81 yr old MX5 driver ploughs into cyclists on A-road.

[Slick]

My 17 year old self fish tailed 300 yards down a narrow street bouncing from one wall to the next before coming to a rest on an old foundation of a picture house. One girl broke ribs and jaw, I broke my ankle and slashed under my chin 9n the glass as I went through the windscreen, back seat passengers had various injuries but the police reckoned ax there were so many in jammed into the back seat it probably reduced injury. The police never charged anyone and the insurance company paid out for the written off car and everyone got on with their life.

 

[screenman]

Help me out screenman, I don't understand what you mean here.

Simple, you should spend a lot of time on a bike before being allowed to drive.

 

[Tim Hall]

I think that is brilliant he was doing that. It's on a track though, not on public roads. I've seen lots of old people drive unsafe. They dither around making other users impatient thus inviting incidents to happen.

Other users should curb their impatience when faced with a dithering driver.

They can't even remember the highway code & lose their glasses when they're on their head. The Mazda driver only took the two riders down because of his poor judgement due to been old.

The report I read didn't give a reason for the collision.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

They can't even remember the highway code & lose their glasses when they're on their head. The Mazda driver only took the two riders down because of his poor judgement due to been old.

If you actually put your prejudices away & actually looked at what happened you'll see you're talking crap.

The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close, because when the cyclist looks down/hits something in the road he swerves & at that point gets picked up by the car, check out the video at 28 seconds.

As to your ageism, it's interesting on this forum the gang jumps up & down about sexism, racism, misogyny & just about every other 'ism' but ageism is still fair game. There are drivers out there 80+ who are a darn sight better than some half or even a quarter of their age, age has nothing to do with driver competency, some people whatever age should never be allowed on the road in charge of a car Period.

 

[Milzy]

Other users should curb their impatience when faced with a dithering driver.


The report I read didn't give a reason for the collision.

They should do but they won’t. Everyone should be retested every 5 years. It would be a nice money spinner.

 

[Milzy]

An extended retest has been ordered in this case.

I bet he’d fail then.

 

[Milzy]

If you actually put your prejudices away & actually looked at what happened you'll see you're talking crap.

The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close, because when the cyclist looks down/hits something in the road he swerves & at that point gets picked up by the car, check out the video at 28 seconds.

As to your ageism, it's interesting on this forum the gang jumps up & down about sexism, racism, misogyny & just about every other 'ism' but ageism is still fair game. There are drivers out there 80+ who are a darn sight better than some half or even a quarter of their age, age has nothing to do with driver competency, some people whatever age should never be allowed on the road in charge of a car Period.

I half agree with you.

 

[Mugshot]

If you actually put your prejudices away & actually looked at what happened you'll see you're talking crap.

The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close, because when the cyclist looks down/hits something in the road he swerves & at that point gets picked up by the car, check out the video at 28 seconds.

Absolute bollocks.
The collision (let's not call it an accident eh?) was not "primarily caused by the driver being far too close", it was solely caused by the motorist being far too close, so close in fact that he hit the cyclist. You're right that the cyclist moves out just before impact, probably not much more than 6", however that has no bearing on whether the motorist would have been too close or not, the motorist was overtaking into oncoming traffic, it was not safe to do so whether the cyclist moved out or not.
So just to clarify, there is no "primarily", there is nowhere else to try to apportion blame or responsibility, this collision was solely, unequivocally and absolutely the fault of a driver who drove straight into the back of a cyclist.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Absolute bollocks.
The collision (let's not call it an accident eh?) was not "primarily caused by the driver being far too close", it was solely caused by the motorist being far too close, so close in fact that he hit the cyclist. You're right that the cyclist moves out just before impact, probably not much more than 6", however that has no bearing on whether the motorist would have been too close or not, the motorist was overtaking into oncoming traffic, it was not safe to do so whether the cyclist moved out or not.
So just to clarify, there is no "primarily", there is nowhere else to try to apportion blame or responsibility, this collision was solely, unequivocally and absolutely the fault of a driver who drove straight into the back of a cyclist.

Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Bloody old knobhead! No mention of a fine i see. Hopefully no one will offer the idiot affordable insurance when he gets his license back. That's if he has the gall to try and drive again!

 

[Mugshot]

Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.

Are you trolling or are you really not understanding this? You would struggle to contradict yourself more in one paragraph if you tried.
You accuse me of talking bollocks then go on to say that the driver was;
"too close"
"should never have tried the overtake"
"wasn't safe"
was going to perform "a VERY unsafe pass"
Then continue to victim blame a cyclist for riding along the road doing absolutely nothing wrong, I'll repeat myself as you don't seem to get it, the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong. There is nothing the cyclist did that caused this collision, everything that occurred in this video is due to the actions of the motorist, whatever the reasons were that those actions were taken by the motorist are immaterial, had they not attempted the overtake the collision would not have happened, it was not safe to attempt the overtake, you have said so yourself.
Quit the victim blaming and stop calling it an accident, it was a collision.

 

[DaveReading]

Are you trolling or are you really not understanding this?

Quit the victim blaming and stop calling it an accident, it was a collision.

I think you are the one who fails to understand.

There is a big difference between attempting to explain the mechanics of an event, on one hand, and apportioning blame, on the other.

I don't see anything in the posts that you are taking exception to that constitutes victim blaming.

 

[Milkfloat]

Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.

I suggest you watch the video again. You do realise that it was 3 riders he hit, not two? The first rider that is shown at the start of their video did not move their line whatsoever.

The rest of your victim blaming is also utter claptrap.

 

[Mugshot]

I don't see anything in the posts that you are taking exception to that constitutes victim blaming.

The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.

The collision was caused solely by the driver driving straight into a group of riders who were doing nothing wrong.
It was nobody's fault but his.

And thank god the riders had cameras fitted or this may well have been yet another "the cyclist swerved in front of me" scenario where a driver would not have had to answer for his crime.