'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane

[Sh4rkyBloke]

 

[Mr Pig]

I cannot believe there's people here trying to lay some responsibility on the cyclist.

I don't know that anyone is. I said the taxi driver should have been charged. Whatever the position of the cyclists it was his responsibility pass safely. Even if the cyclist was being a complete idiot, and I'm not saying that he was, the taxi driver should have held back until he had room.

I agree that the whole things leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The cyclists is being blamed for the collision for not diving out of the way of the taxi. It is very worrying and I hope it is taken to the highest level. Good on the cyclist for fighting on.

However, I have to admit that were I riding that road in that situation I would not have been where he was. The fact that he was in the middle of the road and still was only hit by the car's mirror suggests that had he been over to the left the car could've passed easily.

 

[Molecule Man]

Hmmm, not sure what the hand signal is for going straight ahead on the road I'm on at the moment... please enlighten me.

I agree that it's not clear whether th cyclist even looked over his shoulder (there's no mention of it) and the stills from the CCTV show him in one position and then further out into the lane on the next one.... but regardless of this, the taxi should have seen the pinch point and realised that the cyclist is heading to there too and that there's no room to overtake.

Crap driver, simple as.

This reminds me of a discussion on the old urbancyclist-uk forum. One of the regulars there (Keith Turner I think, are you here by any chance?) had a suggestion that stuck with me as being quite sensible. If you are appraaching a junction and you need to change lanes or carry straight on bypassing a turn left lane (or a nonsense cycle lane), point emphatically in the direction you wish to go. I don't know if drivers understand what I mean when I do this, but at least you have some chance they will notice you.

As for the Cambridge incident, I lay no blame on the cyclist, looks to me like the taxi driver simply assumed the cyclist would veer left and wasn't driving carefully enough to deal with the road situation as it really was, rather than the way they would like it to be. However, in that situation I would like to think that I could have avoided a collision by better awareness of the taxi's approach.

 

[BentMikey]

Hmmm, not sure what the hand signal is for going straight ahead on the road I'm on at the moment... please enlighten me.

I agree that it's not clear whether th cyclist even looked over his shoulder (there's no mention of it) and the stills from the CCTV show him in one position and then further out into the lane on the next one.... but regardless of this, the taxi should have seen the pinch point and realised that the cyclist is heading to there too and that there's no room to overtake.

Crap driver, simple as.

What amazes me is how srw thinks the cyclist should have signaled straight on!! Oh, and the cyclist very clearly went straight - it's pretty obvious from the loading bay markings that he didn't move out. It's the taxi that moved left in towards the cyclist.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

You're right BM, it looked at first glance like the cyclist moved out into the lane, but (as you say) they are still on the same line as measured from the Loading Bay markings.

Where did the other cyclist go????? (or is that him/her behind the post in the image?)

 

[BentMikey]

I think he's partly hidden behind the lamppost. There's obv. no overtake, at any rate.

It looks like the cyclist moved out at first because the second image is digitally zoomed, but comparing road markings shows he rode in a straight line parallel to the kerb.

 

[jonathan ellis]

Anyone requested the entire footage?
either way madness as usual on the roads

and on a different note BM you still doing lessons opp Albert Hall?

(PM me if you don't want to go off topic)

 

[BentMikey]

Hello mate! Yes, I'm still there.

I did request the footage, but got refused. Can't say I totally blame him, as he got quite a kicking from some fairly nasty trolls on urc.

 

[srw]

What amazes me is how srw thinks the cyclist should have signaled straight on!! Oh, and the cyclist very clearly went straight - it's pretty obvious from the loading bay markings that he didn't move out. It's the taxi that moved left in towards the cyclist.

You obviously don't signal straight on. You look behind you, stick your right arm out firmly, and straight, and that indicates to cars behind that you are about to do something funny. It doesn't matter if you then go straight on, the point has been made. I do it all the time.

And you must be looking at a different pair of photos from me. In the pair I'm looking at the cyclist is drifting outwards, the car is going straight on. It is not angled in, as the specious drawing suggests.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

You obviously don't signal straight on. You look behind you, stick your right arm out firmly, and straight, and that indicates to cars behind that you are about to do something funny.

Well, I for one would hate to be driving behind you on your bike!!

Why signal if you are not going to move out/across/turn???

If you hold up the palm of your hand in a 'stop' type signal to show that it's not safe for them to pass, then fair enough.

 

[spindrift]

You obviously don't signal straight on. You look behind you, stick your right arm out firmly, and straight, and that indicates to cars behind that you are about to do something funny.

Twaddle.The cyclist wasn't doing anything funny, he was travelling in a straight line. Mitigation put forward for a driver who drives into the back of a cyclist is getting increasingly desperate.

 

[Riding in Circles]

And you must be looking at a different pair of photos from me. In the pair I'm looking at the cyclist is drifting outwards, the car is going straight on. It is not angled in, as the specious drawing suggests.

You are wrong, if you examine both photo's taking into account that the second is zoomed, the cyclist is maintaining a steady line in primary, his intentions are clear but as the road narrows to the pinch point the car has to move in. The car driver was never going to fit in the pinch point with the cyclist but instead of slowing down he side swipes the cyclist, he should be banned from driving, plain and simple.

 

[BentMikey]

srw, you need to line up the loading bay markings with the cyclist in both photos. It's obvious there's no change in direction at all by the cyclist, he stays parallel to the markings and the kerb.

Secondly, the taxi obviously moves to the left. In the first photo his left wheels are lined up with the right-turning arrow. In the second, the middle of the car is about over the middle of the right turning lane, clearly showing a move left.

You are this: WRONG.

The drawing is fairly representative of what happened, IMO. There is one mistake, in that it shows the cyclist to the left of the load bay markings, when he's to the right of them in the CCTV, but that makes no practical difference.

As for signalling right when you're not actually intending to move out, and are instead going straight on, that doesn't seem very sensible or good riding practice to me. It's not National Standards, that's for sure.

 

[Nigeyy]

Agreed and seconded.

p.s. I think there's some of the worst kind of victim blaming going on here. Go read the overtaking rules in the highway code please, and you'll see you're utterly utterly wrong. Shameful.

 

[srw]

As for signalling right when you're not actually intending to move out, and are instead going straight on, that doesn't seem very sensible or good riding practice to me. It's not National Standards, that's for sure.

Oddly enough I don't give a stuff about National Standards. I do what I need to do to keep me out of harm's way, and that includes letting tossers of drivers be tossers, even if it means I have to pull in when I don't want to. It's worked for the last 12 years of commuting and 30-plus years of cycling and I expect it to work for many more.

Just to repeat, for the dumb schmucks who seem to be unable to read English, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE DRIVER. He was driving poorly. The police did a poor job. The plonker from the CCTV outfit shouldn't have said what he did. But the cyclist was also riding poorly. He's got a massive bee in his bonnet about a relatively inoffensive but very poorly designed cycle lane which it is clearly quite possible to use perfectly safely and is letting it get the better of him. He was barely injured, for heaven's sake. Why get bitter about it a year and more later and post a pile of self-defensive nonsense on the internet? Why not just get on with life?