# Another accident caught on camera



## PK99 (19 May 2016)

Interesting variation on the theme


View: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=340_1463518010


----------



## Spinney (19 May 2016)

Driver seems to think that indicating gives him the right to do what he wants.
(But yes, cyclist was an idiot too.)


----------



## numbnuts (19 May 2016)

And that's why you should ride on the pavement


----------



## Jimidh (19 May 2016)

the driver should have predicted the knob on the bike was going to do that but that is one stupid bit of cycling.


----------



## midlife (19 May 2016)

I'm staying neutral but isn't there something in the highway code that says a cyclist can only pass a moving car on the inside when the car is signaling right?

Just curious and not commenting on the video.

Shaun


----------



## gavintc (19 May 2016)

Admittedly not a pedestrian, but it does not give the motorist authority to ignore at a junction:


*HC: *
*Rule 170*
Take extra care at junctions. You should


watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way


----------



## Racing roadkill (19 May 2016)

If that was a 'shared path' the cyclist has a point. If it's just a pavement, he's a cock. Even if that's a shared path, the cyclist should give way.


----------



## Lonestar (19 May 2016)

Spinney said:


> Driver seems to think that indicating gives him the right to do what he wants.
> (But yes, cyclist was an idiot too.)



About indicating is a good point and some people see it as a wild card as to enable to turn when they feel like without looking or when just overtaking a cyclist.Happens regularly on the CS 2.I agree the cyclist was wrong also.


----------



## derrick (19 May 2016)

The cyclist should not be on the pavement.


----------



## Tim Hall (19 May 2016)

midlife said:


> I'm staying neutral but isn't there something in the highway code that says a cyclist can only pass a moving car on the inside when the car is signaling right?
> 
> Just curious and not commenting on the video.
> 
> Shaun


Not that I can find.


----------



## Tim Hall (19 May 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> If that was a 'shared path' the cyclist has a point. If it's just a pavement, he's a cock. Even if that's a shared path, the cyclist should give way.


I'm not surethe cyclist should give way, although it's hard to tell the sequence of events from the video. We can see the cyclist as the driver overtakes him before the junction, but it's unclear whether the cyclist is already crossing the side road when the driver made his turn.

Personally, if I was in the driver's position, my spidey senses would be tingling, marking the cyclist down for a nobber and therefore ready for him to do something rash.


----------



## midlife (19 May 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Not that I can find.



Maybe I was thinking about this.......

*Rule 72*
*On the left.* When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Shaun


----------



## Apollonius (19 May 2016)

The cyclist can clearly be seen riding on the pavement earlier in the video. OK, the driver might have expected him to be there, but it is a bold rider that assumes priority in those circumstances. The rider would best be on the road if he wants to keep his priority. If you choose to ride on the pavement, then be prepared to give way to everyone. Even if it is a shared path, then the rider will have to give way. Cyclist mostly to blame, in my view, but the driver might have anticipated he was dealing with an idiot and driven accordingly.


----------



## Lemond (19 May 2016)

How is this any different to a pedestrian stepping of the curb without looking? Guy on the bike is an idiot.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (19 May 2016)

Racing incident.


----------



## Profpointy (19 May 2016)

Lemond said:


> How is this any different to a pedestrian stepping of the curb without looking? Guy on the bike is an idiot.



Not sure if you're saying two seperate things or contradicting yourself. A pedestrian has priority at junctions if I recall correctly so car driver would be 100% at fault in that scenario, though still best to look admittedly.


----------



## PK99 (19 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Not sure if you're saying two seperate things or contradicting yourself. A pedestrian has priority at junctions if I recall correctly so car driver would be 100% at fault in that scenario, though still best to look admittedly.



No, a driver is advised to give way to a pedestrian who has already started to cross a the road the driver is turning into.

Here, there was no pedestrian and the cyclist rode illegally on the pavement and directly inot the road.

A pedestrian still on the pavement does not have priority.


----------



## Glow worm (19 May 2016)

It must be a spoof. Driver indicating ? Whoever heard of that?!


----------



## Debade (19 May 2016)

I


Profpointy said:


> Not sure if you're saying two seperate things or contradicting yourself. A pedestrian has priority at junctions if I recall correctly so car driver would be 100% at fault in that scenario, though still best to look admittedly.



I was just about to suggest if the laws are the same in the UK as in the States, which seems to be the case, the motorist is responsible for not hitting any vulnerable road users. The motorist needs to take the extra step of checking for bikes.

Having said that, and the main reason I want to provide input, the cyclist should be riding defensively. The 'left and right hook' is a common accident. When I commute, I take great care at intersections and would simply not try to pass a car at an intersection in the fashion of this cyclist. (as others pointed out).. At least I do not think I would.


----------



## doog (19 May 2016)

derrick said:


> The cyclist should not be on the pavement.



Should be a thread killer really but hey ho...you nailed it.


----------



## DiddlyDodds (20 May 2016)

The clown on the bike is 100% at fault, if it was a runner or a horse rider and they just went straight out across a junction would people be defending them.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 May 2016)

It was the cyclist who had to give way not the driver. Now if that had been in Denmark it would be a whole different story.


----------



## Milkfloat (20 May 2016)

I don't see how there can be any debate here. The cyclist is liable. Sure, the driver could have been more careful, but the cyclist is the party to blame. 

Plus he has a crap beard and tattoos.


----------



## Jody (20 May 2016)

Move along there's nothing to see here. Cyclist makes mistake, gets all aggressive and tries and put blame on the motorist.

Love the comment thread though:

Heraut "I like how road rages in UK often remain quite polite and civilized. Not losing your temper is so british, it may sound cliché but you can actually see it on the videos."
"@Héraut You haven't met Ronnie Pickering"


----------



## derrick (20 May 2016)

doog said:


> Should be a thread killer really but hey ho...you nailed it.


It takes more than being right to kill a thread on here.


----------



## Poacher (20 May 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I don't see how there can be any debate here. The cyclist is liable. Sure, the driver could have been more careful, but the cyclist is the party to blame.
> 
> Plus he has a crap beard and tattoos.



....and a helmet!


----------



## tyred (20 May 2016)

When two fools collide. Didn't Kenny Rogers record a song about this....


----------



## Profpointy (20 May 2016)

whilst the cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement, and should have been looking around as well, I am troubled that the car turning left could equally well have collected a pedestrian as it was a general "car's have priority innit" attitude


----------



## derrick (20 May 2016)

Only idiots step of the kerb without looking.I dislike a lot motorist's, but he has right of way. Get over it.


----------



## Profpointy (20 May 2016)

derrick said:


> Only idiots step of the kerb without looking.I dislike a lot motorist's, but he has right of way. Get over it.



Well OK, but the cars are supposed to stop surely ?

