Cyclist rear ended: another question.

[dondare]

No matter how I am moving, I don't get around something purposely wanting the car behind to slow, I expect them to slow, if needed, and proceed safely.

You wouldn't be in a car, expecting to slow down to let a car pass you before you pass a car in front... so why should a bike be any different.

When there are two distinct lanes of traffic and the inside lane is blocked then cars in that lane do have to stop and wait for a gap before moving out to pass the obstruction.
A big part of the problem in this case is the presence of the cycle-lane on the road, which gives the impression that the cyclist is in "the inside lane" and should therefore give way to traffic moving in the outside (or car) lane.

Of course it's an inconvience to the driver behind, but the blame is the car parked on the road and it affect us all... and we should all take it equaly, passing one at a time, no one needs to give way, to pull over, etc, simples

 

[Origamist]

I think if I'd seen a car that close to me when looking round, I wouldn't have pulled out. But having said that, there seemed like an ecredibly long pause between him pulling out and getting hit, so maybe the camera makes it seem closer than it really is And because of that pause, I'd say the driver had plenty of time to avoid this accident.

Indeed. At 49 secs when the cyclist looks back the driver is straddling the centre lane markings - this gives a strong signal that the driver was going to overtake the car and cyclist by using the full width of the opposing lane which was clear of traffic. This reasonable assumption turned out to be incorrect due to some poor driving.

 

[dondare]

Mine. Next.

Well, I'd probably think so, too.

 

[DrSquirrel]

When there are two distinct lanes of traffic and the inside lane is blocked then cars in that lane do have to stop and wait for a gap before moving out to pass the obstruction.
A big part of the problem in this case is the presence of the cycle-lane on the road, which gives the impression that the cyclist is in "the inside lane" and should therefore give way to traffic moving in the outside (or car) lane.

There isn't two distinct lanes of traffic though...

And I doubt the car even considered "that's a lane, they must wait until I pass".

 

[Crankarm]

Errr......... this headcam footage does not show how the collision occured. One merely sees the vehicle approaching from behind, at some distance behind, then the next shot of it is after the cyclist has fallen. It does not show how the car came to collide or the point of collision with the cyclist; so tbh all this conjecture that the car drove into him is just conjecture on the basis of the headcam footage alone. One can also see that there are areas of what appear to be uneven road surface in the path of the cyclist plus the car parked on the nearside over the cycle lane begins to pull away as the cyclist is passing. I'm not saying the car (the silver Mercedes) didn't collide with the rear of the cyclist, just that this footage does NOT show it. Simples.

Also the cyclist needs to get his headcam sorted out as it is pointless having it aimed at the road 6 feet in front of him and at 45 degrees.
He should look behind more frequently as well. Perhaps acquiring a rear facing cam as well, as has Gaz.

I'm glad he wasn't serioulsy hurt though.

 

[Origamist]

Have you not seen the BBC news item with the story, CA? The driver did rear end the cyclist.

 

[Crankarm]

Have you not seen the BBC news item with the story, CA? The driver did rear end the cyclist.

Yup saw the news item which uses the same footage, unless you are suggesting BBC LE were at the side of the road filming the collision as it occurred?

 

[dondare]

I'm using the clip as an example rather than to analyse it. For the sake of argument assume that the car hit the bike and run the debate from there.
Was the cyclist at least partially responsible because he moved into the path of a faster vehicle?

 

[Crankarm]

I'm using the clip as an example rather than to analyse it. For the sake of argument assume that the car hit the bike and run the debate from there.
Was the cyclist at least partially responsible because he moved into the path of a faster vehicle?

As long as it is understood that this footage does NOT show this happening I suppose one could invent a wide and wonderful array of scenarios, some more fanciful than others. But what if ..............

 

[DrSquirrel]

It does not show how the car came to collide or the point of collision with the cyclist

I know this, but you do see the position of the car afterwards, which is why I posed the question (rather than stated it could have).

The time between is measurable though, which is pretty long.

From what I remember the driver has to attend and pay for the course thingy, so I assume the driver admitted fault.

 

[Origamist]

Yup saw the news item which uses the same footage, unless you are suggesting BBC LE were at the side of the road filming the collision as it occurred?

Seems a bit unlikely don't you think...

The point is that whilst the footage does not show tha cause of the collision, presumably the cyclist and vehicles behind the Merc have confirmed that the impact was caused by the Merc colliding with the rear wheel of the cyclist. The combination of camera film and testimony makes it pretty safe to assume that this is what occured.

 

[dondare]

As long as it is understood that this footage does NOT show this happening I suppose one could invent a wide and wonderful array of scenarios, some more fanciful than others. But what if ..............

Just use the simplest which is consistant with all the footage and the account given by the cyclist, and use this as an example. It doesn't have to stand up in court.

 

[jimboalee]

I'm using the clip as an example rather than to analyse it. For the sake of argument assume that the car hit the bike and run the debate from there.
Was the cyclist at least partially responsible because he moved into the path of a faster vehicle?

I've got a pretty damned fast and powerful car tucked away in a lock-up near my home.
It's a lot faster and more powerful than most cars on the road.

Do I have the right to nudge the slower vehicle in front if I consider it's not moving at a reasonable speed?

No I bloody don't.

What makes a bicycle different from a car?

Answer - It's 1/3 of the width.

 

[Camgreen]

Hazard perception. ...... The driver can see there is a parked car ahead. The driver should also be aware he has a cyclist between him and the parked car. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic here, but surely it should not be beyond the driver's intelligence to anticipate that the cyclist is likely to reach, and therefore wish to pass the parked car? From the footage it should not be unreasonable to expect the driver to anticipate the possible sequence of events likely to take place and acted accordingly.

 

[DrSquirrel]

Hazard perception. ...... The driver can see there is a parked car ahead. The driver should also be aware he has a cyclist between him and the parked car. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic here, but surely it should not be beyond the driver's intelligence to anticipate that the cyclist is likely to reach, and therefore wish to pass the parked car? From the footage it should not be unreasonable to expect the driver to anticipate the possible sequence of events likely to take place and acted accordingly.

The car was out pretty soon, I don't even see why they couldn't have past the cyclist before the car even came up, even with said cyclist in primary, the oncoming lane was clear, maybe not the best to overtake someone overtaking though... I do think it is definately strange.