329w2ULoYSjU1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## steve50 (28 Apr 2016)

...and you accused me of trolling @Racing roadkill , I think you hold the trophy for that one!!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> Looks good visability to me.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2...4!1scAT0sAnk329w2ULoYSjU1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656



Yebbut you're ignoring its special oblique angles that make it so hazardous. Innit.

GC


----------



## Origamist (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Having hi viz could have helped, by 'catching the eye' of the driver, so to speak. Or giving the driver a better chance to have spotted the cyclist a bit earlier. Let's also not forget the difference between this.
> 
> View attachment 126351
> 
> ...



Yes, lets not forget that the Stop sign is for US road users and the Give Way sign for British road users.

Driver at fault, cyclist blameless.


----------



## classic33 (28 Apr 2016)

2:37 this morning, walking the dog, I was passed by a cyclist on his way home.
Hi-Vis top, Hi-Vis vest & rucksack cover. As usual.
First aware he was near, because he could be heard, but not seen. Trees blocking the view of the road he was was coming down. Gets to the bottom of the hill, first thing noticed is the light, then the shape above it. Just a dark shape as he passes one of the street lights. And the noisy gear change once through the roadworks. The Hi-Vis is lost in what light there is.
I could argue I was expecting him, but he comes up that stretch of road anytime from half one onwards.


----------



## classic33 (28 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> Yes, lets not forget that the Stop sign is for US road users and the Give Way sign for British road users.
> 
> Driver at fault, cyclist blameless.


Seen the STOP sign in Ireland!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> Yes, lets not forget that the Stop sign is for US road users and the Give Way sign for British road users.
> 
> Driver at fault, cyclist blameless.



Ackcherly, the ten bob bit shaped sign is a valid one in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs

GC


----------



## fossyant (28 Apr 2016)

Clothing choice makes no difference. I was hit wearing bright red top, red/white helmet, bright red bike and panniers, in daylight, with two Hope 1's on, and a 1200 lumen C&B Seen City Slicker on pulse - like exposure lights. Even with my lights lighting up the car, in daylight, he still didn't see me. 

Makes no difference if a driver does not look properly, and it happens far too often.


----------



## Origamist (28 Apr 2016)

classic33 said:


> Seen the STOP sign in Ireland!



They used to stay "Stad" in Gaelic. I can't recall ever seeing a stop sign at UK roundabout, but I'm sure someone will find one!

I think RR's Stop sign is actually Australian!


----------



## fossyant (28 Apr 2016)

User said:


> Absolutely.... I had a hi-viz jacket and light clothing on when I was run over, in broad daylight, by an ambulance.



 Slow work day ????


----------



## Jody (28 Apr 2016)

fossyant said:


> Slow work day ????


----------



## Origamist (28 Apr 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Ackcherly, the ten bob bit shaped sign is a valid one in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs
> 
> GC



Yeah, sorry, my point was a bit oblique - you don't get Stop signs at British roundabouts, nearly always Give Way.


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Having hi viz could have helped, by 'catching the eye' of the driver, so to speak. Or giving the driver a better chance to have spotted the cyclist a bit earlier. Let's also not forget the difference between this.
> 
> View attachment 126351
> 
> ...


Does Give Way mean (a) floor it and hope there's nothing in the way, or (b) You *MUST* give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road?


----------



## jefmcg (28 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> Yeah, sorry my point was a bit oblique - you don't get Stop signs at British roundabouts, nearly always Give Way.


I don't think you get stop signs at roundabouts anywhere in the world. Certainly not in Australia, and roundabouts are practically non-existent in USA. 

(I have no idea how we got down this rabbit hole  )


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> Yes, lets not forget that the Stop sign is for US road users and the Give Way sign for British road users.
> 
> Driver at fault, cyclist blameless.









That's the U.K. Version ( not much different, pretty much exactly the same meaning)
This thread is making me laugh now, it's like this.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

martint235 said:


> You asked earlier in the thread how you had blamed the victim. There you go, that's how you blamed the victim.


No, I blamed the pair of them ( the rider to a lesser extent), hence the first bit that you 'forgot' to put in bold.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

User said:


> Absolutely.... I had a hi-viz jacket and light clothing on when I was run over, in broad daylight, by an ambulance.


Hi viz is not quite so important to help with visibility in bright daylight, as it is in poor conditions in the dark though, eh.


----------



## Origamist (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> View attachment 126373
> 
> 
> That's the U.K. Version ( not much different, pretty much exactly the same meaning)
> ...



I must have missed the reflective Stop sign at the roundabout in the video, perhaps it was my fault for not spotting the sign?


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Apr 2016)

User said:


> You do know hi-viz doesn't work in the dark, don't you ? In fact, it's specifically designed for use in daylight or highly lit areas.
> 
> You do really need to learn the difference between hi-viz and reflectives. A school child should be able to help you...


Can we go with Hi viz being clothing with fluorescent and reflective properties? As noted up thread and seen adorning any worker on a construction site?