"Get over it" the last refuge of someone without an argument, or perchance trying to start one


----------



## derrick (20 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Well OK, but the cars are supposed to stop surely ?
> 
> "Get over it" the last refuge of someone without an argument, or perchance trying to start one


He did stop. There is no argument the cyclist is a twat.. Read the highway code


----------



## Profpointy (20 May 2016)

derrick said:


> He did stop. There is no argument the cyclist is a twat.. Read the highway code



Good advice - try rule 170 for a start


----------



## derrick (20 May 2016)

He just came flying off thepavement which he should not have been on in the firstplace. When i cross a road i stop and check to see whats coming before i cross.Common sense really. But not everyone is blessed with that are they.


----------



## Jody (20 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Good advice - try rule 170 for a start



Think that falls down on the definition of pedestrian and is debatable whether the cyclist started to cross first before the car turned into the junction.


----------



## Profpointy (20 May 2016)

Jody said:


> Think that falls down on the definition of pedestrian and is debatable whether the cyclist started to cross first before the car turned into the junction.



My point really is that it's all very well blaming the cyclist for being on the pavement, but if he'd instead been walking in the very same place, let's say a small child even, it would be 100% car driver's fault - even if its (sadly) wiser as a pedestrian to bow down to the superiority of the motor car.

Hey, only yesterday a car was driving onto the zebra crossing I was half way across in a "hurry up, get out of my way" manner. When I gestured disapproval - and to be clear it was a WTAF are you doing gesture rather than the (or two) finger - the response from the driver wasn't contrition.


----------



## Custom24 (20 May 2016)

Assuming the audio is in sync with the video, the horn was sounded pretty much as soon as the collision occurred

That, and the driver's subsequent smug attitude make me think that he knew the cyclist was there, possibly even saw that he'd started across the junction, and decided to assert his car's priority vs the illegal pavement riding cyclist

In other words, the driver is likely a dangerous ass on the road, as much as the cyclist


----------



## derrick (20 May 2016)




----------



## Milkfloat (20 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> My point really is that it's all very well blaming the cyclist for being on the pavement, but if he'd instead been walking in the very same place, let's say a small child even, it would be 100% car driver's fault - even if its (sadly) wiser as a pedestrian to bow down to the superiority of the motor car.



That depends if the pedestrian was already crossing the road.


----------



## Profpointy (20 May 2016)

[QUOTE 4288282, member: 45"]He wouldn't have been walking, but running. He'd be running into the road and you'd be calling him an idiot.[/QUOTE]

The car should still have seen and stopped-for a runner - no?

Or is the mere pedestrian to defer to car at all times? 

Sadly one has to look, because "might is right" when it comes to the car, but it shouldn't be like this, and in law, isn't.
For cyclists to support this view is sad


----------



## derrick (20 May 2016)

I give up the motorist was a complete idiot. The cyclist was in no way to blame. Cyclist rule.


----------



## Jamieyorky (20 May 2016)

Love it how the cyclist is at fault .... So let's shout and swere at the driver.......


----------



## jefmcg (20 May 2016)

If a car is stopped in a box junction, are other drivers legally allowed to ram it, because it's not supposed to be there? Just because the cyclist is not in the right, doesn't make hitting him ok. And when you drive your car into vulnerable road user, gloating is never appropriate.

Can anyone hear the indicator click as the driver approaches the turn? I can only make it out just as the car starts turning.

For the record, even if it was a shared footpath, apparently it's still OK to drive over a cyclist using it, as long as you say were indicating and there are no witnesses alive to contradict you. http://lcc.org.uk/articles/senior-coroner-concludes-henry-langs-death-accidental


----------



## jefmcg (20 May 2016)

Jamieyorky said:


> Love it how the cyclist is at fault .... So let's shout and swere at the driver.......


He's just been hit by a car. This is lizard brain response. Logic doesn't come into it.


----------



## PK99 (20 May 2016)

Jody said:


> Think that falls down on the definition of pedestrian and is debatable whether the cyclist started to cross first before the car turned into the junction.



The clue is in the name....pedestrian 

Pedestrian ....on foot.
Cyclist on a cycle
Person on foot pushing a bike on pavement = pedestrian
Person riding a bike on the pavement = cyclist

The cyclist in this case was a complete and arrogant farkwit.


----------



## Jamieyorky (20 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


> He's just been hit by a car. This is lizard brain response. Logic doesn't come into it.



I wouldn't have responded like that, but I also wouldn't have ridden on the pavement and have common sense to stop when a car is turning.


----------



## jefmcg (20 May 2016)

Jamieyorky said:


> I wouldn't have responded like that, but I also wouldn't have ridden on the pavement and have common sense to stop when a car is turning.



Congratulations on overcoming your evolution. Clearly you are a higher life form than us mere mammals.

Too bad it doesn't prevent you laughing at the pain of others. I guess that the next stage in evolution.


----------



## G3CWI (20 May 2016)

Some drivers do appear to think that indicating gives them the right of way. Earlier this week I was cycling along a road minding my own business when a driver pulled slowly along side me, indicated left and started to make a turn into a side road. She did seem to think that I should somehow magically get out of her way. Fortunately it happened at less than 10mph and she did eventually stop. It was all rather surreal.


----------



## Jamieyorky (20 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Congratulations on overcoming your evolution. Clearly you are a higher life form than us mere mammals.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't prevent you laughing at the pain of others. I guess that the next stage in evolution.



It has nothing to do with living the high life, it's called common sense!


----------



## Milkfloat (20 May 2016)

G3CWI said:


> Some drivers do appear to think that indicating gives them the right of way. Earlier this week I was cycling along a road minding my own business when a driver pulled slowly along side me, indicated left and started to make a turn into a side road. She did seem to think that I should somehow magically get out of her way. Fortunately it happened at less than 10mph and she did eventually stop. It was all rather surreal.



The difference is that you were on the road and therefore had priority.


----------



## Banjo (20 May 2016)

Makes little difference who had right of way when you are in the intensive care ward.


----------



## MiK1138 (20 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> whilst the cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement, and should have been looking around as well, I am troubled that the car turning left could equally well have collected a pedestrian as it was a general "car's have priority innit" attitude


Disagree, a pedestrian is unlikely to have been moving a fast as the cyclist, so i'll give the motorist the benefit of the doubt that had he seen a Ped close to the kerb he would not have made the turn


----------



## MiK1138 (20 May 2016)

I'm just gonna ride on the pavement all the time and fly over junctions at 15mph, probably wont be posting much in the future though. wish me luck


----------



## glenn forger (20 May 2016)

If the camera was on a cyclist and it was a child running on the pavement and the cyclist passes the child then turns left and knocks them over whose fault is it? The first rule ought to be don't hurt anyone. WE already know the cyclist is on the pavement so we know they're dim, this was 100% avoidable and utterly predictable. I'd give the driver the benefit of the doubt but his flat estuary disinterest in anyone's welfare strongly suggests he drove into the bearded bloke on purpose. Crap driving, in any case. Really awful driving, the rider could have had a huge arrow above him saying "This bloke is Dim" and it couldn't have been more predictable.


