So that means common sense does not apply? You have right of way on a pedestrian crossing, does that mean you can just step out in front of traffic without looking?
You should be able to.
"Right of way" doesn't mean you can be reckless and it doesn't mean the other guy automatically gets blamed in an accident either.
Reckless is subjective, the car driver was reckless in this case for assuming the way was free.
The right of way rules are pretty much the only rules that actually prevent accidents. Speed is irrelevant, it's only a factor in the result, if the right of way was respected, there'd be no accident.
The punishments/fines for ''right of way'' mistakes should be ten to 100 fold, these are the mistakes that cause accidents, not nonsense such a speed or ''undertaking'' or whatever other excuses people are naming here.
Learn to bloody know who goes first and look better on junctions or other places of conflict, THAT prevents accidents. none of this othe
r nonsense.
It's about time basic lessons on how to use the roads properly was mandatory for cyclists. As well as insurance.
That is honestly a dream world you live in, look abroad ffs, you don't see that kind of nonsense here, in DE, in BE, in DK, etc...
Hell, look in bloody Paris how motorbikes slalom at speed between traffic... Two wheelers DO NOT sit in traffic jams, expecting otherwise is a dream.
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.
Where do you get this stuff from, there is enough proof/are enough studies that as a vulnerable 2 wheeler, you are not supposed to be between fast 4 wheelers.
2 wheelers should be BESIDE cars, not between cars.
Good for you, I've probably cycled more before I was 18 than you in the past 10 years... I've cycled to school since I was 8 or 9 or so).
I'm a car driver, own 2 cars, 1 motorbike, a scooter, a moped, and a bike for cycling.
Cyclist is at fault because hes basically undertaking stationary traffic, he should either :
a) stop because the mini bus has stopped for a reason
Nonsense, mini bus stopped to not block the junction in congestion like he should, it is completely irrelevant, beacuse there is enough space for cyclign near the kerb and the cyclist has the right of way. I admit, it's not smart of the cyclist to go there at his speed, it's completely irrelevant to who's at fault though.
b) overtake the stationary traffic on the outside
Are you insane? No, stationary traffic can be passed on either sides, like in any congestion or queue situation.
And the rule to keep to the left (here right) as most as you can is leading, if there is space between the kerb and cars, that's where they belong.
should treat single lanes as multi lanes.
They should and in any country where there are more cyclist they do... It's the only situation that works normally.
Again a black and white and silly perspective that forgoes the reality of day to day road use and anything you would be taught on an advanced/police driving course.
Don't be silly, the right of way is always leading, anything else is secondary, especially in insurance land. If the UK is different then you need to employ some people who aren't mentally impaired to make decent regulations based on objective (accident) statistics and experiments.
Accidents/conflicts mostly happen, in any accident where 2 or more parties are involved, because one person did not respect the right of way.
That the second person didn't ''defensively'' catch the mistake, is irrelevant. It's not the cause of the accident.
