# Who's in the wrong?



## Accy cyclist (19 Feb 2018)

Sorry if it's been posted before. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html To those who don't like clicking onto Daily Mail links,the story's about a car turning left into a police station when a bike approaching at speed on the car's inside collides with the car. The driver was indicating and did the maneuver in a correct way,as far as i can see. I think the cyclist was maybe going a bit too fast,but then we only have a few seconds of video to decide.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Feb 2018)

Looking at that clip the cycle lane has a broken white line at the point of the turning so the car is in effect turning into another road / crossing a lane so should have given way .
The lycra clad cyclist that isn't clad in lycra should have really seen this was going to happen though .


----------



## gavroche (19 Feb 2018)

I haven't seen the video but if the driver was intending to turn left, even with his indicator on, he should have checked his left mirror before turning. That's all I can say without seeing the video. ( It won't play on my kindle).


----------



## Slick (19 Feb 2018)

How anyone can blame the cyclist for that is beyond me. Even the headline is beyond me, what's the bobble hat got to do with some halfwit turning across the path of other traffic?


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Feb 2018)

Footage doesn’t tell you anything.

It’s just click bait.

Move along, nothing to see here.


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2018)

[QUOTE 5156787, member: 45"]It doesn't matter whose fault it was. The cyclist could have avoided that.[/QUOTE]
As should the motorist...


----------



## Slick (19 Feb 2018)

[QUOTE 5156830, member: 45"]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Wow.


----------



## davidphilips (19 Feb 2018)

Difficult call? All i could say i would hope that if i had been either the driver or the cyclist i may have been able to avoid the collision?

There was a story in the local Bangor Spectator a few weeks ago about a cyclist that was killed on the Newtownards to Bangor carriageway early one morning last year (very well light road) the driver said he was blowing his nose and did not see the cyclist, the judge said to let that be a warning to cyclists to wear bright clothing and make sure they had lights fitted?
Yes the cyclist did not have lights but it was a very well light road at 5.50am with no other traffic so the trend seems to be cyclists are in the wrong even if the driver is careless?

So motto is treat every driver as dangerous and if they are good then great.


----------



## broady (19 Feb 2018)

If the driver had done it on their driving test would they have still passed??
I think that's the answer


----------



## DCLane (19 Feb 2018)

Driver could have looked and avoided it.

Cyclist could also have slowed down; the car was indicating.

Legally the driver's at fault, but this was avoidable.


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Feb 2018)

Slick said:


> Wow.



wow just wow
Self-parodying phrase commonly uttered by intellectually sheltered political ideologues expressing visceral contempt for ideas they can't logically rebut


----------



## Slick (19 Feb 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> wow just wow
> Self-parodying phrase commonly uttered by intellectually sheltered political ideologues expressing visceral contempt for ideas they can't logically rebut


Or, just she'll shocked and didn't expect to come across such attitudes on a cycling forum about cyclists.


----------



## gbb (19 Feb 2018)

Easy decision, both to blame... or at fault if you prefer.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Feb 2018)

broady said:


> If the driver had done it on their driving test would they have still passed??
> I think that's the answer


I can’t imagine anyone who is involved in a crash on their test, regardless to blame, would actually get a pass on the day. At best they would be rescheduled.


----------



## Jimidh (19 Feb 2018)

I think both are at fault - yes the driver should have checked but equally if the cyclist was paying attention to what was going on about him then he should have anticipated the driver was about to make a bad move and act accordingly.

I always tell people you are better keep out of the way of idiots and stay safe even when you are in the right.


----------



## Slick (19 Feb 2018)

Jimidh said:


> I think both are at fault - yes the driver should have checked but equally if the cyclist was paying attention to what was going on about him then he should have anticipated the driver was about to make a bad move and act accordingly.
> 
> I always tell people you are better keep out of the way of idiots and stay safe even when you are in the right.


Surly failing to keep out of the way of idiots, shouldn't make you culpable?


----------



## Jimidh (19 Feb 2018)

Slick said:


> Surly failing to keep out of the way of idiots, shouldn't make you culpable?


I doesn’t always but if you you are paying attention and you see someone ahead of you indicating to turn left into your lane then a good rider or driver will slow down to ensure that they aren’t put in danger.

I suspect in this case the cyclist wasn’t totally anticipating what might be happening further up the road and acting appropriately.