----------



## classic33 (20 May 2016)

MiK1138 said:


> I'm just gonna ride on the pavement all the time and fly over junctions at 15mph, probably wont be posting much in the future though. wish me luck


Luck


----------



## 400bhp (20 May 2016)

It happens a fair bit to runners this. Quick shoulder check by the runner, no one signalling to turn, then a car turns in.


----------



## Jimidh (21 May 2016)

400bhp said:


> It happens a fair bit to runners this. Quick shoulder check by the runner, no one signalling to turn, then a car turns in.


Bonkers I can't believe any adult runs, rides or walks onto a road until they are sure it is clear.


----------



## Profpointy (21 May 2016)

Jimidh said:


> Bonkers I can't believe any adult runs, rides or walks onto a road until they are sure it is clear.



yebbut - the road is clear - until someone turns into it


----------



## Levo-Lon (21 May 2016)

Both at fault..but yet again the cyclist thinks its ok to press on regardless..
driver should have checked left visually after passing the cyclist and knowing he was going to turn left..


----------



## Jimidh (21 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> yebbut - the road is clear - until someone turns into it



Hope you don't teach road safety - you don't go onto a road until you are sure a car isn't going to turn into it while you cross. 

I'm amazed reading this thread that people think that the cyclist in that clip was blameless. Firing off a pavement across a road junction like he did is careless in the extreme and even though the driver should have been more aware of him it doesn't exonerate the cyclist from taking his share of the blame for a totally avoidable accident that could have ended in a much worse situation.


----------



## Profpointy (21 May 2016)

Jimidh said:


> Hope you don't teach road safety - you don't go onto a road until you are sure a car isn't going to turn into it while you cross.
> 
> I'm amazed reading this thread that people think that the cyclist in that clip was blameless. Firing off a pavement across a road junction like he did is careless in the extreme and even though the driver should have been more aware of him it doesn't exonerate the cyclist from taking his share of the blame for a totally avoidable accident that could have ended in a much worse situation.




That's not what I"m saying at all. What I am saying is that cars should give way to pedestrians at junctions, just like at zebra crossing.
Obviously it's wise as a pedestrian to look, but it's frankly piss-poor for drivers to claim they only have to give way "once the pedestrian has started crossing". Thus cars can keep going till the pedestrian strides out - making it a game of chicken. 
Basically this means the pedestrian is a lower class citizen to be bullied out of the way 

OK cyclist shouldn't have been riding on pavement in the first place, and shouldn't have been totally dozy, but that's not really my point


----------



## PK99 (21 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> What I am saying is that cars should give way to pedestrians at junctions, just like at zebra crossing.
> t



That in not what the highway code says.


----------



## Profpointy (21 May 2016)

PK99 said:


> That in not what the highway code says.



it does say "who have started crossing" in both cases. Does that mean that if cars just zoom through then you daren't start crossing, hence cars never have to give way ? 

Still not impressed by the might is right attitude I'm seeing on a cycle forum of all places


----------



## mjr (23 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Still not impressed by the might is right attitude I'm seeing on a cycle forum of all places


Not impressive, but also not surprising: most cyclists are also motorists, so a significant minority of them are likely to be crap motorists, sadly. Some will also be crap cyclists, pulling stunts like overtaking other cyclists on the left at speed without warning or mounting the kerb recklessly... but I'd still rather they were cycling on the pavement than driving tons of metal along it... and motorists do often hurtle onto pavements because they think they can squeeze past someone waiting to turn right, only to panic if they discover the pavement's occupied:


----------



## Jody (23 May 2016)

mjray said:


> Not impressive, but also not surprising: most cyclists are also motorists, so a significant minority of them are likely to be crap motorists, sadly. Some will also be crap cyclists, pulling stunts like overtaking other cyclists on the left at speed without warning or mounting the kerb recklessly...



Or dismounting the kerb recklessly, off the pavement (which he shouldn't have been cycling on), into a T junction, without slowing or looking sufficiently and expecting not to get hit. The motorist wasn't blameless but the guy on the bike was a tool.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


> He's just been hit by a car. This is lizard brain response. Logic doesn't come into it.



Can I correct this?

He's just hit a car. This is lizard brain response. Logic doesn't come into it.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Jun 2016)

Maybe I'm being simple here, but a human being was nearly squished by a another human not paying enough attention when turning left.

Now let's replace the full grown hairy human with a child on a scooter, or an elderly person on a mobility scooter, or a mother running with a pram.
Would you all be so quick to jump to the driver's defence then? Hopefully not and in that context, a human is a human is a human.
Ergo the driver is the one in the wrong, I don't remember the Highway Code stating its ok not to look where you're turning.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Jun 2016)

just_fixed said:


> Maybe I'm being simple here, but a human being was nearly squished by a another human not paying enough attention when turning left.
> 
> Now let's replace the full grown hairy human with a child on a scooter, or an elderly person on a mobility scooter, or a mother running with a pram.
> Would you all be so quick to jump to the driver's defence then? Hopefully not and in that context, a human is a human is a human.
> Ergo the driver is the one in the wrong, I don't remember the Highway Code stating its ok not to look where you're turning.



Do you not remember the green cross code?


----------



## Tanis8472 (5 Jun 2016)

Jimidh said:


> Hope you don't teach road safety - you don't go onto a road until you are sure a car isn't going to turn into it while you cross.



So by that logic, you would never get across if there is a constant stream of traffic.


----------



## winjim (5 Jun 2016)

Leaving aside the nobbery from both cyclist and motorist, in a strict legal sense does the footway not extend across the junction, giving priority to those travelling along it, over those turning across it? If so, it's about time our junction design was changed to reflect that.

Regarding the incident, nobber cyclist meets nobber motorist. Nobber motorist is more of a nobber as he's in control of the more dangerous vehicle and nobber cyclist is the vulnerable road user. It looked to me like the nobber motorist's nobbery was deliberate, and I don't think it can be excused by the nobbery of the nobber cyclist.

@summerdays where does this cyclist lie on your safe / unsafe spectrum?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> Leaving aside the nobbery from both cyclist and motorist, in a strict legal sense does the footway not extend across the junction, giving priority to those travelling along it, over those turning across it? If so, it's about time our junction design was changed to reflect that.


I may be making it up, but I THINK pedestrians have ultimate right of way regardless of where they are. However, is this cyclists classed as a "pedestrian"?



