had already checked that, blackview dr650 was it, 129 versus human eye ~160.
It was interesting that the details of the mans face are not so clear (same deal for the images of the London bridge runner) - what do you need to pay ?
Accident with cyclist - Seeking advice
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
It was interesting that the details of the mans face are not so clear (same deal for the images of the London bridge runner) - what do you need to pay ?
However the camera is higher up and further forward than the driver, so would have better vision.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
114° is humans horizontal FOV.
There's 40° more of peripheral...
Youtube kills the image quality somewhat.
Id guess its the fixed focal point of the dash cam.
So had the OP been looking where he was going he should have easily seen the cyclist.
Even if, as he nudged forwards he stopped the car dead, that bike was going so fast he wouldnt of been able to not cycle into the side of the car regardless.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,064
- Location
- France, Alsace
As a cyclist I'd say he was at fault. Pavement, going too fast, against the flow of traffic and didn't take any consideration to slow for side roads at all. Guy is a complete moron.
How do you look both ways at once ? The cyclist appears in frame just as the 2nd clip turns from 3 seconds to 4 seconds. By 5 seconds the cycist has hit the car and is sliding across the bonnet and heading out of frame. There is perhaps 1.5 seconds between the cyclist being nowhere in sight, and the driver hitting him.
The problem here is two fold
1) There appears to be a parked car on the pavement, or immedately next to him in the car park as the driver pulls out. This is further compounded by there being a wheeli bin on the pavement, further restricting the drivers view to his left
2) the cyclist is on the pavement travelling at a speed that doesn't give him sufficient time to react either.
For me, the OP did nothing wrong here. He looked left, all clear, looked right and moved forwards, and then hit the cyclist. You may argue he should have looked left again, but then it would have been 1 second since he last looked right.
Sadly I'd fear that he insurance company won't want to contest in court and will just pay out leaving the OP out of pocket.
Wow, you are really showing your lack of knowledge, the human eye whilst having a large FOV, is mostly restricted to a narrow range (the cone of visual attention) for actual detail visibility which has been measured at 55 degrees in perfect vision, the peripheral range, up to the remaining 160 degrees (NOT 180) detects movement, light and colour but very little detail, it is something you're taught when doing more advanced driving qualifications than just car. It stresses the importance of moving your head, A camera has 100% detail across it's entire FoV, Usually 120 degrees plus. Some have 180 degrees! And it's recording across that range is 100% perfect!
Additionally, the brain mostly rejects data from it's periphery so unless the incoming data is significant, such as the data created by a lit moving hi vis target, the brain would not even acknowledge it.
Here, go read up on the human eye vs a camera
https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/
It will do you some good as to your own assumptions as to what you can see when driving as you clearly overestimate your eye's and hence your capabilities vs a camera.
Asking what FoV a dash camera has is just laziness, you could google that! Maybe try doing some of your own research?
You know the OP's head isnt fixed right. Giving an effective FOV of around 300 deg. The OP was looking in the opposite direction to the direction he wanted to travel. As an ex traffic bobby would you consider that safe?
He crept forward a foot at most, yes in that moment I would consider that relatively safe compared to the actions of the cyclist. I am not an ex traffic bobby, my father is, he reviewed the footage and deemed the cyclist reckless as well as riding illegally.
When emerging to turn left the majority of your vision is concentrated right... The sequence is right, left, right as you move then in direction of travel, it is at that moment the cyclist recklessly rode into the car.
With a 1 second reaction time (the acknowledged reaction time) to stop, pretty much bang on what the driver did, I would say it was as close to unavoidable as it gets. If the cyclist was a car or motorcycle this wouldn't even be in question, but because the guy is a cyclist you are giving him a by from responsibility for some reason which I cannot understand. AND the driver hadn't even entered the road yet!
The facts are the OP might have been able to avoid the incident caused by the cyclist but that doesn't make him responsible for the cyclist being in a highly dangerous situation through his own actions.
Of course you are also assuming that the cyclist is completely blind and couldn't see the car, which I reckon he could see and just decided to "go for it anyway". Whichever way you look at it the cyclist had much better vision and more time to react he chose not to and it bit him back!
