Another accident caught on camera

[winjim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.