> Regarding the incident, nobber cyclist meets nobber motorist. Nobber motorist is more of a nobber as he's in control of the more dangerous vehicle and nobber cyclist is the *vulnerable road user*. It looked to me like the nobber motorist's nobbery was deliberate, and I don't think it can be excused by the nobbery of the nobber cyclist.


Apart from he's not a road user, he's illegally cycling on a footpath.

What if there was somebody pushing a pram coming around the corner on the footpath in front of the cyclist? If he was going too fast to stop for the road junction, would he have stopped for them too?

I would like to think as a car driver I would have anticipated it, and it does to me feel somewhat like the driver did but turned anyway? However, the 'fault' here is the cyclist.


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

just_fixed said:


> Maybe I'm being simple here, but a human being was nearly squished by a another human not paying enough attention when turning left.
> 
> .



The only person doing anything wrong was the cyclist. On the pavement. Entering the road without paying proper attention.

The driver was perfectly entitled to assume that the cyclist would continue round the bend in the pavement or stop at the junction.


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> Leaving aside the nobbery from both cyclist and motorist, in a strict legal sense does the footway not extend across the junction, giving priority to those travelling along it, .?



No. The footway goes round the bend of the junction it absolutely does not continue across the junction. There is another footway on the other side or the road across the junction.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> The only person doing anything wrong was the cyclist.



So if a pedestrian is in the road and a cyclist sees them and sounds the horn
then rides into them it's the ped's fault?


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> So if a pedestrian is in the road and a cyclist sees them and sounds the horn
> then rides into them it's the ped's fault?



That is a hypothetical totally unrelated to the event at issue.

But, if a pedestrian is in the road any road user has a duty of care to avoid them.

If a pedestrian steps off a pavement and hits a cyclist, the pedestrian is at fault.

If a cyclist rides off a pavement and hits another road user, the cyclist is at fault.


----------



## winjim (5 Jun 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I may be making it up, but I THINK pedestrians have ultimate right of way regardless of where they are. However, is this cyclists classed as a "pedestrian"?


Probably not, but my question was about the legal definition of a footway, not the behaviour of those using it.

@mjray this strikes me as the sort of thing you might know.



PhilDawson8270 said:


> Apart from he's not a road user, he's illegally cycling on a footpath.


He is using the road. Badly, but he's using it. And just because he's illegally pavement cycling doesn't make it alright to turn a car into his path.



PhilDawson8270 said:


> What if there was somebody pushing a pram coming around the corner on the footpath in front of the cyclist?


There wasn't.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> So if a pedestrian is in the road and a cyclist sees them and sounds the horn
> then rides into them it's the ped's fault?



What if a pedestrian steps off the kerb into the path of a cyclist on the road?


----------



## glenn forger (5 Jun 2016)

If the cyclist had already seen them, sounded the horn, then deliberately drove into them and reacted in the same tone of bored contempt as this idiot driver then I'd say the cyclist was as much of a petulant bully as the knobber driver.


----------



## mjr (5 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> @mjray this strikes me as the sort of thing you might know.


The legal definition of what's usually called a pavement? It's "any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers" in the Highways Act 1835, which is what prohibits pavement cycling thanks to some later law defining not-yet-invented-as-we-know-it pedal cycles as carriages.

And I don't think pavement cycling excuses turning across them recklessly but it's been a while since I watched the video.


----------



## mjr (5 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> No. The footway goes round the bend of the junction it absolutely does not continue across the junction. There is another footway on the other side or the road across the junction.


The above is how I understand it. The law and junction layouts should be changed IMO. Footways and cycle tracks should continue across more minor roads but they don't yet.

Ironically, this means that once the cyclist entered the carriageway, he was technically no longer doing anything wrong, doesn't it?


----------



## Crandoggler (5 Jun 2016)

It absolutely blows my mind that people on here are arguing the case for the cyclist. Whilst the driver should have checked his blind spot, the cyclist absolutely should have given way. Cycle path or not. It's like a pedestrian walking out in the road when they've seen a car indicating and turning down it. Then wondering why they've been run over. 

I'm teaching my daughter how to cross the road at the moment. Maybe these morons need a lesson of looking left and right before crossing. 

When will people start using common sense instead of riding with an agenda to get into as many arguments with people and tonnes of motorised metal.


----------



## Lonestar (5 Jun 2016)

Lemond said:


> How is this any different to a pedestrian stepping of the curb without looking? Guy on the bike is an idiot.



Pedestrians generally don't look properly when crossing the road in London so the best way is to be patient and let them cross thus avoiding an incident.Same with anything else at a guess.We know the guy on the bike is an idiot but so is the motorist who could have easily avoided this if he could be bothered.It takes two to tango.

Why do they think that signalling is a passport to do as they want and covers them for everything...Numerous times I've had this where they've overtaken and thrown a left though not so much recently as I usually watch out for it.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Jun 2016)

Crandoggler said:


> It absolutely blows my mind that people on here are arguing the case for the cyclist. Whilst the driver should have checked his blind spot



Once again, the driver knew the cyclist was there. Watch the clip.


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Once again, the driver knew the cyclist was there. Watch the clip.



He knew the cyclist was there, the cyclist knew he was there, the cyclist knew he was turning. The cyclist rode off the pavement into the car.


----------



## Crandoggler (5 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Once again, the driver knew the cyclist was there. Watch the clip.


The idiot on a bike should have given way before crossing at the mouth of a junction. Do you see many joggers run straight out into the road? The usually slow down and have a cursory glance. Not this fool.

I suppose it would have been OK if he had ridden out into a roundabout also? As of course the motorists using that roundabout would have seen him. 

If you don't believe the cyclist was at fault, you're part of the problem on the roads today.


----------



## winjim (5 Jun 2016)

Crandoggler said:


> The idiot on a bike should have given way before crossing at the mouth of a junction. Do you see many joggers run straight out into the road? The usually slow down and have a cursory glance. Not this fool.
> 
> I suppose it would have been OK if he had ridden out into a roundabout also? As of course the motorists using that roundabout would have seen him.
> 
> If you don't believe the cyclist was at fault, you're part of the problem on the roads today.


A problem to which the solution appears to be to deliberately turn your car into the path of a perceived offender in order to create an unavoidable collision? That's violent vigilantism.


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> A problem to which the solution appears to be to deliberately turn your car into the path of a perceived offender in order to create an unavoidable collision? That's violent vigilantism.



The cyclist was a complete farkwit the driver simply followed the rules of the road. The cyclist broke the law and then ignored the highway code.


----------



## mjr (5 Jun 2016)

Crandoggler said:


> It's like a pedestrian walking out in the road when they've seen a car indicating and turning down it. Then wondering why they've been run over.


Yes, vulnerable road users absolutely cannot rely on motorists obeying the Highway Code. Might makes right!