----------



## Origamist (28 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I don't think you get stop signs at roundabouts anywhere in the world. Certainly not in Australia, and roundabouts are practically non-existent in USA.
> 
> (I have no idea how we got down this rabbit hole  )



Phew, Canadian RaB with Stop Signs:







I think this rabbit hole is marginally more interesting then engaging with RR!


----------



## jefmcg (28 Apr 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> Looks good visability to me.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2...4!1scAT0sAnk329w2ULoYSjU1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656



There are no give way (or stop) signs at this roundabout!

Am I going to have to unignore RR to understand what is going on in this thread?


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

User said:


> You do know hi-viz doesn't work in the dark, don't you ? In fact, it's specifically designed for use in daylight or highly lit areas.
> 
> You do really need to learn the difference between hi-viz and reflectives.



Hi viz / reflectiveness, meh, just semantics ......


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Can we go with Hi viz being clothing with fluorescent and reflective properties? As noted up thread and seen adorning any worker on a construction site?


Yes.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> I must have missed the reflective Stop sign at the roundabout in the video, perhaps it was my fault for not spotting the sign?


That's the whole point, there was no 'STOP' sign so no reason to come to a complete standstill, if the driver believed ( wrongly as it transpired ) that there was nothing to cede to on the right. You've just successfully proverbially pulled your own pants over your own head, and tweaked your own nose .


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Origamist said:


> Phew, Canadian RaB with Stop Signs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so you like 'engaging' with rabbit holes then?


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Am I going to have to unignore RR to understand what is going on in this thread?



That may marginal help, but to be honest there is a pretty big chance it won't.


----------



## martint235 (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> No, I blamed the pair of them ( the rider to a lesser extent), hence the first bit that you 'forgot' to put in bold.


So once again, the cyclist is minding his own business cycling along the road and the motorist hits him. How is it the victim's fault?


----------



## classic33 (28 Apr 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> That may marginal help, but to be honest there is a pretty big chance it won't.


General gist is, cyclist gets hit by car entering roundabout One poster(crankarm) seems to find the whole situation funny.

I always thought traffic, that is what we as cyclists are, already on a roundabout had priority over traffic entering it.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

classic33 said:


> General gist is, cyclist gets hit by car entering roundabout One poster(crankarm) seems to find the whole situation funny.
> 
> I always thought traffic, that is what we as cyclists are, already on a roundabout had priority over traffic entering it.


And you'd be right, but it relies on any approaching traffic actually spotting what's on the roundabout. I've been on the receiving end of an unobservant motorist ploughing into me on a roundabout, because they didn't give way to the right, but I was wearing reflective gear, and the conditions weren't bad, and it was daylight, I was wearing a lid as well.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> A I've been on the receiving end of an unobservant motorist ploughing into me on a roundabout, because they didn't give way to the right, but I was wearing reflective gear, and the conditions weren't bad, and it was daylight, I was wearing a lid as well.



So if that did not help you, why criticise the cyclist in this video?


----------



## Scoosh (28 Apr 2016)

*MOD NOTE:*
OK, most of what can and should be said has been said and are now entering territory where things which probably shouldn't be said are being said - which is why some posts have been Deleted and some Edited.

Thank you for your contributions.


----------



## Mugshot (28 Apr 2016)

Why is there even a discussion about how much more visible or not hi-viz would have made the cyclist? The reaction of the driver with the dashcam suggests that he saw the cyclist hi-viz or not and considering he was BEHIND the driver that hit the cyclist it would suggest to me that the cyclist was clearly visible to anybody that made the effort to look properly, which the driver infront clearly didn't. So you can stick your hi-viz up your arse.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> So if that did not help you, why criticise the cyclist in this video?


Because it was a different situation, it was dark and wet, in the posted video. The things the cyclist didn't do _could _have helped him.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> Because it was a different situation, it was dark and wet, in the posted video. The things the cyclist didn't do _could _have helped him.



They did not help you in much better conditions so how would they have worked in this situation?


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Apr 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> They did not help you in much better conditions so how would they have worked in this situation?



Because it wasn't the same driver / cyclist / roundabout or anything else, so it _may _have helped this guy. I guess we'll never know.


----------



## Origamist (28 Apr 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> That's the whole point, there was no 'STOP' sign so no reason to come to a complete standstill, if the driver believed ( wrongly as it transpired ) that there was nothing to cede to on the right. You've just successfully proverbially pulled your own pants over your own head, and tweaked your own nose .



It's simple. I'll explain it in short sentences. You don't need a stop sign. There were give way markings. The driver failed to give way due to a lack of proper observation. She failed to slow/stop and give way to the cyclist coming from her right and hit him. The cyclist was not at fault. I hope this helps.


----------



## martinclive (28 Apr 2016)

^^^^^^ and going back to my OP she seems to first start waving her hands around blaming the cyclist (IMHO) which could suggest she did see him and does not understand priorities at roundabouts....................lots of possible explanations but all the same person to blame


----------

