Gaz down in Streatham

[thomas]

Just seen someone comment on another forum about this and how annoyed they were by the comments..

I go on his video's page and see stuff like this:



(the usual)


TheSnow2day is obviously trolling but it winds me up that some p**** can just go online, effectively slander someone and not have some comeback. If anyone ever said such a thing to my face regarding my off from 2008 I'm afraid I would lose my temper. Start clicking "spam" on the comments?

I wouldn't worry. I doubt the people making those comments are old enough to drive

 

[downfader]

Which forum?

I've removed most of the crappy comments, kept the ones by snow w/e as they are clearly very stupid and are getting pwned.

I think it might have been Bikeradar.. I forget now (was an hour or two back)

I wouldn't worry. I doubt the people making those comments are old enough to drive

I think we should be worried at times.. if it becomes the "accepted wisdom" to the point that insurers and the Police/Courts start to think along those lines. Perhaps that has already started to happen though.

 

[PBancroft]

OK, I've just watched the video. Now, Gaz, please don't shoot me but... I think you might be partially responsible. The gap, as you say, had only just formed however the side road had always been there, and the traffic was pushing forward and it is conceivable that one may form. The driver does not cross a solid white line, but enters the side road (admittedly across traffic). In that regard perhaps it is arguable that it is good practice to expect such a manoeuvre and should slow down in anticipation of needing to stop suddenly - this isn't the same as riding ultra-defensively to the point of making no progress, but similar to how one might expect car drivers to behave too.

HOWEVER. Do I think you are to blame? No. The ideas above apply equally to the driver - just because a gap has suddenly formed he should still move carefully forward in anticipation of traffic in the next lane, which indeed there was. As somebody else said, you could have been a bus and they still would have hit you. The major difference is you weren't exactly going like a bat out of hell, when a bus/taxi could have easily got the 30+ down there... and caused a MUCH more serious situation from the driver's point of view. The situation is most certainly not 50/50, but if it happened to me and I were in your situation, I would find it difficult to argue that the driver was 100% to blame.

I'm going to go hide for a bit now...

 

[BentMikey]

Again, in the highway code, when you are turning right across three lanes of traffic, who has to give way? You, or the oncoming traffic?

 

[PBancroft]

Again, in the highway code, when you are turning right across three lanes of traffic, who has to give way? You, or the oncoming traffic?

Absolutely, which is why I say I don't think Gaz is to blame, but theoretically he should have been prepared for it. We all know that theory is very different in the real world of course.

I don't think I made the distinction clear in my OP, so I'll haphazardly try to clarify. I remember when learning to drive my instructor drilling into me the idea of priority over right of way. Just because you are driving down a road, it doesn't really mean you have right of way, it just means you have priority, and that can be taken away at any time. By changing traffic signals, a car pulling out or an unforeseen hazard etc.

Meh, maybe bad choice of words on my part, but I stand by my intent.

 

[BentMikey]

Gaz's priority hasn't been taken away. He still has priority over the turning car, who is 100% to blame for the collision.

I think what you're trying to say is that Gaz could have ridden and anticipated potential for the driver's mistake, i.e. done better defensive riding, but that in no way puts Gaz at fault. I'd like to think I could have anticipated that, and clearly many posters on here do too, but the reality check is that if Gaz missed it, the chances are very good quite a few of us would have missed it too, all else being the same.

I think Origamist is spot on where he posts that it's human nature to try to blame Gaz for this in order to justify our own riding choices and how we wouldn't have the same collision in the same circumstances, or something to that effect.

 

[400bhp]

Mike I agree [For once] and you have hit the nail on the head.

It's at best naive to think Gaz was in any way at fault.

But the internet is full of morons - no different than real life.

 

[marcw]

Gaz could you let us know what the insurance outcome is please. My thinking is that this is two lanes of traffic and the car pulls out from a blind position with no ability to check for oncoming traffic. Riding in a bus lane isn't filtering. If the police/ insurance co see differently then I guess I'll rethink a large part of my daily commute and not use empty bus lanes.

 

[gb155]

Again, in the highway code, when you are turning right across three lanes of traffic, who has to give way? You, or the oncoming traffic?

This is pretty much a Carbon copy of what happened to me

the main difference was mine was in day light and there was no cars in front or to my right, the Van driver was charged at the scene by the police but his insurance company initially blamed me for the accident, they have since seen the light, good luck Gaz

 

[Mista Preston]

Just seen this and then read the thread.......


Glad you are ok Gaz. Rest up and enjoy your Christmas !

 

[BentMikey]

This is pretty much a Carbon copy of what happened to me

the main difference was mine was in day light and there was no cars in front or to my right, the Van driver was charged at the scene by the police but his insurance company initially blamed me for the accident, they have since seen the light, good luck Gaz

Well yes, insurance companies are very likely to try and misdirect blame in order to save themselves money. Glad to hear they've rolled over and surrendered in your case, gb155 (avoids using Gaz to not confuse the topic .

Anyway Vike has already confirmed that as a policeman, he would have put 100% of the blame on the driver in Gaz's video in this topic.

And I don't think Kaipath is a moron, not even slightly.

 

[dellzeqq]

This is pretty much a Carbon copy of what happened to me

the main difference was mine was in day light and there was no cars in front or to my right, the Van driver was charged at the scene by the police but his insurance company initially blamed me for the accident, they have since seen the light, good luck Gaz

that's what you need 3rd party insurance for. Insurance companies attempt to intimidate people claiming against their drivers if they think that the other party has no insurance.

 

[stowie]

that's what you need 3rd party insurance for. Insurance companies attempt to intimidate people claiming against their drivers if they think that the other party has no insurance.

Couldn't agree more. The reason I have 3rd party insurance is so that, in the event of an accident, the car's insurance company cannot try to walk all over me by using their resources. They get away with stuff because an individual will often not pursue a claim involving court costs etc. It is why "strict liability" would even up the playing field a bit.

BTW - I hope Gaz is recovering well. These side turnings are really tricky for cyclists and even worse for motorcyclists.

 

[BentMikey]

that's what you need 3rd party insurance for. Insurance companies attempt to intimidate people claiming against their drivers if they think that the other party has no insurance.

*Points to CTC membership* YES!!!

(Well, BC or LCC would also do the job, and are also worthy organisations).

 

[cyberknight]

*Points to CTC membership* YES!!!

(Well, BC or LCC would also do the job, and are also worthy organisations).

Indeed !

I went with BC as with their promo code i got it for £12 for the year with the same legal cover and similar discount at wiggle and a discount for halfords etc.The CTC for me was a bit overpriced for the services i would use as i have yet to find the time to go out with the local group etc.
If the CTC offered different levels of cover i would have been more inclined to stay with them , not that they are not good just i found BC gave me what i needed cover wise at a price i could afford this close to x mas .

I am glad to see this thread has calmed down a bit as i was close to unsubscribing what with all the mudslinging that was going on, many people getting very rude to other members who all have valid opinions in a thread that should (in my opinion) have concerntrated more on the wellbeing of gaz rather than saying "********* !!! i am right "