----------



## Slick (19 Feb 2018)

Jimidh said:


> I doesn’t always but if you you are paying attention and you see someone ahead of you indicating to turn left into your lane then a good rider or driver will slow down to ensure that they aren’t put in danger.
> 
> I suspect in this case the cyclist wasn’t totally anticipating what might be happening further up the road and acting appropriately.


The same could be said about any collision, but they still manage to apportion blame.


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2018)

Slick said:


> Or, just she'll shocked and didn't expect to come across such attitudes on a cycling forum about cyclists.


Oh there's a fair few members of the motoring supremacist lobby on here. Obviously, as soon as a more important motorist indicates they're intending to left hook or right cross you, you cyclists should stop, dismount and bow(!)


----------



## Slick (19 Feb 2018)

mjr said:


> Oh there's a fair few members of the motoring supremacist lobby on here. Obviously, as soon as a more important motorist indicates they're intending to left hook or right cross you, you cyclists should stop, dismount and bow(!)


Can't say I'm not surprised. Didn't expect that on here.


----------



## Roadhump (19 Feb 2018)

I'm another who says both share the blame.

In some ways I have more sympathy with the driver. If someone drove past a bike and left hooked in front of them, I would blame them 100%, but in this case it looks like the car is waiting for its path to become clear so it can turn left, and when it is clear the car proceeds slowly (although the footage is very short so that isn't certain). With a cycle path there, the driver should have made a final check before turning, but he might have done that and missed something in his blind spot. The car was indicating and the cyclist who was going too quick anyway, should have seen it and taken evasive action. As a cyclist, I would always be very cautious about filtering down the left hand side of a line of slow moving vehicles, especially where there are places to the left that those vehicles might turn into.

On the other hand, I have some sympathy with the cyclist, or cyclists in general. None of the comments question the suitability or design of the cycle lane, and like many other, probably most other cycle infrastructure, it is nothing more than a token marginal space on the left hand side of the road, that requires no thought or imagination, and does nothing to improve cyclists' safety. If anything, it reduces safety and the cyclist would have been better getting in the flow of traffic or filtering to the right of the slow moving vehicles, but then people would have been criticising him for being in the road and not in the cycle lane.

Typical Mail anti-cyclist mindset demonstrated by the totally irrelevant reference to the cyclist's headgear.


----------



## gbb (19 Feb 2018)

Not that it really makes much difference, but interestingly, the cycle lane markings are solid (cycles only), the broken (shared use)...but the change between the two isn't very helpful to the cyclist/cyclists in that it changes AT the junction itself, not giving any cyclist any or much warning of a change of circumstance ahead.
The car half crosses the solid line, but you could argue he's half using the broken line as well.

If we're going I to scenarios....imagine a child crossing the road, the car has stopped to let it pass in front...and the cyclist steamed straight Into the child as it went across the lane.. I suspect we'd have little sympathy for the cyclist....because he wasn' prepared for the unexpected. In that scenario, the child would be to blame...as would the cyclist. Lack of anticipaion (cyclist) vs lack of awareness. (Driver) 
50/50 in both scenarios.


----------



## Drago (19 Feb 2018)

Its the ROI, and I don't know in detail what their rules are.

Were it the UK I'd have said the car driver was at fault. However, the cyclist was HUA and could have avoided it had they been paying attention instead of doing the standard eyes-dead-ahead tunnel vision thing - death and disability don't care who's "fault" it is.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Feb 2018)

gbb said:


> Not that it really makes much difference, but interestingly, the cycle lane markings are solid (cycles only), the broken (shared use)...but the change between the two isn't very helpful to the cyclist/cyclists in that it changes AT the junction itself, not giving any cyclist any or much warning of a change of circumstance ahead.
> The car half crosses the solid line, but you could argue he's half using the broken line as well.
> 
> If we're going I to scenarios....imagine a child crossing the road, the car has stopped to let it pass in front...and the cyclist steamed straight Into the child as it went across the lane.. I suspect we'd have little sympathy for the cyclist....because he wasn' prepared for the unexpected. In that scenario, the child would be to blame...as would the cyclist. Lack of anticipaion (cyclist) vs lack of awareness. (Driver)
> 50/50 in both scenarios.


The broken line is to warn the driver they are crossing a lane . There are no markings on the cycle path to indicate a turning so the cyclist had right of way . 
Right of way or not it could have been avoided .


