Incident, rider off

[gambatte]

Got to say I did have sympathy for one driver today.

He’d spent a period driving slowly, to avoid overtaking and left hooking the cyclist infront, who was in the thin cyclelane. You could see that was what he was doing, he’d been indicating left to show his intention. All well and good. Where he came unstuck was when he went to execute the manoeuvre and another cyclist (POBSO would be more accurate) had decided to shoot up his inside and became forcibly dismounted by the cars rearquarter and the kerb.

Wondered what others thought?

IMO a bit 50/50

1 driver should have looked in the nearside mirror or over left shoulder.

2 Cyclist should not have underpassed (?) a left indicating vehicle at a left hand junction.

 

[monkeypony]

Undertaking on a bike is dangerous enough, to do it when a car is indicating left is plain bloody stupid and asking to get taken off. Rightly or wrongly, the left hand mirror is just not somewhere the majority of motorists will look when making a left turn.

 

[Alien8]

Yes, lets undertake a left indicating vehicle - fine idea.

100% cyclist error.

(and get rid of cycle lanes)

 

[BentMikey]

Yes, lets undertake a left indicating vehicle - fine idea.

100% cyclist error.

(and get rid of cycle lanes)

That would be no, incorrect:

183
When turning
• keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction

The car driver should have waited until the cycle lane was clear.

 

[Matthames]

I think you have got it. The driver did make his intentions clear so the cyclist should have anticipated the situation, also the driver should had checked to see if there was nothing coming up their nearside. When motorcycling I was taught to always do a nearside lifesaver when turning left for exactly this reason.

If the cycle lane wasn't a mandatory one, the driver could have moved into it to prevent any cyclists trying to go up the nearside.

 

[Alien8]

That would be no, incorrect:

The car driver should have waited until the cycle lane was clear.

It doesn't really matter what the Highway Code states, if you undertake (a left indicating vehicle at that), you're setting yourself up for an accident.

I don't think an experienced/sensible rider would have done this.

(oh yes, and get rid of cycle lanes)

 

[jugglingphil]

I agree with Alien8
Bloody stupid to undertake a car indicating left. You have to take some responsibility for your own safety.

 

[HLaB]

As far as I see it the driver is about 25% responsible (Code wise) but the cyclist is also about 25% responsible for their Naivety but the person more responsible is whoever came up with that farcility. Unfortunately none of that helps the cyclist them self.

 

[Tynan]

real world 50:50

rulebook driver's fault, never carry out a maneuver that causes another vehicle to have to brake or change direction, the car is cutting across another lane, they wouldn't do that to a car would they

 

[ohnovino]

If the cycle lane wasn't a mandatory one, the driver could have moved into it to prevent any cyclists trying to go up the nearside.

+1 to that. I've seen a few drivers doing it recently, and I think it's a smart move. It's effectively the driver's version of taking primary: moving over to prevent dodgy passes where it isn't safe to do so.

 

[Camgreen]

Bottom line is it's about keeping yourself safe. If the cyclist can see the vehicle in front is indicating and it has done so in good time, the cyclist is well aware of what is likely to happen next! Patience goes a long way and it sounds like if just a little had been applied here by the cyclist, the situation might well have been avoided. ...... And yes, the driver SHOULD have checked and re-checked his nearside wing mirror too;wouldn't catch me forgetting to do that if I was driving the mean streets of Cambridge where that same scenario is constantly unfolding again and again; the only surprise here is that it doesn't actual happen more often!!

 

[atbman]

Road junctions

72
On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Cyclist's fault

 

[Tommi]

IMO that sounds like another fine example where cycling farcilities are encouraging dangerous behaviour. I'm sure there's a reason why cars aren't supposed to cut across adjacent car lanes when turning, but for some reason that's a designed manoeuvre with cycle lanes. Personally I'd much rather have car indicating left in the cycle lane than to the right of it (aren't you allowed on bus/cycle lane if you're taking the next exit?) Though I'm sure then I'd be annoyed by the car blocking the cycle lane. Just get rid of the cycle lanes.

 

[Cardiac]

IMO that sounds like another fine example where cycling farcilities are encouraging dangerous behaviour.

Indeed. I have been helping my daughter with learning to drive recently, and we have adopted a phrase for situations like these - Council-Planned Accidents - CPA's for short. It's just amazing how many there are just waiting to happen.

 

[BentMikey]

Road junctions

72
On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

Cyclist's fault

Try again - see the bit you didn't bold, which is now bolded above, and rule 183 also.