Thought i was going over..

[BentMikey]

You're right, but it was the car's priority (over the van, obviosuly it was Gaz's priority over both). Had the van waited for the car (and thus the car and van passed offside to offside), then the car's view of the road would have been clear. That's the reason nearside to nearside moves are always risky.

No, it's nothing to do with nearside/nearside. It's everything to do with the van taking a risk, and then the driver of the other car taking a bigger risk, with neither of them showing any patience expected of normal drivers, or of giving priority in the correct order.

Nearside vs offside is just a red herring, it does nothing more than shuffle vehicles around. It takes away from the important issues here, which is to go only when clear, and to be very careful when going ahead out of priority, or ceding priority to others.

 

[magnatom]

Driver was at fault no question. He could not have been sure the road was clear when he turned.

However, a contributory factor may have been your road position on approach to the junction. I noticed that you were in the cycle lane, i.e. to the left of the lane. Therefore, you might have been out of the main line of site of the driver (just before the WVM pulls out) and/or seeing you in the cycle lane, he may have assumed that you were traveling slower.

I really don't like cycle lanes that take you across the mouth of junctions!

 

[Origamist]

Driver was at fault no question. He could not have been sure the road was clear when he turned.

However, a contributory factor may have been your road position on approach to the junction. I noticed that you were in the cycle lane, i.e. to the left of the lane. Therefore, you might have been out of the main line of site of the driver (just before the WVM pulls out) and/or seeing you in the cycle lane, he may have assumed that you were traveling slower.

Given the speed at which the events unfolded, if Gaz had been in the centre of the lane he would still have been obscured the WV and would most likely have T-boned the red car.

 

[magnatom]

Given the speed at which the events unfolded, if Gaz had been in the centre of the lane he would still have been obscured the WV and would most likely have T-boned the red car.

I'm talking about before the white van pulls out. he may have been more visible then.

 

[Origamist]

I'm talking about before the white van pulls out. he may have been more visible then.

I doubt it. I think the Clio that pulls out would also obscure Gaz.

In this case, taking centre of the lane would probably have made the situation worse, not better.

 

[magnatom]

I doubt it. I think the Clio that pulls out would also obscure Gaz.

In this case, taking centre of the lane would probably have made the situation worse, not better.

I'm not sure I agree, but we will never know for sure. Do agree that a more prominent position is normal better at junctions like this?

 

[Origamist]

I'm not sure I agree, but we will never know for sure. Do agree that a more prominent position is normal better at junctions like this?

Yes.

 

[BentMikey]

Magnatom FTW. I'm with you on this one. Still doesn't excuse both idiot drivers.

 

[magnatom]

Magnatom FTW. I'm with you on this one. Still doesn't excuse both idiot drivers.

Oh absolutely. The drivers were totally at fault. But being further out, on approach to the junction, it is possible that the driver would have noticed gaz's approach. We will never know of course.

 

[BentMikey]

I reckon the van driver probably noticed him, just didn't give a toss.

 

[magnatom]

I reckon the van driver probably noticed him, just didn't give a toss.

Aye, however the other driver didn't!

 

[Origamist]

Oh absolutely. The drivers were totally at fault. But being further out, on approach to the junction, it is possible that the driver would have noticed gaz's approach. We will never know of course.

No, we won't, but it's comforting to think that being more centrally positioned would have helped in this situation; it's far more troubling (and disempowering) to consider the alternative scenario that best practice might have turned a close call into a collision.

 

[magnatom]

No, we won't, but it's comforting to think that being more centrally positioned would have helped in this situation; it's far more troubling (and disempowering) to consider the alternative scenario that best practice might have turned a close call into a collision.

True, but you can never completely eradicate the 'wrong place, wrong time' scenario. It's all about reducing risk. It is impossible to completely eradicate it.

 

[Origamist]

True, but you can never completely eradicate the 'wrong place, wrong time' scenario. It's all about reducing risk. It is impossible to completely eradicate it.

Truism-tastic!

 

[gaz]

Primary wouldn't have help in this situation, as origamist said, I would more likely have had a collision. The lesson I learned when watching it back is too just take more speed off, and not to presume that because he can't see then he won't go!
In general it may be better to not be in the cycle lane.