Who's at fault?

[gaz]

An open question to all. This morning i saw a cyclist kick a car, for what i perceived to be a minor issue, the car was clearly indicating out of the space from early on, the cyclist positioned him self so that he would be close to the car. Who do you think is at fault? and do you think some people are looking for trouble?
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmxKQ6ZXujA[/media]

 

[CopperBrompton]

The cyclist appeared to deliberately cycle into a conflict with the car. Going into the tiny gap between the kerb and the left-indicating taxi doesn't exactly argue for him being Brain of Britain, either ...

 

[Black Sheep]

there was enough space to sail the titanic through there.

potential hazard of the car wanting to end up in the left lane but enough space to hang back and go behind.

cyclist should have been further out from car, car should check mirrors / get on with it.

 

[Crankarm]

Maybe I need to go to SpecSavers as I can't see any kick despite watching the footage twice. Maybe Gaz you could indicate when on the footage it occurs?

The way the cyclist in the HiViz passed the taxi on the near side close to the kerb suggests he or she is not that bright or on a death wish. They probably won't make Christmas this year.

 

[Number14]

there was enough space to sail the titanic through there.

potential hazard of the car wanting to end up in the left lane but enough space to hang back and go behind.

cyclist should have been further out from car, car should check mirrors / get on with it.

You mean he should have been closer to the kerb and not riding in the "super primary" position he was in?

Legally, the motorist was in the wrong but from a safety point of view the cyclist had enough time and line of sight to adjust his position to reduce the potential conflict. If a car hasn't seen you in a bright fluorescent jacket, there isn't much point dinging a bell, especially if the car driver has the radio on - time for a big "OI!".
Bit of a girly kick

 

[GrumpyGregry]

both at fault,(cyclist shouldn't have been where he was, car driver shouldn't have pulled out because cyclist was there) and both behaving with a lack of care, and borderline aggression which, of course, may be unconscious. Off bike and out of car they are probably both nicely rounded human beings much loved by their friends and respected by their peers.

just another day in the City, folks, move along, nothing to see here.....

 

[gaz]

Maybe I need to go to SpecSavers as I can't see any kick despite watching the footage twice. Maybe Gaz you could indicate when on the footage it occurs?

The way the cyclist in the HiViz passed the taxi on the near side close to the kerb suggests he or she is not that bright or on a death wish. They probably won't make Christmas this year.

15 seconds in.

 

[jimboalee]

The motorist is merging into traffic, and should give way to vehicles already on the carriageway.

The cyclist was unaware of your vid, and presumed any noise he made on the rear wing of the car would frighten the motorist into thinking he'd collided with a cyclist, which would wake the motorist up into looking before manouvering.
A fist on the car's window would have sufficed and is more acceptable as a proximity warning for inattentative motorists.

Scratching paintwork is a no-no. The collision was avoidable. This video in court as evidence would have prob brought a 'criminal damage' case against the cyclist.
The motorist might have got a warning.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think that the car pulling out from the right hand kerb was bang out of order, and the cyclist aimed an instructive kick at the bodywork which is fair enough. I'd have indulged in a bit of recreational abuse.

Passing by the cab on the left hand side wasn't clever or elegant, but that's got nothing to do with the later incident

 

[BentMikey]

I think the driver pulling away from the kerb was most wrong. The cyclist wasn't riding too well either, and could done a better job of not undertaking that taxi, and holding back to avoid the idiot in the car pulling out.

 

[davefb]

i look at things like 'what if i was in my car'..

in my car, i'd be thinking twice about going past someone who's been indicating for ages and is actually moving and pulling out.

so why would i even contemplate thinking about going near when i've no bodywork to protect me?

i understand the concept of being positive to show i'm there, but the alternate position is 'think the other guy is always going to do the most dangerous thing' , i'd have just assumed he was going to pull out, and moved across accordingly..


i hate this 'indicate-mirror-manourve' that seems to be in vogue as well,,, once someone is indicating , i dont know ( car or bike) what they mean,, do they mean they're thinking about setting off , or have they decided to just set off???

 

[Bigsharn]

In honesty it's hard to tell from the camera because we only see the car late on, though he indicated he never checked his mirrors, though the cyclist should have either hung back or sped up

 

[Browser]

My take on it is an even 50:50.
Car shoudl have waited for cyclist to pass, cyclist saw conflict ahead but did othing to avoid it, which is both sensible and recommended. It wasn't an agressive move by the driver, just a bit careless.
Chill out and drink less coffee would be my advice to him.

 

[BSRU]

The car driver is wrong for pulling out but the cyclists shows complete lack of road craft by no anticipating the bleeding obvious and doing something about it. Righteous indignation is never going to win against a large metal box.

 

[Matthames]

I would say it was 50:50. The cyclist could have ridden a bit more defensively and the driver could have looked properly before pulling off. If I were in that cyclists shoes I probably would have hung back when I saw the car pulling out, although I probably would have shouted to the driver to get their eyes tested or something and given them evils.