Tonight Show - Cyclists

Vampyre

Vampyre

Vampyre

Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2009
Posts
857
Location
Edinburgh
Hope this isn't a repost, I searched and couldn't find anything so here goes. Did any one else see last night's Tonight show where they were discussing the 'driver automatically liable for hitting cyclist' proposals?They staged 3 situations involving car/cyclist 'interactions' and had a panel of 3 car drivers and 3 cyclists to give their opinion on who was to blame.

The panel was 2 cycling organization guys and Gail Porter for the cyclists and then Vicky Butler-Henderson and Tiff Needell from Fifth Gear plus some taxi driver representing car drivers.

Situation 1

Car and cyclist side by side on a single carrigeway road, another car parked on left, cyclist pulls out to pass car (without looking or indicating) and gets nudged from behind by the car.

2 out of 3 of the cyclists said this was the car drivers fault, as did 2 out of 3 of the car drivers. The other 2 said it was fifty/fifty. To be fair I agree with them, there was a lack of observation on behalf of both parties, I did feel that it was deliberate that the collision was from the rear. The cyclist, neither looked nor indicated so, could quite easily have pulled out into the car or right across the front of the car giving no chance to stop in time.

Situation 2

The 'left hook' - cyclist undertaking car turning left. There was some bleating about observation from the cyclist lobby on this one but surely there is no way this is anything other than the cyclists fault? There was no cycle lane involved which might have changed my mind.

Situation 3

The 'door smash' - driver didn't look, opened his door into the carriageway without checking for traffic, car driver's fault completely, there was some suggestion from the car driving panel that the cyclist should have been further out but the cycling lobby said that they couldn't win because they were either too far out and obstructing traffic or too far in and at risk from doors - which I thought was a fair point.

There then followed a section about Holland where these proposals are already law, citing it as a great idea, but completely failing to point out that the comparison was irrelevant because 90% of the time cyclists and cars are not sharing the same road...

The cycling lobby then suggested that the order of care on the roads should be; Pedestrians, Cyclists, Cars, then Buses and Trucks. Erm, motor cyclists anyone?

Anyone else see it and want to comment?
 
I live in Bristol, cyclists here are a menace, they almost all ride like morons. Cyclist being forced to have insurance is long overdue.

Sure there are some good cyclists out there, but I only ever seem to come accross the ones who jump red lights, deliberately block motorists by cycling in the middle of the road, fly off pavements without looking or ride 2-3 abreast and completely block the road.
 
Sirrel Squirrel said:
1 and 3 are the car driver's fault and 2 is the cyclists fault just the same as indicating to turn right and taking out an overtaking motorbike.
Click to expand...

Are your feelings about situation 1 because the car ran into the back of the cyclist? If you run into the back of someone it's automatically your fault because you left insufficient space for braking should the vehicle in front of you slow down/stop suddenly. In the program the cyclist just pulled out, had it been a parked car that pulled out it wouldn't have been hit in the rear and would have been their fault for pulling out into moving traffic. The only reason the cycle was rear-ended was because it has much higher low speed manoeuvrability than a larger vehicle. Surely you can't be expected to leave space for something that isn't there at all?

I agree that both should have taken more care, the cyclist should have pulled out long before he did, and the car driver should have seen the parked car and anticipated that the cyclist would pull out, but surely the onus is on the cyclist to ensure that the road is clear before pulling out from the kerb?
 
It's a difficult one, as a good driver would realise the cyclist isn't going to teleport through the car, and would make room for the cyclist. However, the cyclist should look to ensure his move is going to be safe.
 
I'd say 1 is definitely entirely the cyclist's fault....If you don't even bother making any kind of observation when changing lanes and something hits you how can anyone else be to blame? You moved into their path. The key part being:

(without looking or indicating)
Click to expand...

2 is not exactly black and white....if there is a cycle lane it's the motorist's fault, if there isn't then it's the cyclist's.

3 is obviously the motorist's fault.
 
