Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3016593, member: 9609"]you know exactly what I mean - to blame within the rules of the highway code.
We're all human and we all make mistakes, a good driver / rider anticipates when other road users are likely to get it wrong.

example, driving along a road at 30 mph you see a child running along the pavement.... technically if that child suddenly runs out the driver is not to blame. But what terrible driving not to have slowed or moved away from the kerb in anticipation[/QUOTE]

Of course drivers are to blame if they run children over. There's no "technically" about it.

 

[snorri]

I've already agreed that he motorist was at fault but my point was that the cyclist could/should have adjusted his speed accordingly.I am always having to compensate for others' shortcomings, it's how I survive.
I know it shouldn't be but it just seems to be a fact of life.

It was your call for "fairness" towards the driver that caused me to post.

 

[PK99]

Technically?

I confess I'm baffled by the logic.

In my smidsy in almost the exact same circumstances, had I been more observant and not assumed the box junction would be respected I would not have missed 6 months cycling and would not have needed months of physio. Better observation on my part, and the errant driver would not have hit me. Technically I did nothing wrong, but ........

 

[theclaud]

In my smidsy in almost the exact same circumstances, had I been more observant and not assumed the box junction would be respected I would not have missed 6 months cycling and would not have needed months of physio. Better observation on my part, and the errant driver would not have hit me. Technically I did nothing wrong, but ........

You seem to imagine that I don't grasp the point. I understand perfectly well - I just happen to find the attitude abject and self-abasing. If we don't communicate the expectation that drivers will take responsibility for the danger they present to others, they will feel justified in not taking that responsibility, and continue to expect us to make allowances for their behaviour. Most drivers don't actually want to kill us, but they would quite like us to get out of their way. The trick is not to oblige.

 

[PK99]

You seem to imagine that I don't grasp the point. I understand perfectly well - I just happen to find the attitude abject and self-abasing. If we don't communicate the expectation that drivers will take responsibility for the danger they present to others, they will feel justified in not taking that responsibility, and continue to expect us to make allowances for their behaviour. Most drivers don't actually want to kill us, but they would quite like us to get out of their way. The trick is not to oblige.

Do I take it then, that you would advise the cyclist in the video, or other cyclists, to in future approach the junction as he did?

 

[theclaud]

Do I take it then, that you would advise the cyclist in the video, or other cyclists, to in future approach the junction as he did?

Like @User30090 above, I would suggest that the driver's fault here is a common one, and it's advisable to anticipate this kind of thing.

Anticipating poor driving is a useful ability, not a condition of being allowed out. What he does about it is his call. I would save my instructions for the driver.

 

[PK99]

Anticipating poor driving is a useful ability, not a condition of being allowed out. What he does about it is his call. I would save my instructions for the driver.

You are ducking the question, how would you advise a cyclist to approach that junction: barreling along or with caution?

 

[PK99]

What do we know of how the cyclist approached the junction?

From the video we know that the cyclist approached at significant speed and that when the car's front wheels entered the box the cyclist was at least one car length back from the front of the queue of cars

 

[theclaud]

You are ducking the question, how would you advise a cyclist to approach that junction: barreling along or with caution?

I'd advise him, should he be of the very small "What Would TeeCee Do?" school of cycling, that expecting drivers to behave more responsibly inevitably entails occasional disappointment, but is nonetheless worthwhile. It's not really my concern what he does with the advice - perhaps he'd get himself up like Traffic Droid and start on miscreants; or maybe hone his awareness, mechanical control and traffic skills until he is a swift and agile urban rider; or perhaps he'd shrug his shoulders and potter along harmlessly in the cycle lane as before. Who cares? Stop tolerating drivers hitting and maiming people, and it ceases to matter.

 

[theclaud]

From the video we know that the cyclist approached at significant speed

Significant speed? He's hardly @Origamist. The guy was pretty much ambling along.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3016683, member: 9609"]Out of curiosity, if you could see a very drunk person climbing into a car, would you cycle along the road he was about to drive, happy in the knowledge that if he killed you it would not be your fault.[/QUOTE]

No - I'd ring the old bill.

 

[Wobblers]

For those who are keen to declaim that the cyclist was travelling "too fast": exactly how fast was he going?

The impact was not that severe: from the video clip it seems to have been at less than 10 mph. Had it been much more, the cyclist would not have bounced down the side of the car, but instead would have broken the side windows at the very least. The cyclist yelled a second before the collision - it can reasonably be assumed that this is the time in which he perceived his path to be blocked. You're not going to be able to scrub off much speed in that second (a few mph at most). In short, I see no evidence for "significant speed".

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 3016698, member: 9609"]excellent 10/10 you would see the potential danger and react. But the big question is would beano, because he is only interested in blame.[/QUOTE]

If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights at green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ. You'll not drive onto that roundabout because that motorist on the next exit might not stop. You won't walk across that zebra crossing, because that car might not stop. A bus might mount the pavement, so let's not walk to the shops. In fact, let's not use the car, the mechanic might have botched servicing the brakes...

You can't do it: it's not possible to anticipate every mistake someone might make. Experience may help you anticipate some mistakes - but not all. The question is then: was it reasonable for the cyclist to be cycling in that manner? Given that he does not appear to have been travelling at an unwise speed, that it was a box junction and it would thus been reasonable to expect a gap there anyway, that it has been commented that traffic queues mean brakes are applied often, hence the appearance of brake lights isn't a useful warning and he was very visible if the motorist had bothered to look I would be very hesitant before condemning him.

 

[classic33]

Even better, stay in bed.

15% off accidents in the home, in the over 50's, are falls from the bed. ROSPA

 

[PK99]

What speed, and how are you measuring it? How do you know where the cyclist was when the car driver made the move?

Stop motion on the video. The car wheels enter the box and the video shows the cyclist has not yet passed the rear of the car at the front of the queue.