Getting ‘left hooked’. What do you think?

[Cycleops]

This guy posts on YouTube promoting driver awareness. What are your thoughts on the case he highlights?

View: https://youtu.be/EgAUAb3W0vA

 

[bikingdad90]

Both in the wrong. The cyclist should have anticipated the car might turn and stayed behind it just in case but the car driver was also in the wrong as he did not indicate and didn’t see the cyclist before turning.

I am not defending the driver but if you are cycling up a cycling lane on the inside of stationary traffic and then come to a junction, it might have been wiser to move into the primary position to clear the junction before returning to secondary position. The cyclist who will have “appeared” last minute will have been in the drivers blind spot having not been there before. If the lights were red and then both set off then it is entirely the drivers fault as he had time to see the cyclist while waiting for the red light.

 

[Archie_tect]

I would take my position on the road but I would never undertake a moving car like that- I would undertake stationary traffic but I would never put myself in a blind spot like that not once eveyone had reached my normal cycling pace. We should never assume things and never put ourselves deliberately in dangerous positions.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Defensive riding should be ingrained. It matters little if the law is on your side and you have right of away. It is always better to pace yourself so you are not in line with a vehicle at such junctions. Don't hope for the car mirror to work. Either let the driver see you are ahead or slow down. This is probably one of the most vulnerable and common challenges for both cyclists and motorists

 

[raggydoll]

Doesn't look like driver indicated to show he was turning left.
For his own safety, cyclist should have held back just 2 more seconds to ensure that the car he assumed was going straight was actually going straight.

 

[si_c]

Entirely the drivers fault. The cyclist could have ridden more defensively, but the car cut across their lane and in the absence of indicating sufficiently in advance it should be safe to assume a driver is going straight ahead. Note my use of italics, I would likely have taken a primary position, I hate painted cycle lanes for this reason.

 

[Milkfloat]

Ashely Neal professes to be a driving guru, but makes some material mistakes in his view of the law. However, I agree with him that both driver and cyclist were at fault. However, the main fault in this is the design (or lack) of the infrastructure. A crappy narrow bike lane that ends at the junction, exactly when it is needed most is just going to cause issues.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The cyclelane is very clear - narrow but clearer than most
Hence the driver must have been aware that it was there
Also - the cyclist seems to have been level with, or had his front wheel in front of, the car's bonnet at one point, AFter this the car speeded up and then turned. There does not really seem to be an excuse for the cyclist not being seen at that point - although there could be a reason like a phone or fiddling with a satnav/cd

Whatever, the idea that the driver MAY have actually known the cyclist was there cannot be disregarded - especially as the driver does not seem to have got out to check no-one is injured. However, there is not proof of this.

Seems like a case of the driver at fault - but the cyclist could have been more defensive - but this does seem to be at the end of that spectrum where it is being unreasonable to take it too far in that direction.

AT the end of the day you can take being defensive to the point where you leave the bike in the shed and take the car!

 

[Cycleops]

I think riding defensively is the key in this situation. There are side repeaters on the wing mirrors of the car which you can see and it doesn’t look like the driver indicated, but you can never assume the driver will look in their mirror Or use indicators.

 

[mjr]

I would take my position on the road but I would never undertake a moving car like that-

1. It's overtaking, not undertaking. On the left, on the right, still overtaking. Reject motoring lobbyists attempts to discourage cyclists from overtaking their inappropriately bloated products.

2. The cyclist in the clip was not overtaking. They were keeping pace. Which was fine until the motorist slowed and turned across their path.

I'm normally critical of both parties in this situation, as we're often shown cyclists overtaking through junctions but not this time. While the cyclist could have taken avoiding action, it's not unreasonable that they didn't. Entirely the careless motorist's fault in this one.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

The driver accelerated and turned across the rider. 100% to blame here

Supposed to be mirror - signal - manouvre not manouvre

 

[yello]

AT the end of the day you can take being defensive to the point where you leave the bike in the shed and take the car!

Some do exactly that. Sadly.

Must admit, my spidey senses were at max-jangle as I watched that. OK, I knew what was going to happen (like a horror movie when you're waiting for the scare) and no doubt the camera exaggerates speed/angles/width/nearness whatever but even so, I got the feeling that I wouldn't be doing as that cyclist was.

However, the overall sense I got watching that was.... that the driving instructor guy (or whatever he is) was still trying to defend his actions of however many years ago it was!

 

[MichaelW2]

Sideways blind spots are a hazard. Once on the M25 I moved from inside to middle at the same time as a driver to my right moved outside to middle lane. We both spotted the potential danger and moved back.

In the video, the cyclist is facing random end of bike lane , cars to the right, junction to the left, lots of vehicles moving around. You have to ride defensively and assertively and only in third place, legally.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

The cyclist in the clip was not overtaking. They were keeping pace.

Well, yes and no, the cyclist is "keeping pace" but only having come from behind, and on the worst side for visibility. Let me be clear here, this is not the cyclist's fault, BUT: He's keeping pace with the part of the car where the driver is the least likely to know he's there. The best course of action here is for the rider to get himself seen, get slightly ahead, make eye contact. If he can't, like in the clip, and the car stays level or moves ahead, the rider has to assume he hasn't seen the cyclist and should plan accordingly.
You wouldn't sit on the left of an artic on the motorway in your car, driving along level and in his blind spot, because at some point the same thing will happen. This is what hazard perception is all about, spotting it early and therefore avoiding trouble.

Ashely Neal professes to be a driving guru

He's a strange one, he is generally professional, but for me he does a worrying amount of presenting and analysis as he's actually driving along, even turning to the camera a lot for emphasis as he makes points. I've suggested to him previously that it's surely safer for him to present his clips from home as voiceovers on the footage, rather than treating his driver's seat as his studio with him as the presenter. But I suspect he fancies himself a bit too much for that.

 

[mjr]

Sideways blind spots are a hazard.

It's a small car. The blind spot behind the door pillar isn't big enough to hide a cyclist that close. Driver either hasn't looked, or hasn't cared.