I've said on numerous occasions the Cyclist was a muppet. But what I've also said is the Driver could and should have looked left before pulling out and he should have seen the cyclist. The driver assumed it was still clear as it probably was the last time he looked.
No-one knows how long it was between looking left and looking right. But I'm sure had the driver looked left right left before proceeding he would have seen the cyclist.
We all do it so I'm not judging the OP. And I'd guess that this incident has changed the way the OP approaches at least that junction.
The OP didn't creep forward he was pulling out of the junction until he heard the bang. Again something that most of us do.
Starting to think mattyg MUST be the cyclist...
No I just have a fair amount of road experience
The bonnet is dipping as the cyclist hits, he didn't react to the hit, he reacted to the visibility, so sorry I have to disagree. Maybe his reactions were slow when he saw him, who can say, but he didn't brake after the hit as you suggest, go watch again!
Interested to know what you regard as a "fair amount of road experience".
I agree the driver COULD have done more, that doesn't make him to blame though. I know of pedestrians walking in the road where there is no pavement who have been knocked down and found at fault and not received a penny due to failure to follow the highway code, this guy hasn't only not followed the highway code he has broken the law. He is a prime example of the average cyclist these days, no road skills and no respect for the laws of the road.
Not all cyclists, I see good cyclists every day!
Its very very close to to bang and braking.
My fair amount of road experience comes from the amount of miles I drive a year, Which is well above the average
His reactions may have been fast WHEN he saw him. What I'm saying is he didn't give himself the opportunity to see the cyclist as he looked right left right. And not Left right left.
If he had visibility to the right then he can make a judgement call on whether he needs to look again. But he knew he had poor visibility to the left and yet didn't check left before pulling off.
This isn't an OP bashing as I'm sure 99% of us do it. But it should be a lesson that we check the direction we want to travel BEFORE moving not as or just after we start.
I bet if the OP was honest he'd wish he did a left check before pulling out. But like us all were always in a rush and he saw a gap and went for it. I'll timed because he didn't give himself enough time to check the direction of travel first.
It was avoidable and as with most accidents like this most of the avoiding should have been done by the person being hit and not the person hitting the 3rd party.
The cyclist is clearly not taking care or paying attention. He should have anticipated the car as he would have been within full view. As a cyclist what he is doing is incredibly dangerous and I would never ever do it, far too fast (though not actually that fast) for the pavement and tried to cross in front of a car coming out a side road/drive. Even as a pedestrian I wouldn't do that until the driver has acknowledged I can cross and I would still ensure nothing is turning in or I would just cross behind.
That being said it is one reason why I don't use cycle paths, there are loads that are just like this with cars constantly crossing them. It's much safer just riding on the road.
On the other hand the OP hit someone on the pavement, rather than concentrating on what was coming from the right he could have crept forward when he got to the junction to make sure the left side is clear as he was aware his view was obstructed. As indicated in the OP and being 30 meters from home the OP was likely on autopilot which is another factor.
I'd say 50/50. Both people showed a lack of care and could have avoided the incident.
The cyclist is clearly not taking care or paying attention. He should have anticipated the car as he would have been within full view. As a cyclist what he is doing is incredibly dangerous and I would never ever do it, far too fast (though not actually that fast) for the pavement and tried to cross in front of a car coming out a side road/drive. Even as a pedestrian I wouldn't do that until the driver has acknowledged I can cross and I would still ensure nothing is turning in or I would just cross behind.
That being said it is one reason why I don't use cycle paths, there are loads that are just like this with cars constantly crossing them. It's much safer just riding on the road.
On the other hand the OP hit someone on the pavement, rather than concentrating on what was coming from the right he could have crept forward when he got to the junction to make sure the left side is clear as he was aware his view was obstructed. As indicated in the OP and being 30 meters from home the OP was likely on autopilot which is another factor.
I'd say 50/50. Both people showed a lack of care and could have avoided the incident.
Sorry but you're not in his drivers seat, cannot see what he can see past his oversized A-Pillar so you are making assumptions based on what his screen mounted dashcam can see.
I completely agree with the point you're trying to make about observation, however, you assume too much in this case.
you should have been sitting forward, straining, to remove A pillar liability, that is within drivers responsibility (I assumed there was no passsenger too)