----------



## Cycleops (19 Feb 2018)

Don’t know about the ROI but in the U.K. the mantra is check mirror, signal, turn.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Feb 2018)

[QUOTE 5156973, member: 45"]The broken line is to indicate that the driver can cross the line at that point.[/QUOTE]
With due care as the driver will be crossing a lane / path .


----------



## gbb (19 Feb 2018)

Cuchilo said:


> The broken line is to warn the driver they are crossing a lane . There are no markings on the cycle path to indicate a turning so the cyclist had right of way .
> Right of way or not it could have been avoided .


Pedant mode on ...the broken white line isn' specifically to warn the driver they'e. Crossing a lane, or dashed white line. Sustrans themselves see it as follows
' A dashed white line indicates other vehicles can use the lane, which means you'e likely to have to share it with other cars, motorbikes as well as parked cars'

There in almost all certainty won't be any markings on the cycle lane to indicate the junction...but there may well have been road signage to indicate to traffic there is.

Either way...dont get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the driver, he's clearly made a mistake...but (IMHO) the cyclist contributed towards his own downfall. Shared lane, driver not aware, cyclist not behaving appropriately .


----------



## colly (19 Feb 2018)

IMO the cyclist is at fault. 100%

A car turning left, indicator on, waiting for the road to clear.............what cretin would try to ride, at speed, up the inside? Well obviously the fool on the bike type of cretin.
There is nothing wrong with undertaking a car in a slow moving lane or coming up to lights etc but it has to be done with your eyes open and your brain engaged. 

Seems to me the guy on the bike simply wasn't watching what was going on. Just because he's on a bike doesn't give him some kind special right to act as an idiot.


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2018)

[QUOTE 5156908, member: 45"]No wow.

It's tiring to hear cyclists going on an on about what drivers should be doing. Blame shouldn't even be a question in a situation like this, which could have been very easily avoided by the cyclist. We know there are idiots on the road.[/QUOTE]
So we should stop mentioning that both parties are to blame and let the poor decent honest hard working normal tax paying law abiding ordinary motorists who don't want to pay their speeding fines or look before crossing another lane to their left... off scot free to avoid tiring some people out?

Maddest reason yet?


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2018)

Sigs aren't shown to mobiles and @User has hidden his profile. Does the sig imply it's everyone else's responsibility to avoid him crashing into them?


----------



## boydj (19 Feb 2018)

mjr said:


> So we should stop mentioning that both parties are to blame and let the poor decent honest hard working normal tax paying law abiding ordinary motorists who don't want to pay their speeding fines or look before crossing another lane to their left... off scot free to avoid tiring some people out?
> 
> Maddest reason yet?



While technically the driver is at fault, the cyclist is riding too fast for the conditions and apparently with no awareness of what is going on around him and no anticipation of what might happen.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Feb 2018)

Just had a quick look at the highway code and it seems the dashed white line is seen as the same as the dashed line in the middle of the road . 
The cycle lanes around here have double dashed lines at every junction so the cyclist stops . I prefer to use the road .


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2018)

[QUOTE 5157105, member: 45"]From the HC-
The 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.

You're still attributing to me something I'm not saying.[/QUOTE]
Haha... lucky guess there on the sig contents!

Can't you see how quoting only that bit seems like saying it's up to everyone else to give way to you regardless of the actual rules, to help avoid an incident?


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2018)

[QUOTE 5157105, member: 45"]Turn your phone to landscape and you'll see..
[/QUOTE]
No, see


----------



## bpsmith (20 Feb 2018)

The “right of way” arguments always show up. Some people’s ideas on what this constitutes are amazing. You get this sort of attitude on the roads every day.

On a roundabout, for example, many people latch on to the give way to the right guideline. That’s fine and generally works, but at some point the person making a manoeuvre then gains priority. Like when there’s somebody at every entrance and everyone looks at each other before one person decides to move. They have priority at that point, even though there’s somebody to their right. It’s just common sense, but some people approach at higher speeds and try and bully their way through.

The OP’s scenario is the same. The driver has clearly approached properly, indicated and been patient without blocking the bike lane. They’ve then slowly moved across when safe to do so. At that point, they have priority, and the cyclist should give way to them. In this instance the rider appears to have had plenty of time to make various decisions on how to approach the driver. He may, or may not, be travelling within the speed limit but he’s clearly not travelling at a safe speed for the traffic shown.

