Cyclist rear ended: another question.

[automatic_jon]

I can't see how this is anything other than the Merc driver's fault. If it was my nan in a metro pootling along and the Merc had collided with her as she overtook a parked car how would this be any different, or a tractor or any other slow, motorised road user. Slower vehicles shouldn't have to give way to faster ones simply because the driver might be an a$$hole., the road is certainly one place where might should never be right.

 

[Tynan]

I'm amazed that anyone can find the cyclist at fault after watching that

wherever that cyclist is in the road, it's a vehicle that has to be safely passed, you can't just drive into it because it was in your way

dear god

 

[TWBNK]

Opening a can of worms here:

Did the cyclist brake whilst passing the parked car? The distances and speeds just seem wrong.

 

[jimboalee]

Opening a can of worms here:

Did the cyclist brake whilst passing the parked car? The distances and speeds just seem wrong.

It is the responsibility of the FOLLOWING vehicle to observe a safe distance. Not the responsibility of the leading vehicle to move at a speed to avoid the following vehicle colliding.

Would the Merc had nudged a New Holland with a rear power driveshaft sticking out? Nope.

There's no argument. The Merc driver was 'Driving without due care' or 'endangering the life of other roadusers' or 'Driving under the influence' or 'Using a hand held telephone while driving'.

 

[Rob3rt]

Try to claim on the car in fronts insurance if you ever somehow rear end another car and see what they tell you (pretty much "f*ck off" in law speak). This copy paste response you will get is for the very reason Jim pointed out above, its the following drivers responsibility to leave enough stopping distance.

 

[jimboalee]

Try to claim on the car in fronts insurance if you ever somehow rear end another car and see what they tell you (pretty much "f*ck off" in law speak). This copy paste response you will get is for the very reason Jim pointed out above, its the following drivers responsibility to leave enough stopping distance.

Haha. I did, and won.

I rear end shunted a brand new Mini. The star witness was the lady driver's daughter.

Policeman - "Why were you watching you mother driving so slowly?"
Daughter - "I was waving goodbye."
Policeman - "Waving goodbye? Was your mother waving back to you?"
Daughter - "Yes."

Driving without due care and a badly dented 3 hour old Mini.

 

[Rob3rt]

Hah, thats lucky. But technically, shouldnt you have slowed down if she was driving so slow? Unless she pulled out in front suddenly. (Obviously I dont know what happened)

In almost all cases they will just tell you to go swivvel and you will get nothing unless its something of extroidinary circumstances.

 

[NigC]

It is the responsibility of the FOLLOWING vehicle to observe a safe distance. Not the responsibility of the leading vehicle to move at a speed to avoid the following vehicle colliding.

Would the Merc had nudged a New Holland with a rear power driveshaft sticking out? Nope.

There's no argument. The Merc driver was 'Driving without due care' or 'endangering the life of other roadusers' or 'Driving under the influence' or 'Using a hand held telephone while driving'.

This is very true.

Bu I think the original question is fair in that if the cyclist suddenly pulled out in front of the car and braked, the following driver would have had very little chance. However, in this case, there's a good 6 seconds from pulling out to the cyclist actually being hit, so there's no way the driver can have any argument - it was his fault.

 

[jimboalee]

Hah, thats lucky. But technically, shouldnt you have slowed down if she was driving so slow? Unless she pulled out in front suddenly. (Obviously I dont know what happened)

In almost all cases they will just tell you to go swivvel and you will get nothing unless its something of extroidinary circumstances.

She pulled out and then nearly stopped.

I suppose the Merc driver could argue the cyclist was waving 'goodbye' to the cycle lane.

 

[TWBNK]

When I looked at the video the first time it was without sound. Try it, judge the speeds and distances and see where you feel the impact would have been. Then watch it again with sound.

I don't dispute that the car driver shouldn't have hit him, I just wonder if there was more to this than a straight rear end shunt. A bit of tailgating by the merc and a 'sod this' by the bike.

Just pointing out where I can't see the flow of things. I may well be wrong in my interpretation.

I reckon they would have hit at the manhole cover?

 

[Matthames]

What you can't see in the footage is what the cyclist is doing before changing lanes. There is no way in telling if the cyclist indicated or not before crossing over to the main carriageway from the cycle lane.

63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer

133

If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.

If he failed to indicate his intentions in good time then he is showing poor lane discipline and would be partially at fault for the collision.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

133 refers to separate lanes

A cycle lane is different, it is "a lane within a lane" pretty much

And as far as we can see, it was safe to pull out. "Safe" can never mean "when nobody who may not be concentrating is anywhere in the vicinity" otherwise we may as well just stop all our vehicles and cars and leave them where they are

 

[GrasB]

What you can't see in the footage is what the cyclist is doing before changing lanes. There is no way in telling if the cyclist indicated or not before crossing over to the main carriageway from the cycle lane.



If he failed to indicate his intentions in good time then he is showing poor lane discipline and would be partially at fault for the collision.

This could be true if he pulled out then half a second latter was on the deck but in this instance the time between him pulling out & hitting the deck tells me that this line of argument simply doesn't work.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

He looked behind, saw that the Merc was far enough away for him to pull out safely, and pulled out.

Who sounded the horn? If it was the Merc then surely his time would have been better spent braking?

Not in the driver mentality.

Witnessed an accident once, elderly chap crossing the road slowly, taxi just kept on going, then at the last second blasted his horn. The horn was still blowing as the old boy went over the bonnet.

God knows what the horn blowing was supposed to do, an octogenarian is not going to leap in the air and jump off the bonnet which would have been the only way at that point of avoiding the car.

Still, horn first, brake later. I am willing to bet that "I sounded my horn!" was used as a defence.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That kerbside cycle lane is a problem not a solution. More assertive riding outside of the lane might have had the cyclist more visible.

Agree with others, the Merc driver was not on the qv.