Man of Honour
50/50. The cyclist has right of way to be honest. Just the car couldn't do anything to avoid it.
Dashcam footage. Who was at fault?
- Thread starter bainbridge
- Start date
100% the cyclist. The van stopped for a reason, he should have too. There's absolutely no way the car could have seen him. The cyclist hit the car, not the other way round.
This is why if I have to stop near a junction, I leave no space at all for them to try and undertake or squeeze though the inside.
I once had a similar situation. Someone flashed me to allow me in to a T-junction, cyclist came flying along between stationary traffic and tried to go around me as I was turning, went face first in to the side of me at pretty high speed. I took no blame what so ever, but I did have to pull the face dents out of the rear side panel. Steel vs face was probably a valuable lesson for them.
This is why if I have to stop near a junction, I leave no space at all for them to try and undertake or squeeze though the inside.
I once had a similar situation. Someone flashed me to allow me in to a T-junction, cyclist came flying along between stationary traffic and tried to go around me as I was turning, went face first in to the side of me at pretty high speed. I took no blame what so ever, but I did have to pull the face dents out of the rear side panel. Steel vs face was probably a valuable lesson for them.
Last edited:
Soldato
I don't know about letter of the law but surely the cyclist needs to be thinking that there's a junction there, vehicles in his lane are stationery, better slow down and just peek out? Even if he has right of way.
The driver should be thinking that too but naturally is less likely to actually consider the possibility there's a cyclist, whether that's an excuse or not
The driver should be thinking that too but naturally is less likely to actually consider the possibility there's a cyclist, whether that's an excuse or not
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
at the time the car turned, THEIR way was clear, the cyclist rode in to the rear side of the car when it was already mostly down the side road
There is an obligation there as well not to cause another driver to stop, etc. in those kind of situations not just your immediate path being clear. Regardless though of the legal aspect the cyclist only has themselves to blame and if they don't take responsibility of their actions and just blame it on the car driver they'll likely end up in something worse before long or sadly as is more likely cause someone else to have an accident :|
both at fault.
The car could not see past the van and should have used more caution.
Would they have gone the same speed if they where pulling out into the road just because the van let them out or would they creep out to see if anything was coming before pulling out into the lane?
I imagine 99% would have done the same as the car and not check for a cyclist, doesn't mean the car isn't to blame in some way.
The cyclist should have seen the gap in the traffic the van left, slowed and used more caution when approaching it.
The car pulled across someones path, they could have clipped the front of the car or the rear, they pulled out in their path.
The cyclist was travelling too fast and should have used a lot more caution.
The car could not see past the van and should have used more caution.
Would they have gone the same speed if they where pulling out into the road just because the van let them out or would they creep out to see if anything was coming before pulling out into the lane?
I imagine 99% would have done the same as the car and not check for a cyclist, doesn't mean the car isn't to blame in some way.
The cyclist should have seen the gap in the traffic the van left, slowed and used more caution when approaching it.
The car pulled across someones path, they could have clipped the front of the car or the rear, they pulled out in their path.
The cyclist was travelling too fast and should have used a lot more caution.
The cyclists is actually on the OTHER side of the broken white line or at least cutting it very very fine, so is potentially crossing the road at speed. He is not on the road that the van is, because he is being a ***** and trying to undertake everyone by going up on the pavement and bombing it across the minor road instead.
Stop the video at 11 seconds and you will see.
Last edited:
Legally the driver is at fault, they turned across a road they couldn't see was clear and they also cut the corner of the junction because the mini bus was partly blocking the junction both of which are against the highway code.
Avoidable on the cyclists part, should really be filtering much slower and down the middle of the road.
On that basis 33/66 (bike/car).
Avoidable on the cyclists part, should really be filtering much slower and down the middle of the road.
On that basis 33/66 (bike/car).
There was no cycle lane. Therefore the cyclists was undertaking in the blindspot of the turning car.
Only one party here had the ability to avoid a collision.
You won't ever see a motorcycle for example undertaking like that. They will move over to the right and to be fair most cyclists either stop or go round the right.
The other example you see often is cars having to creep. Other drivers understand that cars sometimes have to creep because of visibility reasons, cyclists get ****** off if they have to stop, even though the driver creeping forward had no other choice (apart from just permanently staying where they are).
On the cutting the corner point, that only applies where a road clearly has 2 lanes for traffic. From what I could see, the road being turned into was one where a car would drive right down the middle anyway.
Only one party here had the ability to avoid a collision.
You won't ever see a motorcycle for example undertaking like that. They will move over to the right and to be fair most cyclists either stop or go round the right.
The other example you see often is cars having to creep. Other drivers understand that cars sometimes have to creep because of visibility reasons, cyclists get ****** off if they have to stop, even though the driver creeping forward had no other choice (apart from just permanently staying where they are).
On the cutting the corner point, that only applies where a road clearly has 2 lanes for traffic. From what I could see, the road being turned into was one where a car would drive right down the middle anyway.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I'm a road cyclist. Cyclist is a complete fool, undertaking at what looks like considerable speed in a hazardous situation.
Unfortunately some cyclists place way too much emphasis on conservative of momentum, sometimes at cost like this.
Unfortunately some cyclists place way too much emphasis on conservative of momentum, sometimes at cost like this.
Soldato
As another cyclist, I agree. Utter twonk to be honest. The cyclist is effectively undertaking which is a big no-no all round because you cannot be seen be it a car, horse, motorbike, you're mostly unsighted so you have to read your surroundings way ahead and be ready to react to anything.
Where possible, if I know I'm coming up to a congested road I pass the cars in the centre of the road. I still now and then get cars come along side me then stop when I'm on the inside making me more vulnerable but I just find a space for myself and drop back of necessary.
So many entitled pricks on the roads no matter what vehicle you're in or on. In my opinion a cyclist is one of the lowest common denominators on the road and should behave as such, not just expect the rest of the road users to work around you while you do what you feel like. I manage to let traffic pass me or pass traffic with respect and courtesy and not impede my progress any, I love to go fast and always will do but I know first hand how messed up you can be of it all goes wrong (3 hours facial surgery).
The world is seemingly full of people eyes-wide-shut however, so we're all to blame tbh.
How do you see him being on the pavement. The video doesn't show that!
What you may be seeing is the cyclist trying to take avoiding action as the distance between him and the lines increases.
The cyclist shouldn't have ridden the way he did. But that doesn't give the motorist the right to hit him.
The driver pulled into the path of an oncoming road user..The cyclist and I hate to say it had priority.
Equally applies to the car.
Soldato
Except you shouldn't have to anticipate some numb entitled prat watchj traffic around him stop and not realise why and do the same.
The car driver can only deal with what he/she sees. They are being given right of way by a courteus motorist and essentially have to place some faith in that they can take that right of way safely. So really, it's the motorist who stopped to let them turn-in that should have taken some responsibility as they would have, or at least should have, had sight on both parties in this situation.
That being said, the cyclist was in the least predictable situation and should have reacted to the situation around him, not just thrown himself past a side road without being aware of why the vehicle alongside has stopped. People don't leave gaps for no reason.
Soldato
The cyclist hit the car, not the other way around... Although I would say its a 50/50, lets not obscure the facts here by saying the car hit the cyclist...
Man of Honour
Complete lack of road craft from the cyclists.
If you can't see the road clearly then don't go
I'd argue that any road user should anticipate the possibility of a cyclist heading from behind stopped traffic.
Likewise an experienced and safe cyclist should have anticipated somebody may try to turn in and showed more caution