Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
yep, its just basic road sense for any vehicle, thing is it may not have been a car, could have been the bus was letting a kid cross the road. it's just in this particular instance it was a car.
Dashcam footage. Who was at fault?
- Thread starter bainbridge
- Start date
yep, its just basic road sense for any vehicle, thing is it may not have been a car, could have been the bus was letting a kid cross the road. it's just in this particular instance it was a car.
Soldato
Well, this thread is a good indication as to why insurance premiums are going up and why it takes forever to navigate the simplest of hazards when out driving these days.
Lol the kids is the cyclist.
or do you find kids running into cars wrecks cars...
Yes you're implying cars don't expect cyclists in obvious locations, and will drive oblivious to other road uses, cyclists, pedestrians. Because if they hit them its of low risk to the driver. So they couldn't care less.
Man of Honour
If I was that cyclist, I'd be looking at that minibus thinking "Why has it stopped"
Broken down? Hazard, slow down.
Letting someone on/off? Hazard, slow down.
Lost, unsure if it's going to turn or not? Hazard, slow down.
Letting someone through? Hazard, slow down.
Letting someone out? Hazard, slow down.
In any of the above the wise course of action, regardless of laws and rights and wrongs and highway codes, is to slow down as you are approaching what is a blatant hazard.
We don't see the cyclist long in the clip but it's clear they aren't pottering along or even remotely prepared to slow down or stop.
And regardless of whether your a driver, a biker, a cyclist or even a running pedestrian, failing to take into account your surroundings can get you hurt or dead. Arguing who's fault it was later is a luxury you won't always get.
Broken down? Hazard, slow down.
Letting someone on/off? Hazard, slow down.
Lost, unsure if it's going to turn or not? Hazard, slow down.
Letting someone through? Hazard, slow down.
Letting someone out? Hazard, slow down.
In any of the above the wise course of action, regardless of laws and rights and wrongs and highway codes, is to slow down as you are approaching what is a blatant hazard.
We don't see the cyclist long in the clip but it's clear they aren't pottering along or even remotely prepared to slow down or stop.
And regardless of whether your a driver, a biker, a cyclist or even a running pedestrian, failing to take into account your surroundings can get you hurt or dead. Arguing who's fault it was later is a luxury you won't always get.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
I don't think "fault" has ever been the issue in this video. Its the acceptance or normalizing of dangerous driving habits as ok.
i was referring to putting the kid in the cars position
Yeah it still makes no sense.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
No, the example is what if the minibus had stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross. The cyclist would have wiped out a child.
If the kid was the car, by your logic the onus moves to the one most likely to die. Which in your scenario is the kid.
Which means in your scenario the cyclist has no onus on them because they are less likely to die.
IMO because some is less likely die, doesn't mean they have no responsibility for poor judgement.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
You're conflating two people's comments to create another strawman.
He pointed out the kid angle in resonse to your ridiculous "truck" argument.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
Its ridiculous because a truck would have to be driving down the pavement
Or if multilane, bigger than a minibus and better visibility from 2 actual lanes so the car wouldnt have made that manuever at all
Also, children being famous for excellent decision making would never run out in front of traffic that flashed them to cross
see, now you are saying obvious, but as a car driver and occasional cyclist, I've been flashed to cross on dozens of occasions and never once has a cyclist been in the middle of an overtaking maneuver, blind, over a junction. Its never happened to me so its not something I would expect. As a cyclist I would expect a car to potentially be turning down a junction without seeing me, because I'm small and easily hidden behind other vehicles like say minibuses.
Regardless of whether I thought I had right of way, the laws of physics would trump the laws of men and I would slow down and be prepared to stop for a hazard.
UK roads and current rules are not really designed around primarily cyclists. Its a fact of life. Do I think some changes need to happen, probably yes, but do I think that makes it prudent to throw yourself in to obvious hazards with gay abandon, no obviously not.
Always waiting for theoretical cyclists that nearly always won't be there is not a practical or realistic expectation.
Last edited:
Frankly I don't care what interpretation of the law anyone would apply here to somehow prove the cyclist isn't to blame.
So many accidents like this are a direct result of a cyclist blazing it up the left side of queuing traffic with complete negligence for their own health and safety. The cyclist deserved that and I only hope they will learn from this lesson and ride more defensively in the future. If you work on the assumption all other road users are idiots (as a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver) and exercise caution you can generally avoid getting in trouble.
And even if we do apply interpretation of the highway code - that is surely designed for cars which in this situation occupy the road sequentially. It was never designed to cater for another "vehicle" (the cyclist) that ignores this and is technically undertaking all the other vehicles.
So many accidents like this are a direct result of a cyclist blazing it up the left side of queuing traffic with complete negligence for their own health and safety. The cyclist deserved that and I only hope they will learn from this lesson and ride more defensively in the future. If you work on the assumption all other road users are idiots (as a pedestrian, cyclist or car driver) and exercise caution you can generally avoid getting in trouble.
And even if we do apply interpretation of the highway code - that is surely designed for cars which in this situation occupy the road sequentially. It was never designed to cater for another "vehicle" (the cyclist) that ignores this and is technically undertaking all the other vehicles.
Again no ones (or at least I'm not) arguing the cyclist wasn't in the wrong.
I'm just saying a car driver can't drive blindly across a junction either. That's also wrong. But because its become normal people think it's ok.
But the irony is apparently only ok if a car does it. If you change it to a truck or a cyclist blindly turning across a junctions that's wrong.
I'm just saying a car driver can't drive blindly across a junction either. That's also wrong. But because its become normal people think it's ok.
But the irony is apparently only ok if a car does it. If you change it to a truck or a cyclist blindly turning across a junctions that's wrong.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
Cyclist 100%. If the car had crept forward, it still would have encroached on the lane before the driver got a decent view down the inside of the van.
The rate at which the cyclist was travelling, I'm not convinced he'd have avoided a creeping car either.
The rate at which the cyclist was travelling, I'm not convinced he'd have avoided a creeping car either.
But had he eased his nose out. The cyclist MAY have been able to stop. No one knows hows fast the cyclist was going as we only see a glimpse. How far is it from the front of the van to impact.
To be honest it doesn't even look like a hard impact. Its just from the angle we see it looks (until you see it slowed down) that hes travelling at a fair rate of knots.