Who's in the wrong?

Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by Accy cyclist, 19 Feb 2018.

  1. Roadhump

    Roadhump Time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted

    Perhaps the driver did look, but missed the cyclist in his blind spot, without the aid of an in cab camera, we can't know for certain. There is a big issue about HGV driver's being unable to see cyclists in their rear view mirror, which is made worse due to the size and shape of their vehicles, but car drivers also suffer from blind spots.

    That is very worrying, it removes any discretion for the cyclist to move to a different road position to increase their safety. I hope nothing as ridiculous is ever introduced in the UK.
     
  2. Regulator

    Regulator Scourge of stale, pale, male snowflakes.


    Which is why you don't just rely on your wing mirrors but should actually turn your head and move your position in your seat to ensure that you obviate the blind spot. Something lots of lazy drivers don't do...
     
    Last edited: 21 Feb 2018
    Inertia and glasgowcyclist like this.
  3. davidphilips

    davidphilips Senior Member

    Location:
    Onabike
    That is very worrying, it removes any discretion for the cyclist to move to a different road position to increase their safety. I hope nothing as ridiculous is ever introduced in the UK.[/QUOTE]

    Is the bike lane mandatory? Is that in Belfast and part of the UK? Have not cycled in that part of Belfast in years but maybe a failing on my part but how do you know if a cycle lane is mandatory?
     
  4. Regulator

    Regulator Scourge of stale, pale, male snowflakes.


    As is made clear in the link in the OP, it happened in Dublin...
     
  5. glasgowcyclist

    glasgowcyclist Bang on!

    Blind spots are often quoted as though they were some mystical, unpredictable phenomenon. A blind spot and its extent are the responsibility of that vehicle's operator. And as Reg points out, blind spots can be mitigated by appropriate adjustment of head/body by the driver.

    The line of the cyclist's approach relative to the Toyota driver's position (i.e. parallel and offset by about 1 metre at the most) would make him visible in a correctly adjusted nearside mirror.
     
  6. winjim

    winjim A youth of interminable age

    I think you mean 'and' rather than 'but'.
     
  7. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    The UK keeps trying. Last time, the attempt was weakened to "Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer." - which is highly debatable. Snipers shooting all motorists who close-passed would seem more likely to "make your journey safer."

    www.rulesoftheroad.ie if you want to see the full horror: "Cyclists must use any cycle track provided." (Emphasis theirs.) You can tell pretty much from the outset of the cycling section that the rule authors are sadistic nobbers by "Your bicycle should be the right size to allow you to touch the ground with both feet" which has probably condemned lots of tall young Irish people to uncomfortable riding on bikes that are too small for them.
     
  8. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    Or in other words, cars do NOT have old-HGV-style blind spots that the driver cannot see through any combination of mirrors or direct observation+movement. No mirror provides complete coverage, but that's why you don't rely on one (or even two) mirrors.

    And as noted, that cyclist would have been visible in the side mirror until relatively late.
     
  9. winjim

    winjim A youth of interminable age

    To further complicate things, there appears to be some debate about how accurately the 'rules of the road' interprets the actual law, and also about how clear the law is anyway, having possibly been modified by guidance given by a minister.

    http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/22/ru...advice-from-department-of-transport-says-rsa/
     
  10. A signal doesn't give you the priority so I'd say the driver is 100% at fault but the cyclist was 99% the injured party (I assume the driver has a conscious and that was hurt too) and the cyclist should have 100% avoided it :ohmy: Typical Daily Mail hate though publishing deliberately something that'll be divisive :-(
     
    Slick likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice