Dashcam footage. Who was at fault?

[mattyg]

The law does not refer to "Undertaking", That is just a common-usage colloquialism that everybody understands even if the pedents pretend not to , it refers to overtaking on the left.

The HC gives examples of when it is acceptable to overtake on the left, it also advises that Overtaking (Presumable regardless of on which side it is attempted) at junctions is ill advised and qualifies as a "Do Not" precisely because doing so is likley to result in situations like this from arising.

The HC is NOT the law is a guide. "Do not" is NOT "MUST NOT"

Again I will reiterate the Cyclist is a moron. But I'd still maintain that the onus was on the car to cross the path of another road user safely..

Did the cyclist overtake/undertake or did the he carry on at the speed he was doing whilst the traffic in front slowed to a standstill.

The car made a manoeuvre that we probably all do from time to time without the misfortune of cutting someone off. Its just this time the driver got caught out.


Has anything actually come of the accident. Police/ insurance involvment

 

[mattyg]

Cyclist for me, regardless of the highway code. There is little the driver could do to avoid this accident, there was a lot that the cyclist could have done.

Apart from waiting until the road was clear you mean.

 

[Nasher]

But it was clear when he began to turn.

 

[mattyg]

But it was clear when he began to turn.

Obviously not he pulled into the path of the cyclist..

What you mean is he didn't see the cyclist....thats definitely a SMIDSY.

The issue is visibility. Had that not been a van but a MX5 for instance the cyclist would probably have been visible. If so would the car have made that manoeuvre....

Also

Exact same scenario but with a cycle lane. I'm sure the car STILL would have made the manoeuvre but I'm sure you would all be on the cyclists side then as he had a lane and wasn't undertaking.

 

[Nasher]

He couldn't see the cyclist at all, he was undertaking at speed on a junction where there isn't even a cycle lane. He was in the wrong even before the collision.

 

[whyscotty]

Van driver at fault for flashing their lights as the car turning right thinks its clear.

However the cyclist didn't do themselves any favours.

 

[mattyg]

He couldn't see the cyclist at all, he was undertaking at speed on a junction where there isn't even a cycle lane. He was in the wrong even before the collision.

Not being able to see something doesn't make it right to make the manoeuvre though. The onus is on the car to make sure his way is clear before turning If he can't be sure he should have waited.

RULE 180 Turning Right

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

 

[OspreyO]

But it was clear when he began to turn.

No it wasn't.

 

[Housey]

The driver could have simply not taken that junction.

Or stayed at home that day, perhaps taken a bus....or got on his bike.....

 

[Housey]

Obviously not he pulled into the path of the cyclist..

What you mean is he didn't see the cyclist....thats definitely a SMIDSY.

The issue is visibility. Had that not been a van but a MX5 for instance the cyclist would probably have been visible. If so would the car have made that manoeuvre....

Also

Exact same scenario but with a cycle lane. I'm sure the car STILL would have made the manoeuvre but I'm sure you would all be on the cyclists side then as he had a lane and wasn't undertaking.

I don't get this mindset. If a car doesn't see a bike it's going to hurt/damage/die the cyclist, rarely the driver. That alone should create a different mindset, as it does within a good cyclist. If the bike was on the other side of the van and still drove on, what would people say? Of course that would have been unlikely to happen as he would see the turning car and the reason it had stopped. If that car had edged forward, the bike would probably had still hit it as he was going too quickly in stopped traffic when he was also blind. It was the cyclists fault 100%.

 

[Nasher]

Not being able to see something doesn't imake it right to make the manoeuvre though. The onus is on the car to make sure his way is clear before turning If he can't be sure he should have waited.

RULE 180 Turning Right

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

By that logic if someone jumps out in front of a bus from behind a wall, it's the busses fault...

That rule applies to stuff you can actually see and react to. People don't have x-ray vision. If your obscured or in a blind spot, it's on YOU to check and position yourself correctly.

 

[mattyg]

I don't get this mindset. If a car doesn't see a bike it's going to hurt/damage/die the cyclist, rarely the driver. That alone should create a different mindset, as it does within a good cyclist. If the bike was on the other side of the van and still drove on, what would people say? Of course that would have been unlikely to happen as he would see the turning car and the reason it had stopped. If that car had edged forward, the bike would probably had still hit it as he was going too quickly in stopped traffic when he was also blind. It was the cyclists fault 100%.

A different mindset to who.. The cyclist thinking I need to ride differently or I may die.. Or the car driver driving differently because he may Kill someone.

I think they were both doing something wrong. However 2 wrongs don't make a right and the car crossed the path of another road user when it wasn't clear and safe to do so.

 

[adolf hamster]

so driver had obscured visibility of cyclist due to van (which had stopped to let the car through), cyclist would have seen the gap opening up and didn't consider caution?

the ability to prevent that situation lies solely in this case with the cyclist, had he slowed/shown some degree of caution when emerging into that space it would have been fine.

 

[mattyg]

By that logic if someone jumps out in front of a bus from behind a wall, it's the busses fault...

That rule applies to stuff you can actually see and react to. People don't have x-ray vision. If your obscured or in a blind spot, it's on YOU to check and position yourself correctly.

What!! Really.



Ok so I'm reversing my HGV round a corner. I can't see whats behind me but I'm ok to carry on regardless and crush the cars behind me.

Come on!

Proper observation before undertaking a manoeuvre is the responsibility of the person making the manoeuvre.


The car should have waited until he KNEW the way was clear.

 

[Housey]

A different mindset to who.. The cyclist thinking I need to ride differently or I may die.. Or the car driver driving differently because he may Kill someone.

I think they were both doing something wrong. However 2 wrongs don't make a right and the car crossed the path of another road user when it wasn't clear and safe to do so.

To me for one. I drive and ride a bike, I know how I think and I know I would not have done what that cyclist did as he was riding like an idiot with no due care and attention. Any other perspective is missing this fundamental point and why I put it at the feet of the cyclist. The car was turning right, cars/vans had stopped to allow it and Mr Yellow Shirt came up at pace not questioning why they had all stopped, blind to the fact it wasn't a dog on the lose or some other blockage as "he was dong nothing wrong". The mindset of law or self interpretation of right and wrong first over personal safety is why many cyclists get hurt.

 

[Nasher]

The car should have waited until he KNEW the way was clear.

He can sit there all day, hes never going to be able to see through the van and other vehicles...

Maybe he should get out and leave the car in the middle of the road, then position a mirror on the junction so he see down the inside of the traffic, then turn? Or employ a butler to check that no one is undertaking? Or a drone maybe? yea...

 

[mattyg]

He can sit there all day, hes never going to be able to see through the van and other vehicles...

All the car has to do is wait for a large enough gap to make sure he can make his manoeuvre without coming into contact with another road user.

 

[Nasher]

...

 

[kindai]

Lets make it easy, lets say the car in the video wasnt involved. Lets say, it was a pedestrian crossing the road, or a dog that got loose, or maybe a car on the hill whos brakes had failed.

The cyclist pure and simple rode out full pelt with no vision of the road. Regardless of "technicalities" the common sense factor is that the cyclist is a frikkin idiot for not slowing down when crossing a junction when he had no vision of it.

 

[Housey]

The car should have waited until he KNEW the way was clear.

What about the bike?