----------



## jefmcg (5 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> the cyclist knew he was turning.


How do you know that?


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> How do you know that?



He was indicating and slowed for the turn. If the cyclist did not read those he really is a farkit.


----------



## winjim (5 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> The cyclist was a complete farkwit the driver simply followed the rules of the road. The cyclist broke the law and then ignored the highway code.


The motorist ignored the highway code which states:

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.


----------



## PK99 (5 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> The motorist ignored the highway code which states:
> 
> 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.



Two wheels good, four wheels bad thinking like that is part of the problem.

The cyclist was not on the road, was breaking the law and ignored the highway code. 

The motorist was on the road, diving and indicating as required by the highway code.


----------



## winjim (5 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> Two wheels good, four wheels bad thinking like that is part of the problem.
> 
> The cyclist was not on the road, was breaking the law and ignored the highway code.
> 
> The motorist was on the road, diving and indicating as required by the highway code.


What two wheels good four wheels bad thinking? Cyclist was riding like a nobber but that doesn't give anybody the right to deliberately steer an obstable into his path. I have already demonstrated that the driver was breaking the highway code by not giving way to avoid an incident.

If I see someone driving or riding in an unsafe manner, my reaction is to keep away from them. Let them go and be unsafe elsewhere, have a collision with someone else. I couldn't give a stuff about the law, I just want to continue my journey safely and without incident. Had I been driving that car and seen that cyclist I would have waited and let him be on his merry way, on the road, pavement, whatever. What the driver in the video chose to do was petty, vindictive and dangerous.


----------



## fossyant (5 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> The motorist ignored the highway code which states:
> 
> 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.



That happened in my accident. I could not stop as the driver turned right in front of me. I could not stop. Even a full on DH MTB would not have stopped.


----------



## PK99 (6 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> What two wheels good four wheels bad thinking? Cyclist was riding like a nobber but that doesn't give anybody the right to deliberately steer an obstable into his path. I have already demonstrated that the driver was breaking the highway code by not giving way to avoid an incident.
> 
> .



You have demonstrated no such thing, you have wrongly argued it.


----------



## Lemond (6 Jun 2016)

mjray said:


> Yes, vulnerable road users absolutely cannot rely on motorists obeying the Highway Code. Might makes right!



"Might is right". Right up there with "Punishment pass" on the list of stupid things cyclists say.


----------



## Profpointy (6 Jun 2016)

Lemond said:


> "Might is right". Right up there with "Punishment pass" on the list of stupid things cyclists say.



why are they stupid things to say? Both points are valid and both things happen


----------



## Lemond (6 Jun 2016)

Profpointy said:


> why are they stupid things to say? Both points are valid and both things happen



only in the minds of CC militants.


----------



## winjim (6 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> You have demonstrated no such thing, you have wrongly argued it.


Why wrongly? For it to be wrong, either

The motorist was unaware of the presence of the cyclist. This would be poor observation.
The motorist could not reasonably have expected the cyclist to carry on across the junction as he did. This would be poor anticipation.
However, from the motorists actions and comments following the collision, it seems probable that the motorist was aware of the cyclist, anticipated that he would continue riding across the junction, and deliberately manoeuvred his vehicle in order to form an obstruction and cause a collision. Therefore the motorist is in breach of the part of the highway code I have quoted upthread.


----------



## winjim (6 Jun 2016)

fossyant said:


> That happened in my accident. I could not stop as the driver turned right in front of me. I could not stop. Even a full on DH MTB would not have stopped.


Does the motorist claim they had priority? Or that they didn't see you?


----------



## winjim (6 Jun 2016)

Lemond said:


> only in the minds of CC militants.


I don't think it's particularly militant to wish that private citizens would not act as judge, jury and (sometimes literally) executioner against the perceived offenses of others.


----------



## fossyant (6 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> Does the motorist claim they had priority? Or that they didn't see you?


SMIDSY


----------



## PK99 (6 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> Why wrongly? For it to be wrong, either
> 
> The motorist was unaware of the presence of the cyclist. This would be poor observation.
> The motorist could not reasonably have expected the cyclist to carry on across the junction as he did. This would be poor anticipation.
> However, from the motorists actions and comments following the collision, it seems probable that the motorist was aware of the cyclist, anticipated that he would continue riding across the junction, and deliberately manoeuvred his vehicle in order to form an obstruction and cause a collision. Therefore the motorist is in breach of the part of the highway code I have quoted upthread.



Supposition and assumption.
Stick to the facts.

The cyclist was cycling illegally on the pavement and entered the roadway in contravention of the highway code.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (6 Jun 2016)

You can clearly see the cyclist on the pavement so if that was me I would be watching him in my mirror to see what he is going to do as I was signalling to turn and then act accordingly, after all if he is going to ride on the pavement there is little chance he is going to bother stopping at the road end. I see pavement cyclists do this all the time round here, I once had one go right in front of me across a main road at a crossing he didnt slow down let alone bother stopping to wait for the lights to change.


----------



## mjr (6 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> The cyclist was cycling illegally on the pavement and entered the roadway in contravention of the highway code.


The cyclist being to blame does not stop the motorist being to blame as well.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Jun 2016)

phil_hg_uk said:


> You can clearly see the cyclist on the pavement



If the clip was part of the Theory, do you reckon that driver would pass?


----------



## mjr (6 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> The motorist was on the road, diving and indicating as required by the highway code.


...and failing to give way if it can help to avoid an incident, as also required by the highway code.


----------



## PK99 (6 Jun 2016)

SUOTE="winjim, post: 4310645, member: 32172"]Why wrongly? For it to be wrong, either

The motorist was unaware of the presence of the cyclist. This would be poor observation.
The motorist could not reasonably have expected the cyclist to carry on across the junction as he did. This would be poor anticipation.
However, from the motorists actions and comments following the collision, it seems probable that the motorist was aware of the cyclist, anticipated that he would continue riding across the junction, and deliberately manoeuvred his vehicle in order to form an obstruction and cause a collision. Therefore the motorist is in breach of the part of the highway code I have quoted upthread.[/QUOTE]

Supposition and assumption. 
Stick to the facts.

The cyclist was cycling illegally on the pavement and entered the roadway in contravention of the highway code.


----------



## Apollonius (6 Jun 2016)

I know when we were taught to drive we were expected to approach every junction as if we might have to avoid someone pulling out, even if the "give way" markers were in our favour and we were on the major road. I'm afraid that this is something I have long ceased to do, and I do not think I am alone in this. I doubt this makes me a bad person. 

If I were the driver in this case, I fear I would have been unlikely to expect the cyclist to join the road I was turning into without stopping. I might even have assumed he was on a cycle-path and would therefore have "give-way" markings in front of him. As a cyclist and a rider, my sympathies are with the car-driver on this occasion.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (6 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> The cyclist was cycling illegally on the pavement and entered the roadway in contravention of the highway code.



