Bicycle/Taxi interface - Who's at fault?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pete317 said:

So the trajectories of the bicycle and the taxi happened to randomly intersect in time and space, and you imagine that by changing one of the prior conditions (the taxi's speed, or anything else for that matter) without any prior knowledge of when and where or even if their trajectories were going to intersect, that you can have any control whatsoever over whether or not some chance event occurs?

That comes straight from the Alice in Wonderland school of physics.

You don't think that if one or both parties were travelling slower, the collision might have been avoided???

Yeah...right.

[flemke]

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

But it is obvious that there could be traffic coming from the right, at any point where there is asphalt beyond the foliage.

This is a helpful image, and makes it clearer that, if the collision happened just in the foreground where there is a change in asphalt, the taxi driver ought to have allowed for the possibility of something coming across his bows from the right.

There's no indication that there's another road coming in from the right before the intersection with the main road up ahead.
It just appears that the road he's on curves around a little to the right before the intersection, and he was probably planning to straight-line it in order to end up on the left at the intersection with the main road.

Yes, but in that case the taxi driver was presuming that no-one was coming from the right off the main road. It is clear that, where the foliage ends, the asphalt begins.

What would/should have been clear to the taxi driver was that the asphalt came up to the foliage,and that traffic could have been coming from the right, whether that had been from the main road or from the fork taken by the OP.
Also, please keep in mind that, with traffic driving on the left side of the road, there could have been a car, motorbiker or cyclist going across as soon as the taxi reached the end of the foliage.

[Pete317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pete317 said:

So the trajectories of the bicycle and the taxi happened to randomly intersect in time and space, and you imagine that by changing one of the prior conditions (the taxi's speed, or anything else for that matter) without any prior knowledge of when and where or even if their trajectories were going to intersect, that you can have any control whatsoever over whether or not some chance event occurs?

That comes straight from the Alice in Wonderland school of physics.

You don't think that if one or both parties were travelling slower, the collision might have been avoided???

Yeah...right.

You know, if someone suggested that the accident could have been avoided had one of the parties started out at a different time, or went a different route, or even went a bit faster, you would no doubt have poured scorn and derision on them from a great height - and rightly so because it is a ridiculous notion.

Yet you accept without question the equally ridiculous contention that it could have been avoided by lowering speed - which incidentally affects both time and place.

Where does ridiculous begin and end in your world?

[Pete317]

flemke said:

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

But it is obvious that there could be traffic coming from the right, at any point where there is asphalt beyond the foliage.

This is a helpful image, and makes it clearer that, if the collision happened just in the foreground where there is a change in asphalt, the taxi driver ought to have allowed for the possibility of something coming across his bows from the right.

There's no indication that there's another road coming in from the right before the intersection with the main road up ahead.
It just appears that the road he's on curves around a little to the right before the intersection, and he was probably planning to straight-line it in order to end up on the left at the intersection with the main road.

Yes, but in that case the taxi driver was presuming that no-one was coming from the right off the main road. It is clear that, where the foliage ends, the asphalt begins.

What would/should have been clear to the taxi driver was that the asphalt came up to the foliage,and that traffic could have been coming from the right, whether that had been from the main road or from the fork taken by the OP.
Also, please keep in mind that, with traffic driving on the left side of the road, there could have been a car, motorbiker or cyclist going across as soon as the taxi reached the end of the foliage.

Yes, but he possibly had no reason to suspect that someone might cross his path at the angle which the OP did.
And it's not clear from that viewpoint exactly where the foliage ends.

Edited by Pete317 on Friday 28th August 16:59

[herewego]

Seems that the taxi driver pulled out of the driveway without looking and from an awkward position.

[flemke]

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

But it is obvious that there could be traffic coming from the right, at any point where there is asphalt beyond the foliage.

This is a helpful image, and makes it clearer that, if the collision happened just in the foreground where there is a change in asphalt, the taxi driver ought to have allowed for the possibility of something coming across his bows from the right.

There's no indication that there's another road coming in from the right before the intersection with the main road up ahead.
It just appears that the road he's on curves around a little to the right before the intersection, and he was probably planning to straight-line it in order to end up on the left at the intersection with the main road.

Yes, but in that case the taxi driver was presuming that no-one was coming from the right off the main road. It is clear that, where the foliage ends, the asphalt begins.

What would/should have been clear to the taxi driver was that the asphalt came up to the foliage,and that traffic could have been coming from the right, whether that had been from the main road or from the fork taken by the OP.
Also, please keep in mind that, with traffic driving on the left side of the road, there could have been a car, motorbiker or cyclist going across as soon as the taxi reached the end of the foliage.

Yes, but he possibly had no reason to suspect that someone might cross his path at the angle which the OP did.
And it's not clear from that viewpoint exactly where the foliage ends.

Well, going back to "the distance that you can see to be clear", on the right the taxi driver would have seen either asphalt or green stuff - there was no third possibility.

