Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by Accy cyclist, 19 Feb 2018.
Surly failing to keep out of the way of idiots, shouldn't make you culpable?
I doesn’t always but if you you are paying attention and you see someone ahead of you indicating to turn left into your lane then a good rider or driver will slow down to ensure that they aren’t put in danger.
I suspect in this case the cyclist wasn’t totally anticipating what might be happening further up the road and acting appropriately.
The same could be said about any collision, but they still manage to apportion blame.
Oh there's a fair few members of the motoring supremacist lobby on here. Obviously, as soon as a more important motorist indicates they're intending to left hook or right cross you, you cyclists should stop, dismount and bow(!)
Can't say I'm not surprised. Didn't expect that on here.
A good cyclist would have avoided that and a good driver may have spotted the cyclists kamikaze mission and waited a moment for the high speed undertake.
I'm going to award 60% blame towards cyclist.
zero points for the mails coverage in needing to mention helmet.
There’s no way the driver could have anticipated a cyclist coming down the inside at that speed.
It’s the drivers fault.
Hope that clarifies x
I'm another who says both share the blame.
In some ways I have more sympathy with the driver. If someone drove past a bike and left hooked in front of them, I would blame them 100%, but in this case it looks like the car is waiting for its path to become clear so it can turn left, and when it is clear the car proceeds slowly (although the footage is very short so that isn't certain). With a cycle path there, the driver should have made a final check before turning, but he might have done that and missed something in his blind spot. The car was indicating and the cyclist who was going too quick anyway, should have seen it and taken evasive action. As a cyclist, I would always be very cautious about filtering down the left hand side of a line of slow moving vehicles, especially where there are places to the left that those vehicles might turn into.
On the other hand, I have some sympathy with the cyclist, or cyclists in general. None of the comments question the suitability or design of the cycle lane, and like many other, probably most other cycle infrastructure, it is nothing more than a token marginal space on the left hand side of the road, that requires no thought or imagination, and does nothing to improve cyclists' safety. If anything, it reduces safety and the cyclist would have been better getting in the flow of traffic or filtering to the right of the slow moving vehicles, but then people would have been criticising him for being in the road and not in the cycle lane.
Typical Mail anti-cyclist mindset demonstrated by the totally irrelevant reference to the cyclist's headgear.
Not that it really makes much difference, but interestingly, the cycle lane markings are solid (cycles only), the broken (shared use)...but the change between the two isn't very helpful to the cyclist/cyclists in that it changes AT the junction itself, not giving any cyclist any or much warning of a change of circumstance ahead.
The car half crosses the solid line, but you could argue he's half using the broken line as well.
If we're going I to scenarios....imagine a child crossing the road, the car has stopped to let it pass in front...and the cyclist steamed straight Into the child as it went across the lane.. I suspect we'd have little sympathy for the cyclist....because he wasn' prepared for the unexpected. In that scenario, the child would be to blame...as would the cyclist. Lack of anticipaion (cyclist) vs lack of awareness. (Driver)
50/50 in both scenarios.
Its the ROI, and I don't know in detail what their rules are.
Were it the UK I'd have said the car driver was at fault. However, the cyclist was HUA and could have avoided it had they been paying attention instead of doing the standard eyes-dead-ahead tunnel vision thing - death and disability don't care who's "fault" it is.
The broken line is to warn the driver they are crossing a lane . There are no markings on the cycle path to indicate a turning so the cyclist had right of way .
Right of way or not it could have been avoided .
Don’t know about the ROI but in the U.K. the mantra is check mirror, signal, turn.
[QUOTE 5156973, member: 45"]The broken line is to indicate that the driver can cross the line at that point.[/QUOTE]
With due care as the driver will be crossing a lane / path .
Pedant mode on ...the broken white line isn' specifically to warn the driver they'e. Crossing a lane, or dashed white line. Sustrans themselves see it as follows
' A dashed white line indicates other vehicles can use the lane, which means you'e likely to have to share it with other cars, motorbikes as well as parked cars'
There in almost all certainty won't be any markings on the cycle lane to indicate the junction...but there may well have been road signage to indicate to traffic there is.
Either way...dont get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the driver, he's clearly made a mistake...but (IMHO) the cyclist contributed towards his own downfall. Shared lane, driver not aware, cyclist not behaving appropriately .
IMO the cyclist is at fault. 100%
A car turning left, indicator on, waiting for the road to clear.............what cretin would try to ride, at speed, up the inside? Well obviously the fool on the bike type of cretin.
There is nothing wrong with undertaking a car in a slow moving lane or coming up to lights etc but it has to be done with your eyes open and your brain engaged.
Seems to me the guy on the bike simply wasn't watching what was going on. Just because he's on a bike doesn't give him some kind special right to act as an idiot.
Separate names with a comma.