Doesn't mean you can run him over, if we all ran over every stupid person we came across the roads would be chaos.




PK99 said:


> The motorist was on the road, diving and indicating as required by the highway code.



Mirrors, Signal, Maneuver - had he been following this he would have seen the cyclist probably was going to be a knob and not slow down and could have avoided putting them both in a situation where a collision could be likely.

I have learnt that being in the right & telling yourself the other person shouldn't to this or shouldn't do that does not work in real life. I once had someone take the front end almost clean off my car because they didn't stop and give way at a road junction when they should have, if they had hit me a foot further back they would have killed me no doubt about it and after that I expect everyone to do exactly the opposite of what they should do and very often I am not disappointed.


----------



## mick1836 (6 Jun 2016)

[QUOTE 4287090, member: 9609"]bloke on bike is a complete plonker - but that is crap driving; if you can't avoid something as predictable as that then you shouldn't have a driving licence. If either party had had an ounce of common sense then that would never of happened.[/QUOTE]

We are now in the era of when or whatever happens it's *ALWAYS* the other persons fault.


----------



## KEEF (6 Jun 2016)

*Rule 64*
You *MUST NOT* cycle on a pavement.

*Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129*
*Rule 170*
Take extra care at junctions. You should


watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
 *Two idots on road/pavement at same time* = accident, name calling, swearing, arm waving and heated discussions.................................................................................


----------



## PK99 (6 Jun 2016)

KEEF said:


> *Rule 64*
> You *MUST NOT* cycle on a pavement.
> 
> *Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129*
> ...



There was only one road user and no pedestrian.


----------



## winjim (6 Jun 2016)

PK99 said:


> Supposition and assumption.
> Stick to the facts.
> 
> The cyclist was cycling illegally on the pavement and entered the roadway in contravention of the highway code.


That's not in dispute. Neither does it invalidate my argument.

Irresistable nobber meets immovable pillock. Either could have acted to avoid the incident. Neither did. Both were in contravention of the highway code. However, motorist appeared to act deliberately and then attempt to claim the moral high ground.


----------



## mjr (6 Jun 2016)

Apollonius said:


> I know when we were taught to drive we were expected to approach every junction as if we might have to avoid someone pulling out, even if the "give way" markers were in our favour and we were on the major road. I'm afraid that this is something I have long ceased to do, and I do not think I am alone in this. I doubt this makes me a bad person.


Not exactly, but doesn't it make you part of the widespread problem of low driving standards on our roads? I probably make many mistakes but I always prepare for others failing to give way or for blue-light emergency vehicles emerging, checking and rechecking each junction as traffic conditions permit, until I'm so close that they'd have to be moving amazingly fast to collide with my vehicle. I'd be ashamed to admit publicly if I no longer did widely-taught things like that.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Jun 2016)

People can go backwards and forwards as much as they like. However wrong the motorist was to not react to a potential hazard, the cyclist is more wrong and hence liable. Plus as sad it may be, the cyclist has a lot more to lose.

I find it funny (or sad) that someone is sure that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist.


----------



## Inertia (6 Jun 2016)

Lemond said:


> "Might is right". Right up there with "Punishment pass" on the list of stupid things cyclists say.


I dont consider myself a militant but a punishment pass is something Ive experienced myself.

In the clip IMO the cyclist was reckless to ride off the pavement when he did. Id like to think if I had been driving I would have avoided a collision though.


----------



## winjim (7 Jun 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I find it funny (or sad) that someone is sure that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist.


If that's me you mean, I am not _sure_ that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist, however I think it _likely_ given the evidence on the video. In fact, I can think of three plausible explanations for the driver making that turn in the manner he did, none of which reflect particularly well on his driving. How many can you think of?


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> If that's me you mean, I am not _sure_ that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist, however I think it _likely_ given the evidence on the video. In fact, I can think of three plausible explanations for the driver making that turn in the manner he did, none of which reflect particularly well on his driving. How many can you think of?



I can think of far more reasons why he would not deliberately try and mow down a cyclist than I can for him to deliberately mow him down. Sure, the driver could and should have anticipated that he was dealing with a moron, but the cyclist is responsible for the situation occurring at all.


----------



## winjim (7 Jun 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I can think of far more reasons why he would not deliberately try and mow down a cyclist than I can for him to deliberately mow him down. Sure, the driver could and should have anticipated that he was dealing with a moron, but the cyclist is responsible for the situation occurring at all.


I agree with all that.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

Hopefully both people involved in this little incident learn from it, and the nobber on the bike needs to learn the most, if it had been a truck, he would probably be dead now, unbelievable fcukwittedness, and the most scary thing is he doesn't seem to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with his actions. The car driver should have anticipated what the nobber was going to do (I'd like to think I would have done, however I may not have), but we can hardly make failing to anticipate complete fcukwittery a traffic offence.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> Hopefully both people involved in this little incident learn from it, and the nobber on the bike needs to learn the most, if it had been a truck, he would probably be dead now, unbelievable fcukwittedness, and the most scary thing is he doesn't seem to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with his actions. The car driver should have anticipated what the nobber was going to do (I'd like to think I would have done, however I may not have), but we can hardly make failing to anticipate complete fcukwittery a traffic offence.




This ^^^^ in spades.
Good post.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2016)

This driver presumably continues to drive along public roads acting as an avenging angel, deliberately driving into other road users whose behaviour displeases him. Probably pulled the wings off insects as a kid.


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

The cyclist was at fault, but so was the driver. 
People need to realise that part of being a good driver is making allowances and correcting for other people's mistakes.


----------



## vickster (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> The cyclist was at fault, but so was the driver.
> People need to realise that part of being a good driver is making allowances and correcting for other people's mistakes.


Yes but cyclists also have a responsibility not to put themselves and others at risk


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> The cyclist was at fault, but so was the driver.
> People need to realise that part of being a good driver is making allowances and correcting for other people's mistakes.


I couldn't agree more.



vickster said:


> Yes but cyclists also have a responsibility not to put themselves and others at risk


Substitute _and_ for _but_ in that sentence and I would also agree.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> The cyclist was at fault, but so was the driver.
> People need to realise that part of being a good driver is making allowances and correcting for other people's mistakes.



I agree, but this incident was very different, it required the driver to anticipate that the nobber on the bike was going to do something really dumb, in fact so dumb, that I can understand that the driver did not anticipate it. I would say that the cyclist should have been able to anticipate what the car was going to do, more easily than the driver anticipate the nobber on the bike's next move, as I have already mentioned in my earlier post, as a driver I would like to think I would have read the situation and anticipated the bike rider's next move, but I would not be too certain I would, and I am sure many would not have, however as a cyclist, I would never do what that nobber did, would anyone on here.