I am not saying that I or anyone else would not have made the same mistake as the taxi driver, but he did make a mistake. He did not know exactly what was in his immediate foreground.
He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

If the OP was riding so close to the left verge that the taxi driver would have needed to stick the nose of his car into the path of the bike in order to get a proper view to the right, then perhaps some of the fault should go to the OP, but if it was simply a matter that the taxi driver thought that the asphalt ahead should be clear, then the primary responsibility must lie with him.

[anonymous-user]

flemke said:

If the OP was riding so close to the left verge that the taxi driver would have needed to stick the nose of his car into the path of the bike in order to get a proper view to the right, then perhaps some of the fault should go to the OP, but if it was simply a matter that the taxi driver thought that the asphalt ahead should be clear, then the primary responsibility must lie with him.

I've had a look at this a few times and think that this is the likely outcome when it comes to making a claim.

[Pete317]

flemke said:

Well, going back to "the distance that you can see to be clear", on the right the taxi driver would have seen either asphalt or green stuff - there was no third possibility.

I am not saying that I or anyone else would not have made the same mistake as the taxi driver, but he did make a mistake. He did not know exactly what was in his immediate foreground.
He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

If the OP was riding so close to the left verge that the taxi driver would have needed to stick the nose of his car into the path of the bike in order to get a proper view to the right, then perhaps some of the fault should go to the OP, but if it was simply a matter that the taxi driver thought that the asphalt ahead should be clear, then the primary responsibility must lie with him.

Yes, but as I commented earlier, is it reasonable to come to a stop before the entrance to each and every alleyway one encounters along the road, just in case a cyclist comes flying out of it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

flemke said:

He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

Exactly right, but according to Pete317, the speed of the taxi had no effect on the outcome! 7mph or 70mph, the collision was destined to happen. It was written in the stars.

[flemke]

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

Well, going back to "the distance that you can see to be clear", on the right the taxi driver would have seen either asphalt or green stuff - there was no third possibility.

I am not saying that I or anyone else would not have made the same mistake as the taxi driver, but he did make a mistake. He did not know exactly what was in his immediate foreground.
He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

If the OP was riding so close to the left verge that the taxi driver would have needed to stick the nose of his car into the path of the bike in order to get a proper view to the right, then perhaps some of the fault should go to the OP, but if it was simply a matter that the taxi driver thought that the asphalt ahead should be clear, then the primary responsibility must lie with him.

Yes, but as I commented earlier, is it reasonable to come to a stop before the entrance to each and every alleyway one encounters along the road, just in case a cyclist comes flying out of it?

Of course not but, with respect, if I understand your post correctly, I think you've got this back-to-front.

Based on what has been said and shown in this thread, the cyclist was the one going straight on. To apply your question, "Is it reasonable (for a cyclist) to come to a stop before the entrance to each and every...?"

The taxi driver, on the other hand, was in effect leaving a private driveway and about to join a road where traffic was to be expected.

Not only that, but the garage driveway is a cul-de-sac. The route the taxi driver was exiting was a route he would already have entered, probably only a couple of minutes earlier. The taxi driver cannot possibly say, "How was I to know that there was a road behind those bushes?"

[flemke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

flemke said:

He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

Exactly right, but according to Pete317, the speed of the taxi had no effect on the outcome! 7mph or 70mph, the collision was destined to happen. It was written in the stars.

I'm afraid I don't believe in fate. I guess I'm just an old cynic.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

flemke said:

He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

Exactly right, but according to Pete317, the speed of the taxi had no effect on the outcome! 7mph or 70mph, the collision was destined to happen. It was written in the stars.

What are you saying, that the taxi driver should have been going faster, in which case there'd have been no collision? Or the cyclist of course. You would of course be right to do so.

You may not understand what Pete317 is saying but that doesn't mean that he isn't right.

[Pete317]

flemke said:

Of course not but, with respect, if I understand your post correctly, I think you've got this back-to-front.

Based on what has been said and shown in this thread, the cyclist was the one going straight on. To apply your question, "Is it reasonable (for a cyclist) to come to a stop before the entrance to each and every...?"

The taxi driver, on the other hand, was in effect leaving a private driveway and about to join a road where traffic was to be expected.

Not only that, but the garage driveway is a cul-de-sac. The route the taxi driver was exiting was a route he would already have entered, probably only a couple of minutes earlier. The taxi driver cannot possibly say, "How was I to know that there was a road behind those bushes?"

Here's the view from the other side:

https://goo.gl/maps/f0AH4

As you can see, the RH (from his side) side of the driveway doesn't go all the way down to the junction with the 'main' road, but is offset from it, and this is not apparent at all from the driveway side.

I take your point about the driver having to have entered the driveway in the first place, but we've all seen how some roads can look completely different in one direction than the other, and if he wasn't familiar with the place then small details of the road layout could easily have slipped his mind.

Edited by Pete317 on Friday 28th August 21:04

[intrepid44]

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

Of course not but, with respect, if I understand your post correctly, I think you've got this back-to-front.

Based on what has been said and shown in this thread, the cyclist was the one going straight on. To apply your question, "Is it reasonable (for a cyclist) to come to a stop before the entrance to each and every...?"