Dr Who said:
It's a difficult one, as a good driver would realise the cyclist isn't going to teleport through the car, and would make room for the cyclist.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't because that just means I have to overtake the damned cyclist again. Then I stop at the lights. Cyclist filters to front or runs red light. I have to overtake cyclist again. Then I stop at more lights. Cyclist filters to front. Then I have to overtake the &£!!# cyclist again. So no way am I letting them go first. Plus if a cyclist makes me angry they are ruining my fuel efficiency and destroying the planet. So much for cycling being environmentally friendly. Just think of all the fuel wasted in overtakes because of buses, bicycles and cars sharing the road.

Then again I wouldn't ever claim to be a good driver.
 
Last edited:
I think 1 is the car's fault because the driver should be able to see the cyclist in the road and realise that as said above the cyclist can't just teleport through the parked car. (This is if there isn't a cycle lane)
 
Vampyre said:
...
There then followed a section about Holland where these proposals are already law, citing it as a great idea, but completely failing to point out that the comparison was irrelevant because 90% of the time cyclists and cars are not sharing the same road.
...
Click to expand...
I would love to see this proposal followed in UK toens and cities; the Government should be pouring money into encouraging cycling and making it safer. Holland is a great example to follow :)

Vampyre said:
...
The cycling lobby then suggested that the order of care on the roads should be; Pedestrians, Cyclists, [Motorcyclists,] Cars, then Buses and Trucks.
...
Click to expand...
Seems entirely reasonable to me.
 
I dislike a lot of cyclists, but I would not a) ram the bugger off the road b) make him plough into the back of the parked car. I'd ease up so he can get past the parked car and we can both go on our merry ways...but then I'm not an arse of a driver. :)
 
Solution: Ban bicycles

Think about it: Better fuel efficiency for all other road going vehicles thus saving the planet. Better safety for cyclists because they're now in a bus or a car. Longer lifespans for drivers because their blood pressure will be lower.

Everyone wins.
 
Situation 1 and 2 are the cyclists fault imo.

I'm a cyclist and a car driver (and motorcyclist) and would never pull out to go round a parked car without looking, or change my road position in anyway without looking and depending on the situation indicating. Failing to do so is dangerous.

Also in situation 2, if a car is indicating left the cyclist should wait or overtake on the right, the only way I can see if the car is at fault is if there is a dedicated cycle lane or the car fails to indicated.

Actually just thought, the situation that happened to me a lot would be the car is behind me, wants to turn left and instead of waiting for me to pass the junction, tries to overtake and cut in front, or even worse (and I've had this happen to me) failing to see you completely, overtaking and turning in leaving you slamming into their passenger door. In which case car is at fault.

Driving though I always check my mirror as a lot of cyclist seem to think they have priority over everything.

Edit: my way of thinking is that if you cycle on the road you have as much right of way as other road users, but you should follow the same rules of the road as other users. (read no going through red lights etc..)
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
I would love to see this proposal followed in UK toens and cities; the Government should be pouring money into encouraging cycling and making it safer. Holland is a great example to follow :)
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning that increasing the safety of cycling is a good idea, I'm suggesting that implementing proposals that work in Holland because the cars/cycles are completely separate for 90% of the time is idiotic. In the Dutch situation I can see why the car driver is automatically liable, they don't share the same road system! In the same way that a car driver here would be liable for an accident that occurred on railway lines.

stockhausen said:
Seems entirely reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

That where I would put motorcyclists as well, my point was that they were never even mentioned in the program. Had situation 1 involved a motorcycle rather than a push bike I think the cyclists would have said it was the biker's fault.
 
How many lanes in situation 1? Assuming 1 because its a single carriageway, then its the drivers fault, because he's overtaking, and should have seen the parked car and realise the cyclist is going to move out.
 
Vampyre said:
The cycling lobby then suggested that the order of care on the roads should be; Pedestrians, Cyclists, Cars, then Buses and Trucks. Erm, motor cyclists anyone?

Anyone else see it and want to comment?
Click to expand...

Clearly if there is an order of liability with no investigation process this will be open to abuse.

Cyclist rides in front of slow moving car, sues for some holiday money and a shiney new bike.

I wonder if the cash strapped councils will realise that all their buses are responsible for all accidents involving cars and bikes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom