Is this the driver of the car's fault?

[Ming the Merciless]

it means that his personal risk assessment profile is very different when he is driving a lorry to when he is riding a bike.

I’m sure he can answer for himself rather than needing a personal assistant to respond with their interpretation.

 

[Jody]

By my reckoning, she only had around .7 of a second from the car crossing the give way line to point of impact.

 

[Jody]

I'm not talking about liability. I've already said that lies 100% with the driver. I'm talking about staying alive as a cyclist.


We've already established the Citroen driver is at fault so that's not my problem.


Actually as it's a built up area everybody should be careful, drivers and cyclists alike. If you look at the streetview image I posted upthread there are cars parked on both sides of the road past the junction making it effectively single lane. Risk of getting doored, people crossing, children playing.

I don't drive a lorry but I do drive a car and ride a bike so that's what I'm looking at and in either case I think there are lessons to be learned from this incident.

Apologies. It sounded like you thought she played some part by not anticipating or avoiding it.

Still would like to know if you were in her shoes, the driver jumped out and said "everyone should be able to stop, why didn't you"? Would you accept that knowing the driver is 100% at fault?

 

[winjim]

I’m sure he can answer for himself rather than needing a personal assistant to respond with their interpretation.

He's covered it pretty well though? If I'm in a lorry, and assuming my motivation is personal protection, the chances of anything emerging from a minor road that would put me in hospital are negligible so no, there's no need to slow to 5mph at every junction.

 

[winjim]

Apologies. It sounded like you thought she played some part by not anticipating or avoiding it.

Still would like to know if you were in her shoes, the driver jumped out and said "everyone should be able to stop, why didn't you"? Would you accept that knowing the driver is 100% at fault?

Emergency stops are a thing.
Is anyone hurt in this scenario?

 

[Jody]

Is anyone hurt?

She was badly injured, wasn't she?

"The cyclist was left with a bleed on the brain, a broken shoulder and a broken ankle."

 

[winjim]

She was badly injured, wasn't she?

"The cyclist was left with a bleed on the brain, a broken shoulder and a broken ankle."

I thought she was in a car.

 

[Jody]

I thought she was in a car.

You're doing this on purpose.

"if you were in her shoes" as in the lady who went over the bonnet.

 

[winjim]

You're doing this on purpose.

"if you were in her shoes" as in the lady who went over the bonnet.

So flip the situation and you are in a car in place of the cyclist. You hit the driver pulling out of the junction and they start shouting at you because you didn't stop.

Do you say, "fair point, I should have stopped" and accept your liability?

You need to be clearer.

 

[rogerzilla]

I watched it again to see if it was a case of target fixation* but I don't think it was. The cyclist doesn't deviate from a straight line.

*it's relatively common for cyclists or motorcyclists to hit a crossing car actually in the side road to their left, when they might have avoided it by continuing straight or steering around the rear of the car. The human visual/motor system is conditioned to lock onto a moving object,probably for hunting purposes. This is why your PE teacher told you to keep your eye on the ball when batting, and why your driving instructor told you NOT to look at oncoming headlights.

 

[Jody]

You need to be clearer.

You didn't answer that and swerved by going on about liability. We all know the driver was liable but people are questioning your assertion that she should have somehow stopped or at least taken avoiding action. I changed that hyperthetical scenario because it adds the element of vehicle protection, as you pointed out that you wouldn't be cautious if it wasn't going to harm you (lorry hitting the car).

I asked again a second time based on the context of this thread. Hence, if you were in HER position and laying in the floor injured.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

assuming my motivation is personal protection,

Is your motivation solely personal protection or is it also to cause no harm to more vulnerable road users?

 

[winjim]

You didn't answer that and swerved by going on about liability. We all know the driver was liable but people are questioning your assertion that she should have somehow stopped or at least taken avoiding action. I changed that hyperthetical scenario because it adds the element of vehicle protection, as you pointed out that you wouldn't be cautious if it wasn't going to harm you (lorry hitting the car).

I asked again a second time based on the context of this thread. Hence, if you were in HER position and laying in the floor injured.

Maybe there's been a misunderstanding which could be my fault although I'm not going to trawl back through the thread to check exactly what language I was using. I'm not asserting that she should have stopped, I'm wondering whether there could have been any mitigating action she could have taken, including thinking about whether her speed was perhaps a little excessive for the type of road she was on.

Is your motivation solely personal protection or is it also to cause no harm to more vulnerable road users?

In the current thought experiment, the former.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

In the current thought experiment, the former.

Seems in your thought experiment you’d fail the attitude test required of a responsible and capable driver and fail to gain a licence.

 

[winjim]

Seems in your thought experiment you’d fail the attitude test required of a responsible and capable driver and fail to gain a licence.

Yes it's a thought experiment not a driving test. You're the one who brought up lorries, what point were you making? I was saying that it might be an idea for a cyclist to slow down in the interests of their own protection, but that argument doesn't apply to lorries.


If you think I haven't considered vulnerable road users, go back and look at the post where I mention children playing as a potential hazard.