Blame or not though, sometimes these accidents can be well and truly avoided. People are just stubborn, whether driver or rider, or both.


----------



## Cycleops (20 Feb 2018)

bpsmith said:


> The OP’s scenario is the same. The driver has clearly approached properly, indicated and been patient without blocking the bike lane. They’ve then slowly moved across when safe to do so.


Except it clearly wasn’t. The driver hadn’t checked his/her mirror properly. The bike was obviously travelling too fast for the conditions. I do agree with your final comment though.


----------



## Jody (20 Feb 2018)

Easiest way to sum up these and other DM articles of this ilk is they are 50/50 clickbait that get people revved up and arguing. Both are at fault in some way but ultimately the fault (in insurance terms) lies with the driver who crossed the lane.


----------



## winjim (20 Feb 2018)

Each failed to mitigate the other's mistake. And the bike lane's rubbish.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Feb 2018)

Link here for non-DM users: https://swd.media/ireland/moment-cyclist-wiped-police-officer-turns-car-station-1-12288/

I take the same view as the driver who filmed the incident:
"My take on the accident is that a vehicle wishing to cross a traffic lane, must give way to all traffic in that lane.
So if a vehicle wishes to cross a cycle lane, they must yield to all bicycles in that lane and wait for the lane to be clear before crossing.”


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Feb 2018)

You cannot shout out "It was my right of way" when they are hammering the nails into your coffin.

The cyclist should have at least seen it coming and reacted.


----------



## Levo-Lon (20 Feb 2018)

Cyclist not paying attention, observation error.
Car driver not paying attention,checking mirror

Both at fault, tho the car driver should be more to blame simply as he was changing direction


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2018)

Drago said:


> Its the ROI, and I don't know in detail what their rules are.
> 
> Were it the UK I'd have said the car driver was at fault. However, the cyclist was HUA and could have avoided it had they been paying attention instead of doing the standard eyes-dead-ahead tunnel vision thing - death and disability don't care who's "fault" it is.


Dublin, cycle lane use is mandatory, in parts.

But, as over here you're approaching an Emergency Facility(fire/ambulance station) you'd expect that there may be sudden traffic from the left.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/s...-cyclist-left-unable-to-speak-or-walk.218116/

Internal link added.


----------



## Duffy (20 Feb 2018)

I'm of an opinion that there's blame on both sides here.
From the whole, practical wanting to stay alive thing however, undertaking (at speed) any vehicle in front of you that's clearly indicating to go left is a good start on the darwinian self selection process.......


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2018)

A view of where the cars had stopped, and possibly why. Traffic lights at a junction.





The piece about the bobble cap as mentioned earlier now makes sense.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Feb 2018)

Duffy said:


> clearly indicating to go left



The indicator can be seen only once the Toyota driver begins his manoeuvre to cut off the cyclist's path. It's an assumption that it was on prior to that, as I frequently observe drivers who only connect with the indicator stalk as their hand passes it while already starting the turn.

Toyota driver begins his turn across the lane just 2 seconds before impact so cyclist would already be very close and there to be seen.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Feb 2018)

Cycleops said:


> Except it clearly wasn’t. The driver hadn’t checked his/her mirror properly. The bike was obviously travelling too fast for the conditions. I do agree with your final comment though.


Except we don’t know that as can’t see the drivers view and the footage has a very narrow view. You might be correct, or the cyclist may have appeared from around a bend or from another street. Impossible to say.


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2018)

bpsmith said:


> Except we don’t know that as can’t see the drivers view and the footage has a very narrow view. You might be correct, or the cyclist may have appeared from around a bend or from another street. Impossible to say.


Street is fairly straight, with parking just before the point of impact, on the left-hand side. See above post with picture of the road.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Feb 2018)

classic33 said:


> Street is fairly straight, with parking just before the point of impact, on the left-hand side. See above post with picture of the road.


Yup. That pic changes everything in that respect. We didn’t know this when I posted.


----------



## steve292 (20 Feb 2018)

It's the drivers fault. He's changed/ crossed a lane without looking. However as has been mentioned several times, I doubt if the cyclist is hurting any less because of it.


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2018)

winjim said:


> Each failed to mitigate the other's mistake. And the bike lane's rubbish.


But its use is mandatory.


