Left hook video - Tooting

[DCLane]

Both in the wrong:

- The Range Rover was indicating left before the cyclist came up the inside; the cyclist should have slowed.
- The Range Rover a) didn't look and b) turned left into a no left turn

 

[Deleted member 26715]

How did the cyclist "cause an unavoidable accident"? The accident was caused by the car making an illegal left turn, across a cyclist's path they they should have checked for. I agree that the cyclist should have had their wits about them and could have foreseen the possibilities but they are not the cause of the accident, merely an innocent yet naïve victim.

See @DCLane's answer the cyclist choose to ignore all the warning signs that the vehicle was going to turn & decided to ride like it wasn't going to turn, therefore he caused the accident. I am not excusing the Range rover driver, but the cyclist could have easily avoided the incident

 

[I like Skol]

In the last 2 weeks while cycling home from work I have encountered two road users just waiting to be knocked off by potentially innocent car drivers. I have challenged them both!

1st was a young kid riding an e-scooter along the busy road in the dark, weaving in and out of the traffic flow as he passed parked vehicles, in and out of the shadows on his black scooter, dressed all in black (I'm no hi-viz advocate but believe in sufficient lights to give other road users a chance.) and with a wholly inadequate lighting (No front light and just a dim red led down at floor/heel level). After warning him his actions were putting him in danger I have since encountered him another two times. Once nearly bowled over by him passing me at speed on the pavement while I was fixing a puncture and then again, shortly after encountering another scootering moron!
The second scooterist(?) was using a purely foot propelled contraption and merrily along the road in a similar manner to the first scooterist but this time completely without lights and after I passed him and then later stopped at a red light he sailed past me making a vrooming noise, passing through the red light and perilously weaving through the traffic at a busy crossroads. When I passed him again a short distance later I told him blankly what I thought of his actions and he didn't like it! I initially thought he was a bigger kid, but having a bit of a confrontation over the next few junctions I actually think he was in his early-mid twenties....

I put both the above road users into a similar category as the 'left hooked' () bicycle user in the vid clip.

 

[figbat]

See @DCLane's answer the cyclist choose to ignore all the warning signs that the vehicle was going to turn & decided to ride like it wasn't going to turn, therefore he caused the accident. I am not excusing the Range rover driver, but the cyclist could have easily avoided the incident

You seem to be confusing cause with mitigation. The cause was the left turn of the car. The cyclist could have avoided it, but shouldn't have had to. The cyclist was well within his rights to expect the driver to discharge their duty of care to a vulnerable road user and to not make an illegal turn. Yes, the cyclist was stupid but the driver was negligent.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

causes damage to another persons property,

What was the damage?
If there was damage caused, why did the offending driver not stop and obtain the details of the rider?
What was the damage to the bike?

The cycle lane is like any other traffic lane. You cannot turn from lane 2 across traffic that is proceeding straight ahead in lane 1.
The idiot driver wouldn't have (you'd hope anyway) pulled that stunt to turn left across a bus in a bus lane.

 

[Poacher]

What was the damage?
If there was damage caused, why did the offending driver not stop and obtain the details of the rider?
What was the damage to the bike?

The cycle lane is like any other traffic lane. You cannot turn from lane 2 across traffic that is proceeding straight ahead in lane 1.
The idiot driver wouldn't have (you'd hope anyway) pulled that stunt to turn left across a bus in a bus lane.

One likely reason for the driver not stopping and exchanging details was that they were uninsured.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

You seem to be confusing cause with mitigation. The cause was the left turn of the car. The cyclist could have avoided it, but shouldn't have had to. The cyclist was well within his rights to expect the driver to discharge their duty of care to a vulnerable road user and to not make an illegal turn. Yes, the cyclist was stupid but the driver was negligent.

I'm not confusing anything, I agree the driver should have been more observant on the turn & proper use of mirrors would have prevented it, but for the cyclist to blindly running into the side of the car & then claim they are innocent is just plain stupid.

 

[winjim]

I'm not confusing anything, I agree the driver should have been more observant on the turn & proper use of mirrors would have prevented it, but for the cyclist to blindly running into the side of the car & then claim they are innocent is just plain stupid.

Proper use of not turning down a no left turn would have prevented it.


I can't be the only one who thinks that maybe the cyclist knew exactly what the driver was going to do...

 

[figbat]

One likely reason for the driver not stopping and exchanging details was that they were uninsured.

Ah yes, the poor, innocent driver, with no tax, no MOT, making an illegal left turn across a live lane of traffic. One wonders at the licence status of the driver too...

 

[figbat]

I'm not confusing anything, I agree the driver should have been more observant on the turn & proper use of mirrors would have prevented it, but for the cyclist to blindly running into the side of the car & then claim they are innocent is just plain stupid.

The driver should have been more observant of the signage and aware of what it means. They should also have been more observant of their VED and insurance reminders. The turn shouldn't have been made at all (regardless of whether performed observantly or safely) and one could argue the car shouldn't have even been there at all.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

The driver should have been more observant of the signage and aware of what it means. They should also have been more observant of their VED and insurance reminders. The turn shouldn't have been made at all (regardless of whether performed observantly or safely) and one could argue the car shouldn't have even been there at all.

One could argue anything you like & you seem to do, so your position is, that the cyclist should ride with his phone checking every registration number as it passes then only pass up the inside of vehicles that are insured & have current VED?

 

[DaveReading]

One could argue anything you like & you seem to do, so your position is, that the cyclist should ride with his phone checking every registration number as it passes then only pass up the inside of vehicles that are insured & have current VED?

I see the straw men are coming out.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I see the straw men are coming out.

No rationale argument to make so blame the person challenging your view, time to put the thread on ignore, i forget all cyclists are saints & all Range Rover drivers should have been shot at birth.

 

[matticus]

@Phaeton: I'm just giving you notice that there's a landmine in your hallway. (I had a spare one, and need to keep my hand in.) Please look out for it when you're next in the vicinity.

If you now forget, and step on it, you are as responsible for your injuries as anyone else. OK??

 

[figbat]

One could argue anything you like & you seem to do, so your position is, that the cyclist should ride with his phone checking every registration number as it passes then only pass up the inside of vehicles that are insured & have current VED?

No, my position is that cyclists should remember their vulnerability and ride accordingly, but more importantly than that drivers should remember their ability to kill and maim other road users and drive accordingly, which includes knowing and following the basic rules of the road - like, for example, what a "no left turn" sign means. They should also, as an absolute minimum, satisfy the legal requirements of driving. It would be nice if they also deployed some more enhanced driving techniques, such as observation and anticipation ahead of making manoeuvres.

In this case, the cyclist was riding perfectly legally, albeit not carefully. The driver was driving illegally on several fronts and the accident was a direct consequence of them making an illegal manoeuvre. The driver caused the accident, the cyclist failed to avoid it.