----------



## mjr (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> I agree, but this incident was very different, it required the driver to anticipate that the nobber on the bike was going to do something really dumb, in fact so dumb, that I can understand that the driver did not anticipate it.


If that's true, where did the driver learn to drive? Perfectly Law-abiding Land? Surely we all know that nobber cyclists are out there?



GilesM said:


> however as a cyclist, I would never do what that nobber did, would anyone on here.


No. I'd also not do what the nobber motorist did either!


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

If something travelling at a constant speed in a straight line is unpredictable then may FSM protect us under more challenging circumstances.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> If something travelling at a constant speed in a straight line is unpredictable then may FSM protect us under more challenging circumstances.



I think most people would have expected a change in the constant speed to something like zero, before the edge of the kerb, or even a change to the straight line, perhaps a left turn. Nobody should do what the nobber on the bike did, it's as simple as that, and right now, I think he should be thanking the FSM for saving him from serious injury.


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> ...it's as simple as that...


Nine pages of discussion would tend to suggest it's not.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> Nine pages of discussion would tend to suggest it's not.



Unfortunately, that's down to a small, sad, and confused part of the cycling community, who will always be in the "Car bad, Bike good" camp, not easy to reason with anybody who is so entrenched in that view that they are prepared to defend the nobber on his bike in the OP video.


----------



## Lemond (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> Unfortunately, that's down to a small, sad, and confused part of the cycling community, who will always be in the "Car bad, Bike good" camp, not easy to reason with anybody who is so entrenched in that view that they are prepared to defend the nobber on his bike in the OP video.



HERESY!!!


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> Unfortunately, that's down to a small, sad, and confused part of the cycling community, who will always be in the "Car bad, Bike good" camp, not easy to reason with anybody who is so entrenched in that view that they are prepared to defend the nobber on his bike in the OP video.



I can't see anyone defending the cyclist, but the fact is that a competent driver should have anticipated for the quite predictable event of the cyclist continuing without stopping at the side road and planned for it. The only defending I can see in this thread is towards the driver, who carried out a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so.

One person being at fault in an incident doesn't automatically absolve the other from also being at fault.



GilesM said:


> Nobody should do what the nobber on the bike did



Agreed, but likewise, nobody should do what the nobber in the car did.


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

vickster said:


> Yes but cyclists also have a responsibility not to put themselves and others at risk


Hence why I said "The cyclist was at fault"


----------



## Apollonius (8 Jun 2016)

If he keeps on doing it (the person on bike that is, I hesitate to label him "cyclist") then one day there will be another of those "helpful" Cyclists Dismount" signs put up there. That will be nice.


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> Unfortunately, that's down to a small, sad, and confused part of the cycling community, who will always be in the "Car bad, Bike good" camp, not easy to reason with anybody who is so entrenched in that view that they are prepared to defend the nobber on his bike in the OP video.


Who is defending the cyclist? I'm certainly not.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> I can't see anyone defending the cyclist, but the fact is that a competent driver should have anticipated for the quite predictable event of the cyclist continuing without stopping at the side road and planned for it. The only defending I can see in this thread is towards the driver, who carried out a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so.
> 
> One person being at fault in an incident doesn't automatically absolve the other from also being at fault.



You're defending the nobber on a bike, (Apollonius is right, the guy in the video should not be called a cyclist) you're implying that it was in some way the fault of the driver for not avoiding the accident, sure it would have been better if the driver had avoided the accident, (most of us would like to think we would have done, but we cannot be certain about that) but if he had that would have just been the nobber on a bike's good luck, I really hope that this light collision has knocked something into his head, even though he has a stupid beard, bad tats, and a helmet without a peak on while riding a mtb, I do actually hope he is not squashed by a truck in similar act of brilliance.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> Who is defending the cyclist? I'm certainly not.



So was the accident caused 100% by the stupid actions of the nobber on the bike.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2016)

The collision was caused by turning a vehicle into another vehicle's path. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not see that collision coming.


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> You're defending the nobber on a bike, (Apollonius is right, the guy in the video should not be called a cyclist) you're implying that it was in some way the fault of the driver for not avoiding the accident



You're right that I'm suggesting it was in some way the fault of the driver, because it was.
They were both to blame: the cyclist shouldn't have ridden straight across the side road, and the driver shouldn't have carried out a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> Unfortunately, that's down to a small, sad, and confused part of the cycling community, who will always be in the "Car bad, Bike good" camp, not easy to reason with anybody who is so entrenched in that view that they are prepared to defend the nobber on his bike in the OP video.



So if a cyclist sees a pedestrian behaving erratically and makes no effort to avoid a collision you would support the cyclist?


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> So was the accident caused 100% by the stupid actions of the nobber on the bike.


I've made 15 posts on this thread, some of them repeating themselves. Give them a read and you'll find out what I think.

The thread's in danger of becoming circular and getting locked, and I fear I may not be helping...


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> You're right that I'm suggesting it was in some way the fault of the driver, because it was.
> They were both to blame: the cyclist shouldn't have ridden straight across the side road, and the driver shouldn't have carried out a manoeuvre without checking it was safe to do so.



They are not both to blame for the accident, one person caused the accident, the other person was not able (capable) to avoid it, I would agree, it probably means the driver is not the most competent, but quite clearly the person at fault is the nobber on his bike who decided to go ahead with a completely stupid and illegal bit of bike riding.


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> They are not both to blame for the accident, one person caused the accident, the other person was not able (capable) to avoid it, I would agree, it probably means the driver is not the most competent, but quite clearly the person at fault is the nobber on his bike who decided to go ahead with a completely stupid and illegal bit of bike riding.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The driver turned into the side road without checking properly that it was clear to do so. He is equally culpable for the collision.
Note that it could have been a jogger, or just any obstacle already in the road and he would also have failed to avoid hitting them.

The fact that the cyclist was illegally riding on the pavement doesn't mean that the blame for the collision lies 100% with him.


----------



## mjr (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> You're defending the nobber on a bike, (Apollonius is right, the guy in the video should not be called a cyclist)


Are you both such motorist-lovers that you want to divide-and-conquer cyclists as well as keep defending a substandard motorist who failed to follow the Highway Code? It's ironic that you're berating cyclists for not criticising another cyclist when they do, while blindly refusing to criticise the motorist.


----------



## Lemond (8 Jun 2016)

Cyclist shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. Cyclist should have been paying attention. Cyclist shouldn't have entered the roadway without checking the way was clear. Cyclist is a dick.


----------



## doog (8 Jun 2016)

vickster said:


> Yes but cyclists also have a responsibility not to put themselves and others at risk



Quite correct, we have a duty of care to other road users..I cant help but think we have a thread full of frustrated failed defence lawyers who think that getting on a bike removes them of all legal and social responsibilities.


