Incident, rider off

[BentMikey]

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)

Sure, I agree with that. It's still the fault of the car driver for turning across another lane IMO.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

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

Yes, I spotted that bit sandwiched between the red text. The Code here seems to cover the situation from both angles - driver and cyclist - driver, watch out and pay attention; cyclist, don't undertake unless you know it's safe to do so. I've no idea how a lawyer would interpret this in terms of strict liability, but the accident wouldn't have happened if at least one person were following the highway code.

Perhaps there should be a cyclists' code, in which the first principle would be ''In a collision with a motor vehicle, the cyclist will suffer the worse injuries...cycle accordingly.''

 

[Tynan]

HC tries to prevent accidents which is fine

but the car is the one making the manouvre and people making manouvres are supposed to do so safely, the people bimbling along in straight lines tend not to cause accidents

this is a straight forward left hook surely, why does it suddenly become the cyclist's fault because the driver signalled and the cyclist paid no attention? Signalling does not give the right to then proceed with your manouvre

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I don't think it especially matters whose fault this one is. The cyclist sounds like the sort of person who touches things marked "DANGER: DO NOT TOUCH!" just to see what will happen. Well, now he knows. Idiot.

 

[gambatte]

I followed a colleague into work, saw the incident, but didn’t realise who was involved till we were talking at work.

The details I omitted, because I thought it might cloud the discussion yesterday:

There was a heavy smell of a certain illegal herbal substance, the cyclist was happy to disappear quickly with the £40 offered for any damage to the bike.

I did point out that he’d effectively crossed a traffic lane to exit the main carriageway and asked would he do that on a motorway? Also asked if the cyclist was injured in any way, as if he was and it wasn’t reported he was technically guilty of hit and run.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I think the "crossing a traffic lane" thing, while technically true enough, is a bit of a red herring. After all, we're forever banging on about the dangers of undertaking left turning vehicles and we're all well aware that even quite small cars have blind spots, particularly to the nearside rear. I think it's much less understandable for the cyclist to blithely ignore a winking indicator - as he did in this case - than for the motorist to miss a cyclist in an utterly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly, 100% copper bottomed now-with-wings absurdly ridiculously unbelievably stupid position. Especially bearing in mind that the car driver was already concentrating on the cyclist ahead of him (to his credit) as well as everything else that goes on in a busy urban environment.

 

[niggle]

I think the "crossing a traffic lane" thing, while technically true enough, is a bit of a red herring. After all, we're forever banging on about the dangers of undertaking left turning vehicles and we're all well aware that even quite small cars have blind spots, particularly to the nearside rear. I think it's much less understandable for the cyclist to blithely ignore a winking indicator - as he did in this case - than for the motorist to miss a cyclist in an utterly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly, 100% copper bottomed now-with-wings absurdly ridiculously unbelievably stupid position. Especially bearing in mind that the car driver was already concentrating on the cyclist ahead of him (to his credit) as well as everything else that goes on in a busy urban environment.

Is it really clear that a non mandatory cycle lane, i.e. marked with a broken line so other vehicles are actually allowed in it, is a separate lane, or kind of a lane within a lane? I suspect a lot of car drivers think its the latter, i.e. simply a place that cyclists are supposed to be in. In some places there is actually not enough room for drivers to avoid encroaching on cycle lanes in any case, particularly with larger vehicles.

Meanwhile some cyclists seem to get into a mindset where they feel that with that bit of paint in the road they can ride along the cycle lane without taking heed of the actions of traffic outside it. This is exactly the way drivers behave when driving in 'their' lane, expecting a vehicle in a lane next to them to give way to them even if signalling, and of course that is the legal position in terms of a signal being a request to move into, or cross, another lane rather than giving a right to do so.

I think a car driver should be legally obliged to give way to cyclists in a cycle lane in just the same way, but I am not entirely sure if that is the case, and if not then the whole concept of cycle lanes becomes even more dubious IMO.

 

[gambatte]

Meanwhile some cyclists seem to get into a mindset where they feel that with that bit of paint in the road they can ride along the cycle lane without taking heed of the actions of traffic outside it.

I can certainly think of points where I would have been close to that position, maybe after an intense effort up a long drag. But I'd like to believe I'd still not be that far 'out of it' to get myself into this situation.

 

[BentMikey]

That's the point though - the cyclist might not have had good sense to pass the left-indicating vehicle, but that's quite different and much less serious than the actual fault of the driver for turning left across another lane with traffic in it.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

[QUOTE 1350406"]
Here we go again -who's to blame?

That's the wrong question. The right question is- what could either have done to prevent the collision?

And the answer is that both could and should have behaved differently, and regardless of the other person's actions the collision would have been avoided.

See sig line...
[/quote]

Indeed. Looked at like that, it's an awful lot easier for the cyclist to avoid putting himself in such a ridiculous position than for the motorist to anticipate that there may suddenly be an idiot in the blindspot of an indicating car.

 

[Silver Fox]

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

Agreed. Infact I'd say you have to take total responsibility for your own safety.

Passing a vehicle on the nearside that's indicating left on the approach to a junction does seem to be asking for trouble.

 

[BentMikey]

The question wasn't how to ride more defensively, it was who was to blame, and that's clearly the car driver.

 

[Arch]

I suspect the eijit would have ridden up the inside whether there was a cycle lane painted there or not, so I'm not sure the cycle lane is to blame in this case.

In defence of the driver, yes, he should have looked in his mirror, but then he should also be looking into the road he's turning into, and looking for any peds about to cross, and checking his offside wing mirror too. Unless he had three or four independent eyes, he has to choose one of those places to be looking at at the very point of turning. It's a similar thing to wanting hundreds of mirrors on an HGV - by the time you've looked in them all, the view in the first one might have changed....

I was in a queue at a traffic light crossing a while back, on the outer edge of a cycle lane, behind a car already indicating left for the road just after the crossing. Woman cycled up and brushed past to the left of me, and went to pass the car just as the lights changed, and the car moved off. Just as she got beside it, she spotted the indicator and jammed the brakes on, although the driver HAD spotted her and was waiting for her to pass before turning. However, I'd set off too, with a bit of a shove on the pedal, and nearly ran into the back of this cyclist who'd suddenly stopped dead in front of me....

 

[beatlejuice]

Sorry I think I might have come a bit late in on this discussion but here goes:

Matthames said

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.

Sure you can do this when driving a car or small commercial vehicle but you can when driving something large such as a 12 metre long rigid bus the laws of physics tend to get in the way. You have to stay well out in the middle of the road to avoid the nearside going were it shouldn't. Then the rear will swing out the opposite way sending any overtaking cyclist flying should they pass to close. There can be up to 2.5 metres between the rear axle and the end of the bus.

 

[Coco]

In defence of the driver, yes, he should have looked in his mirror, but then he should also be looking into the road he's turning into, and looking for any peds about to cross, and checking his offside wing mirror too. Unless he had three or four independent eyes, he has to choose one of those places to be looking at at the very point of turning. It's a similar thing to wanting hundreds of mirrors on an HGV - by the time you've looked in them all, the view in the first one might have changed....

Not sure how straight the road is, but he should have spotted the cyclist prior to making his turn and anticipated his actions. You don't have to do all these things at the same time and at the precise moment of turning.

And since everyone else is quoting the HC

You need to continue to develop your skills, especially anticipating other road users’ behaviour to avoid having a collision.