----------



## classic33 (21 Feb 2018)

*2008 Toyota Corolla NG 1.4 Terra CBU
BODY TYPE *4 Door Saloon
*FUEL TYPE *Petrol
*COLOUR *Blue ?
*TRANSMISSION *Manual

Plate could do with a clean though.

08 MO 1430


----------



## Roadhump (21 Feb 2018)

steve292 said:


> It's the drivers fault. *He's changed/ crossed a lane without looking*. However as has been mentioned several times, I doubt if the cyclist is hurting any less because of it.



Perhaps the driver did look, but missed the cyclist in his blind spot, without the aid of an in cab camera, we can't know for certain. There is a big issue about HGV driver's being unable to see cyclists in their rear view mirror, which is made worse due to the size and shape of their vehicles, but car drivers also suffer from blind spots.



classic33 said:


> But its use is mandatory.



That is very worrying, it removes any discretion for the cyclist to move to a different road position to increase their safety. I hope nothing as ridiculous is ever introduced in the UK.


----------



## davidphilips (21 Feb 2018)

That is very worrying, it removes any discretion for the cyclist to move to a different road position to increase their safety. I hope nothing as ridiculous is ever introduced in the UK.[/QUOTE]

Is the bike lane mandatory? Is that in Belfast and part of the UK? Have not cycled in that part of Belfast in years but maybe a failing on my part but how do you know if a cycle lane is mandatory?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Feb 2018)

Roadhump said:


> Perhaps the driver did look, but missed the cyclist in his blind spot



Blind spots are often quoted as though they were some mystical, unpredictable phenomenon. A blind spot and its extent are the responsibility of that vehicle's operator. And as Reg points out, blind spots can be mitigated by appropriate adjustment of head/body by the driver.

The line of the cyclist's approach relative to the Toyota driver's position (i.e. parallel and offset by about 1 metre at the most) would make him visible in a correctly adjusted nearside mirror.


----------



## winjim (21 Feb 2018)

classic33 said:


> But its use is mandatory.


I think you mean 'and' rather than 'but'.


----------



## mjr (21 Feb 2018)

Roadhump said:


> That is very worrying, it removes any discretion for the cyclist to move to a different road position to increase their safety. I hope nothing as ridiculous is ever introduced in the UK.


The UK keeps trying. Last time, the attempt was weakened to "Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer." - which is highly debatable. Snipers shooting all motorists who close-passed would seem more likely to "make your journey safer."

www.rulesoftheroad.ie if you want to see the full horror: "Cyclists *must* use any cycle track provided." (Emphasis theirs.) You can tell pretty much from the outset of the cycling section that the rule authors are sadistic nobbers by "Your bicycle should be the right size to allow you to touch the ground with both feet" which has probably condemned lots of tall young Irish people to uncomfortable riding on bikes that are too small for them.


----------



## mjr (21 Feb 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Blind spots are often quoted as though they were some mystical, unpredictable phenomenon. A blind spot and its extent are the responsibility of that vehicle's operator. And as Reg points out, blind spots can be mitigated by appropriate adjustment of head/body by the driver.


Or in other words, cars do NOT have old-HGV-style blind spots that the driver cannot see through any combination of mirrors or direct observation+movement. No mirror provides complete coverage, but that's why you don't rely on one (or even two) mirrors.

And as noted, that cyclist would have been visible in the side mirror until relatively late.


----------



## winjim (21 Feb 2018)

mjr said:


> www.rulesoftheroad.ie if you want to see the full horror: "Cyclists *must* use any cycle track provided." (Emphasis theirs.) You can tell pretty much from the outset of the cycling section that the rule authors are sadistic nobbers by "Your bicycle should be the right size to allow you to touch the ground with both feet" which has probably condemned lots of tall young Irish people to uncomfortable riding on bikes that are too small for them.


To further complicate things, there appears to be some debate about how accurately the 'rules of the road' interprets the actual law, and also about how clear the law is anyway, having possibly been modified by guidance given by a minister.

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/22/ru...advice-from-department-of-transport-says-rsa/


----------



## HLaB (21 Feb 2018)

A signal doesn't give you the priority so I'd say the driver is 100% at fault but the cyclist was 99% the injured party (I assume the driver has a conscious and that was hurt too) and the cyclist should have 100% avoided it  Typical Daily Mail hate though publishing deliberately something that'll be divisive :-(


----------