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

Lemond said:


> Cyclist shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. Cyclist should have been paying attention. Cyclist shouldn't have entered the roadway without checking the way was clear. Cyclist is a dick.



Agree, but also: Driver should have been paying attention. Driver shouldn't have entered the roadway without checking the way was clear. Driver is a dick.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong.
> The driver turned into the side road without checking properly that it was clear to do so. He is equally culpable for the collision.
> Note that it could have been a jogger, or just any obstacle already in the road and he would also have failed to avoid hitting them.
> 
> The fact that the cyclist was illegally riding on the pavement doesn't mean that the blame for the collision lies 100% with him.



I doubt as many pedestrians or joggers step off of the kerb as fast as this nobber came off the edge on his bike, and hopefully they would look, the collision would not have had the slightest chance of happening if nobber on the bike had not been such a fcukwit. It was 100% his fault, if you can't see that then there really isn't much else to say, other than try the same thing yourself and wait until the Traffic Plod arrive and give you there view.


----------



## benb (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> I doubt as many pedestrians or joggers step off of the kerb as fast as this nobber came off the edge on his bike, and hopefully they would look, the collision would not have had the slightest chance of happening if nobber on the bike had not been such a fcukwit. It was 100% his fault, if you can't see that then there really isn't much else to say, other than try the same thing yourself and wait until the Traffic Plod arrive and give you there view.



If you can't see that the driver was equally culpable, then maybe driving isn't for you. He utterly failed to fulfil his obligations, and so did the cyclist.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

mjray said:


> Are you both such motorist-lovers that you want to divide-and-conquer cyclists as well as keep defending a substandard motorist who failed to follow the Highway Code? It's ironic that you're berating cyclists for not criticising another cyclist when they do, while blindly refusing to criticise the motorist.



The guy in the video is a nobber on a bike, not a cyclist, now that's clarified, I think you'll find that I have questioned the drivers competence several times, and it's not about motorist loving, or wanting to divide and conquer cyclists, whatever that nonsense is all about, it's about being honest, this guy did something really dumb on a bike, he could have been killed, if he had done the right thing, the accident would not have happened, whether the driver could or could not have avoided him is irrelevant.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

benb said:


> If you can't see that the driver was equally culpable, then maybe driving isn't for you. He utterly failed to fulfil his obligations, and so did the cyclist.



If you really believe the driver was equally to blame, then that really is up to you, I am sure there is no point me trying to convince you otherwise, as for whether driving is for me, fortunately somebody with a slightly more balance view of what happens on the roads gets to decide that one. Right now, the sun is shining, the wind isn't blowing too much, I'm off out on my bike, I think I'll keep off of any pavements.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2016)

So if a car is in the wrong place a cyclist can ride into it and not be responsible?


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> So if a cyclist sees a pedestrian behaving erratically and makes no effort to avoid a collision you would support the cyclist?



You seem to have mixed up the two different types of behaviour, behaving erratically, and being a complete fcukwit.


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

@GilesM your position seems to be rather inconsistent. You claim the incident was 100% cyclist's fault but then say you are also critical of the motorist. You say there are people with whom it is impossible to reason, but come across as rather aggressive yourself. I believe I have made my opinions clear in a reasonable way (with obviously the odd rhetorical flourish). What do you think of my analysis, do you claim that I am defending the cyclist, and why?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> You seem to have mixed up the two different types of behaviour, behaving erratically, and being a complete fcukwit.



Why would you want to argue the difference? There was a collision. It was not unavoidable. You can't answer the question cos it exposes your daft argument, you don't just barge on cos you have priority, that's neanderthal thinking.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

winjim said:


> @GilesM your position seems to be rather inconsistent. You claim the incident was 100% cyclist's fault but then say you are also critical of the motorist. You say there are people with whom it is impossible to reason, but come across as rather aggressive yourself. I believe I have made my opinions clear in a reasonable way (with obviously the odd rhetorical flourish). What do you think of my analysis, do you claim that I am defending the cyclist, and why?



I'm not in anyway inconsistent, I have no doubt that the person at fault is the nobber on the bike, but a better driver may have avoided the accident, that to me seems to be quite a sensible view, as for you analysis, it was lovely, however, I am not sure whether you are defending the nobber on the bike or not, when I ask directly if you thought he was 100% to blame for the accident, you didn't want to answer that direct question.


----------



## GilesM (8 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Why would you want to argue the difference? There was a collision. It was not unavoidable. You can't answer the question cos it exposes your daft argument, you don't just barge on cos you have priority, that's neanderthal thinking.



I didn't answer the question because it was so general it made no sense, as for barging on just because you have priority, I agree that's\wrong, but not anticipating a bit of complete stupidity until it's too late is really just an unfortunate mistake.


----------



## winjim (8 Jun 2016)

GilesM said:


> I'm not in anyway inconsistent, I have no doubt that the person at fault is the nobber on the bike, but a better driver may have avoided the accident, that to me seems to be quite a sensible view, as for you analysis, it was lovely, however, I am not sure whether you are defending the nobber on the bike or not, when I ask directly if you thought he was 100% to blame for the accident, you didn't want to answer that direct question.


If a better driver may have avoided the accident, then doesn't it follow that the driving of the motorist in the video was at best less than perfect and he should therefore take some of the blame?

You say my analysis is lovely. I don't know what that means. You obviously don't agree with it.

I didn't answer your question firstly because I believe I have already answered it upthread and don't want to carry on repeating myself, and secondly because the answer is not relevant to the subject of whether I am defending the cyclist. You claimed people were defending him, I wondered who you thought those people were, whether you included me among them, and if so why.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (8 Jun 2016)

neither car driver nor cyclist/bearded hipster showed any anticipation whatsoever. the cyclist/bearded hipster may have the excuse that he's never learned the rules of the road, the car driver can't say the same…


----------



## Phil Fouracre (8 Jun 2016)

Blimey! An incident like this getting to eleven pages, scary! I don't know, but, it's really got to be the clown on the bikes fault. Yes the driver should check when turning into the side road, BUT, the pavement went round to the left, the cyclist was alongside, illegally riding on the pavement, obviously completely ignored the car, even though he was going to transit from the pavement straight into the path of the car. 
I'd like to think that, as a cyclist I would keep a careful eye on him, but, you really have got to be realistic. I've always tried to ride defensively, and, yes, it's worked ok for the last forty years. It's very unrealistic to assume anything about other road users; I've always defaulted to the assumption that they are trying to kill you :-)


----------



## Moderators (8 Jun 2016)

After 11 pages it appears the discussion is just going round in circles.

Time to agree to disagree. Thread locked.


----------

