As I said, you seem unable to see how roads really work. You are taking a black and white view which is not what happens every day on every road. Have you never flashed someone out of junction? Never stopped to let someone cross a road. You silly anger is doing you no favours, you have lost the argument.
Dashcam footage. Who was at fault?
- Thread starter bainbridge
- Start date
As I said, you seem unable to see how roads really work. You are taking a black and white view which is not what happens every day on every road. Have you never flashed someone out of junction? Never stopped to let someone cross a road. You silly anger is doing you no favours, you have lost the argument.
Every road is multi-lane for a cyclist. Unless you think they should stay center of lane 100% of the time.
Just because someone waves or flashes you, does not absolve you of your obligations.
Actually it didn't. As someone else said. That's a rookie error.
Interestingly I know this road, I know Weybridge, and I know the typical Weybridge congestion that makes scenarios like the Clio driver faced a daily occurrence.
The sort of crash in the video is somewhat of a new phenomenon. We used to have far fewer cyclists riding aggressively and with impunity. This new type of road user has required a change in driver behaviour to try and predict where a cyclist will unexpectedly appear at 25 MPH.
Realistically, in this situation the only option the Clio driver had was to perform the maneuver more slowly. It may have avoided the crash. The cyclist had the option to slow, to avoid placing themselves in obvious danger. Neither did so and there was an accident. I suspect neither party would shoulder 100% liability - neither did anything 'wrong', both had the ability to avoid it.
The sort of crash in the video is somewhat of a new phenomenon. We used to have far fewer cyclists riding aggressively and with impunity. This new type of road user has required a change in driver behaviour to try and predict where a cyclist will unexpectedly appear at 25 MPH.
Realistically, in this situation the only option the Clio driver had was to perform the maneuver more slowly. It may have avoided the crash. The cyclist had the option to slow, to avoid placing themselves in obvious danger. Neither did so and there was an accident. I suspect neither party would shoulder 100% liability - neither did anything 'wrong', both had the ability to avoid it.
The context of the comment was about cars not cyclists.
Its called taking the primary position. It actually safer. Comes from experience. Many inexperienced cyclists are killed by staying left, when its not safe to do so.
The only issue is some cyclists abuse it by not moving left once the situation that requires primary position is passed.
This is it exactly. We are seeing a lot more cyclists. So how we drive has to change.
Both cyclist and driver made rookie errors. Both could have avoided. 50:50 IMO.
Nope I've not defended the cyclist.
I own a courier company with over 40 driver's. In the last 15 years I have driven in excess of a million miles yet you think I don't know how the roads work. I'd argue that because of my experience I'm better placed than you to comment.
What you seem to be doing is accepting bad practice as ok because everyone does it...
Not really sure how else the driver could have avoided the situation? Waiting for all the traffic approaching to clear would mean causing a standstill behind him, and you'd be there all day. Maybe if it had been a car instead of a van, the Clio might have been able to see a cyclist.
Ultimately though the cyclist didn't help things here, had he slowed down slightly on approach to the junction, either could have stopped before colliding.
Anyone know what the outcome of it all was?
Ultimately though the cyclist didn't help things here, had he slowed down slightly on approach to the junction, either could have stopped before colliding.
Anyone know what the outcome of it all was?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
Depends if they want to kill themselves driving in to the side of cars at high speed or not.
You think it will take a day for the van to move.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
I quoted what you said, you asked if I think cyclists should treat single lanes as multi lanes. I said it depends on whether they like riding in to the sides of cars or not.
Whether the car was 50% or 100% in the wrong is basically irrelevant. The car did what most drivers would do in that situation. Knowing that, I really question why the cyclist was riding so fast ignoring an obvious potential hazard. When I'm on a bicycle I don't ride along completely oblivious to the fact that a 2 tonne block of metal could cut my life short at any moment. Which is basically what it looks like that cyclist was doing. Stationary traffic is an obvious hazard. Stationary traffic with a gap right next to a junction would be ringing alarm bells for me. Being "right" but dead is not a state of being I would consider to be the correct choice.
Last edited:
and he was not even right, as the highway code states that you do not overtake approaching a junction or when your visibility of what is happening ahead is impaired.
Soldato
This.
White van had stopped at side junction, but vehicle infringement had moved off. That was the cyclist's clue that something was turning into the side road in front of the white van.
Soldato
Well this thread got ridiculous.
Even if the cyclist did have right of way and the car driver was in the wrong, the cyclist still ended up smashing his face into the rear panel of the car and damaging his bike... so sucks to be right.
Even if the cyclist did have right of way and the car driver was in the wrong, the cyclist still ended up smashing his face into the rear panel of the car and damaging his bike... so sucks to be right.
No I actually asked you the opposite should they treat them as single lanes as stay center all the time. They are already obliged to treat single lanes as multi lanes by staying left. Regardless I don't get what point you are making about the no of lanes. The cyclist was going to fast regardless. No ones arguing that point.
The only interesting thing about this accident is drivers normalizing dangerous driving because everyone does it. One of the biggest causes of accidents is cars not seeing something. This is perfect example of that. A lot on this thread seem to think its ok to drive blindly into situations.
Its also an example of reckless cycling. But there's nothing interesting about that. Is anyone defending the cyclist. I don't think so.
Underboss
im a cyclist
Cyclist is at fault because hes basically undertaking stationary traffic, he should either :
a) stop because the mini bus has stopped for a reason
b) overtake the stationary traffic on the outside
Cyclist is at fault because hes basically undertaking stationary traffic, he should either :
a) stop because the mini bus has stopped for a reason
b) overtake the stationary traffic on the outside