The taxi driver, on the other hand, was in effect leaving a private driveway and about to join a road where traffic was to be expected.

Not only that, but the garage driveway is a cul-de-sac. The route the taxi driver was exiting was a route he would already have entered, probably only a couple of minutes earlier. The taxi driver cannot possibly say, "How was I to know that there was a road behind those bushes?"

Here's the view from the other side:

https://goo.gl/maps/f0AH4

As you can see, the RH (from his side) side of the driveway doesn't go all the way down to the junction with the 'main' road, but is offset from it, and this is not apparent at all from the driveway side.

I take your point about the driver having to have entered the driveway in the first place, but we've all seen how some roads can look completely different in one direction than the other, and, if he wasn't familiar with the place it could easily have slipped his mind.

The taxi company is based there, just to clarify that situation.

On another, slightly unrelated point, I am finding this all extremely interesting and taking valuable lessons on-board, it's great to have this debate ongoing which I hope others are learning from as well

I'll reply to other points at a later time.

[DocSteve]

Centurion07 said:

My two pennethworth:



Taxi should have been as close to the left of his intended route as possible to negate exactly this kind of accident and you should have made more of a 90 degree turn from the main road or been prepared to stop in the distance you could see to be clear. If either one of you had done that then you both would've been more visible to each other & more able to avoid a coming together.

50/50 for me.

As an aside, I see more and more new housing developments with stupid unmarked road layouts like this and I think it's because some idiot (probably the same one that thinks pedestrians "sharing" space with motor vehicles was a good idea), at some point has had the thought "how about we don't paint any markings on the road, that way everyone will be far more cautious because no-one knows who has right of way therefore will be moving much more slowly, so there will be no accidents", when in reality what happens is the exact scenario in the OP.

Edited by Centurion07 on Friday 28th August 11:50

I was about to post something almost exactly the same. The red line here is the safest way of navigating this on a bike. The taxi should also have moved across to the left as suggested.

[Pete317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

flemke said:

He should have been going slowly enough that he could have got his taxi stopped by the time that he had reached the point where he was unsure of what was happening after the last of the foliage.

Exactly right, but according to Pete317, the speed of the taxi had no effect on the outcome! 7mph or 70mph, the collision was destined to happen. It was written in the stars.

Don't be obtuse.
Of course it wouldn't have happened, because one of them would have been at a different place at the time, so their paths would not have intersected.
But there's no way of predicting before the event what speed is going to bring them into conflict and what speed is not, so it's nonsense to suggest that going slower is going to prevent collisions, just as it's nonsense to suggest that they would be prevented by going faster, or choosing a different route, or travelling at a different time.

[Pete317]

intrepid44 said:

The taxi company is based there, just to clarify that situation.

Ok, so the driver must have been aware of the layout then.

But then the drivers must have driven down that lane hundreds, even thousands of times without incident, until the OP came along.

There's lessons to be learnt from that.

[flemke]

Pete317 said:

flemke said:

Of course not but, with respect, if I understand your post correctly, I think you've got this back-to-front.

Based on what has been said and shown in this thread, the cyclist was the one going straight on. To apply your question, "Is it reasonable (for a cyclist) to come to a stop before the entrance to each and every...?"

The taxi driver, on the other hand, was in effect leaving a private driveway and about to join a road where traffic was to be expected.

Not only that, but the garage driveway is a cul-de-sac. The route the taxi driver was exiting was a route he would already have entered, probably only a couple of minutes earlier. The taxi driver cannot possibly say, "How was I to know that there was a road behind those bushes?"

Here's the view from the other side:

https://goo.gl/maps/f0AH4

As you can see, the RH (from his side) side of the driveway doesn't go all the way down to the junction with the 'main' road, but is offset from it, and this is not apparent at all from the driveway side.

I take your point about the driver having to have entered the driveway in the first place, but we've all seen how some roads can look completely different in one direction than the other, and if he wasn't familiar with the place then small details of the road layout could easily have slipped his mind.

How about this perspective, which would have been (I gather) the OP's perspective as he took the left fork?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.782276,-1.572356...

[intrepid44]

Pete317 said:

intrepid44 said:

The taxi company is based there, just to clarify that situation.

But then the drivers must have driven down that lane hundreds, even thousands of times without incident, until the OP came along.

Is that relevant when proportioning blame to an incident? The statistical likelihood of an event occurring?

In my own personal opinion it may provide a false sense of security, just as I had taken that route many times before in the exact same fashion without incident occurring.

[Pete317]

intrepid44 said:

Pete317 said:

intrepid44 said:

The taxi company is based there, just to clarify that situation.

But then the drivers must have driven down that lane hundreds, even thousands of times without incident, until the OP came along.

Is that relevant when proportioning blame to an incident? The statistical likelihood of an event occurring?

In my own personal opinion it may provide a false sense of security, just as I had taken that route many times before in the exact same fashion without incident occurring.

No, nothing to do with statistics, it's just that in my profession one thing I have learnt is that if something can go wrong, it will - sooner or later.
Often it's a peculiar combination of things coming together to make it happen.