was that from beyond the grave ?
There was a recent dedicated OC thread about near pass initiative, but, as a cyclist I look out for the female drivers 20-29 with sat navs
Accident with cyclist - Seeking advice
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
There was a recent dedicated OC thread about near pass initiative, but, as a cyclist I look out for the female drivers 20-29 with sat navs
You should be educating everyone because some of the causes of death at junctions are impatient drivers left hooking cyclists that are going straight ahead, not just cyclists passing vehicles on the left.
Not when they overtook them to begin with. It’s usually lack of use of the left hand mirror and not judging how fast a cyclist is going.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,438
I've had people overtake then immediately turn left in front of me.
Yep me too cars, buses and even the odd HGV.
Exactly, they just can’t be patient and wait till you passed the junction before making the turn. Instead they will try and blast past you and quickly turn left misjudging your speed and cutting you up, nearly taking you out. Some aren’t so lucky.
They can still be in the blind spot. But I get what your saying. Car overtakes bike then 5 secs later turns left cutting off the bike.
There will always be other crap road users. Thats why they added the hazard perception to the test
I have people do this to me when I am pulling out of a bus stop! 5 seconds to wait but no....
Never underestimate the impatience and stupidity of motorists.
I always give cyclists more room than required, even though as a cyclist I don't worry when I get a close pass, mainly because I used to cycle to school in the 70's and used to get passed by HGV's with merely inches so I became hardened to it. I just couldn't forgive myself if I hit one in a bus.
I don’t get too bothered about close passes but it is very dependent on speed. If someone close passes you but passes you a few mph faster than you and then speeds up then that’s fine by me. I do have a problem with drivers close passing by blasting past you at 40mph+ as the turbulence caused by the vehicle can be quite dangerous. We all know what lorries are like going past at speed.
I see far more motorist muppets than I do Cyclists. But then I spend a fair amount of time on motorways or roads at night.
Yea and flying down the side of someone on a junction is about the most dangerous thing you can do. If you do that your just asking to get face planted :/
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
You're like a walking, talking, daily mail article.
Agreed 100% but I have saved more cyclists lives than motorists, the motorists just tend to endanger my passengers.
Is this to chat them up or rob them of electronics!
This is a very interesting observation and probably worthy of a grant to study it. Although imagine the "get out of jail card" this would present to all other road users
Last edited by a moderator:
Can I state something that is actually perfectly obvious that none of us have cottoned onto before?
Some people are going on about it being Vincent's fault for not looking left in his direction of travel. However, at this point of a half a wheel rotation, his direction of travel is straight ahead prior to actually initiating a left turn.
He has looked left already, prior to moving, to ascertain that the pavement is clear. He then looks right to ascertain whether he can enter the intersection. At that point he moves forward and IS looking in the direction of travel.
And it is here that he is struck, with malice, forethought and intense savagery, by a speeding cyclist wantonly driving illegally the wrong way down a pavement who is clearly high on a mixture of adrenaline and endorphins.
Vincent, have you been able to determine what speed this cyclist was doing by using the time stamps? Seeing as this 18mph seems to be a thing, it would seem obvious that if he was at this speed or above, a case for reckless endangerment can be put forward.
Some people are going on about it being Vincent's fault for not looking left in his direction of travel. However, at this point of a half a wheel rotation, his direction of travel is straight ahead prior to actually initiating a left turn.
He has looked left already, prior to moving, to ascertain that the pavement is clear. He then looks right to ascertain whether he can enter the intersection. At that point he moves forward and IS looking in the direction of travel.
And it is here that he is struck, with malice, forethought and intense savagery, by a speeding cyclist wantonly driving illegally the wrong way down a pavement who is clearly high on a mixture of adrenaline and endorphins.
Vincent, have you been able to determine what speed this cyclist was doing by using the time stamps? Seeing as this 18mph seems to be a thing, it would seem obvious that if he was at this speed or above, a case for reckless endangerment can be put forward.
Just watched the video again after my post above and Vincent's car is at a slight angle not perpendicular to the road as I thought it had been in the post above however, left would still be in the periphery of Vincent's vision.
Next point, 18mph is 28.8kmh. The maths is this. 28.8/60 minutes is 480 metres a minute which is 8 metres per second.
I can clearly see in the video when his front wheel touches the shadow of the bin at the point closest to you. You can also see when his rear wheel goes past the same point.
Go and measure a bike front wheel to rear. Ideally cyclists bike but probably another as a start. Assuming it is 1.5 metres, you just have to look in the time stamps that this front wheel crossing the shadow to the rear wheel crossing the shadow is 188 milliseconds or less.
I daresay it could even be a little more because at this point he would have attempted to slow down. If he made no attempt to slow down because "it all happened so quickly", it is tacitly admitting he was riding at speed.
As an idea of how far you moved, just of the front of your left bonnet is a white line in the road. Measure this. These are two sides of a triangle with the front left corner of your bonnet being the third. You start off seeing the entire line and end off with the left edge just showing.
Then probably using a combination of sin, tan, cosine and rad or other elements of trigonometry I have long forgotten, you can work out the distance you moved. In all likelihood, less than a metre.
Bearing in mind the foot or so (30cm) the camera's field of vision is in front of yours, all these small amounts go to prove you were not negligent.
As always in these sorts of debate, Numbers and Rates tend to get mixed up. For the above statistics to be useful in assessing which type of vehicle is more dangerous for pedestrians, we also need to know whether cyclists cover more or less than around 0.5% of the total journeys made
This is something I don't get however. I see this sort of thing happen every now and again and, pretty much every time, even when it is clear that a dangerous situation is developing, the cyclist insists on pedaling furiously right up untill the point where he is about to run into the turning vehicle. Me, I would tap on the brakes and let the vehicle turn.
Isn't staying alive more important than being in the right?? There is no magic shield of moral righteousness that will protect you from being crushed under the wheels of a 44 tonner!