Bicycle/Taxi interface - Who's at fault?

[johnao]

Pete317 said:

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.

Exactly so. And exactly the same could be said in relation to the cyclist. Accidents often happen when two road users simultaneously make mistakes. My earlier comments about the OP not having a driving/riding plan or being able to stop in the distance seen to be clear applied equally to the taxi driver... but he's probably not reading this thread! So, I think the lesson to be learned is if the OP had been more alert, observant, circumspect and formed a riding plan then he would, probably, have compensated for the taxi driver's mistake and the collision would have been avoided. Equally the same applies to the taxi driver, if etc.etc. he would have avoided colliding with the OP... but, he's not reading this. So, the only person who will benefit from all of this advice is the OP.

[Pete317]

flemke said:

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...

Yep, deceptive from all sides.

However, from what the OP has now said, all the involved parties were familiar with the layout.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pete317 said:

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.

Are you a complete idiot? If they'd been travelling slower at the time they came into each other's lives, then one or both of them would have been able to avoid the collision. This in particular applies to the car driver, because the onus is on him as a motor vehicle user to beware of cyclists, children, or other more vulnerable objects. Especially when approaching a junction with an obscured view.

[Pete317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Are you a complete idiot? If they'd been travelling slower at the time they came into each other's lives, then one or both of them would have been able to avoid the collision. This in particular applies to the car driver, because the onus is on him as a motor vehicle user to beware of cyclists, children, or other more vulnerable objects. Especially when approaching a junction with an obscured view.

And if one of them had been travelling faster, then they would have been past the intersection before the other one had even arrived!

But they weren't, so what happened happened, and there's no way of rewinding time and making things happen any other way than they did, and so what I suggested above was ridiculous - as was your suggestion of travelling slower.

But you only seem capable of seeing things within a very narrow envelope, consisting of a few yards or a second or two either way, which suits your particular narrow world view, but which stops working as soon as you step outside that tiny envelope.

So no, I'm not a complete idiot - I had to leave quite a generous helping behind in the pot for you.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pete317 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Are you a complete idiot? If they'd been travelling slower at the time they came into each other's lives, then one or both of them would have been able to avoid the collision. This in particular applies to the car driver, because the onus is on him as a motor vehicle user to beware of cyclists, children, or other more vulnerable objects. Especially when approaching a junction with an obscured view.

And if one of them had been travelling faster, then they would have been past the intersection before the other one had even arrived!

So that's your theory on accident prevention? Go faster, thus avoiding the accident you would have otherwise been involved in?

Brilliant theory.

I suppose when you heard that most accidents occur within a mile of your home, you moved!

[Pete317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pete317 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Are you a complete idiot? If they'd been travelling slower at the time they came into each other's lives, then one or both of them would have been able to avoid the collision. This in particular applies to the car driver, because the onus is on him as a motor vehicle user to beware of cyclists, children, or other more vulnerable objects. Especially when approaching a junction with an obscured view.

And if one of them had been travelling faster, then they would have been past the intersection before the other one had even arrived!

So that's your theory on accident prevention? Go faster, thus avoiding the accident you would have otherwise been involved in?

Brilliant theory.

I suppose when you heard that most accidents occur within a mile of your home, you moved!

You evidently didn't take in the next bit:

"But they weren't, so what happened happened, and there's no way of rewinding time and making things happen any other way than they did, and so what I suggested above was ridiculous - as was your suggestion of travelling slower."

Which part of that did you not get?

ETA: Thank you for so eloquently proving the point I made earlier:

I said:

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.

Edited by Pete317 on Saturday 29th August 10:22

[flemke]

intrepid44 said:

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

WTF? They are based there? The taxi driver (unless it was his first day on the job) should have known that junction like the back of his hand. So much for the defence that the taxi driver could have been caught out by the unusual road layout or where precisely the foliage stopped and the asphalt began.

In that case, the taxi driver has no excuse.

One might criticise the OP for failing to protect himself against the potential mistakes of others, but clearly it was the taxi driver who had the primary responsibility for the collision.

And the taxi driver had the gall to insist that the OP sign an admission that it was all the OP's fault? Asshole.

If there are taxis going in and out of there all day, a further demerit should go to the taxi company for having failed to put up a mirror to assist its drivers and other road users.

[Hungrymc]

OP, is the taxi driver claiming he was moving forward slowly in order to get a view of the road, saw you and stopped, and you rode into him?

Either way, it really does look likely to end in a 50/50

[Red Devil]

Pete317 said:

Here's the view which the taxi driver would have had.

https://goo.gl/maps/onBHc

There's little or no indication that there's another approach from the right just beyond the bushes on the right.

I disagree. You have zoomed in which gives an incorrect perspective.
This is where it was actually taken from - https://goo.gl/maps/u8Imc
There is no Streetview image to tell what it looks like at the taxi's exit point.

flemke said:

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...

Imo you need more than a single image to get the picture here.
This sequence is the nearest you can get to the cyclist's likely path.
https://goo.gl/maps/7qfAz
https://goo.gl/maps/37fDV
https://goo.gl/maps/8QkIY

The image capture is dated less than 4 months ago at most.
It's not an impenetrable hedge on the left but a tree.
The gaps in the foliage are clearly visible.

I reckon the cyclist would have had more opportunity to see the taxi than vice-versa.
Given the lack of corresponding Streeview images it is only speculation though.

[Nightmare]

We are obviously seeing different things then - as the images you've posted show a hedge you can't see through (and bear in mind that the Google streeview images are taken from the ball camera mounted on top of a van so a higher perspective than a cyclist would get)

Also....4 months back was April....foliage cover in April and August is very different.........

I agree with flemkes views here - I am also now very much of the opinion now that this was the taxi drivers fault. The fact they are based there crystallises that for me.

[Pete317]

Red Devil said:

Pete317 said:

Here's the view which the taxi driver would have had.

https://goo.gl/maps/onBHc

There's little or no indication that there's another approach from the right just beyond the bushes on the right.

I disagree. You have zoomed in which gives an incorrect perspective.
This is where it was actually taken from - https://goo.gl/maps/u8Imc
There is no Streetview image to tell what it looks like at the taxi's exit point.

I zoomed in to give some idea of the view the taxi driver would have had at the time - I realise the perspective would have been different, but not by much.

Perhaps the OP would be kind enough to go back there and take some photos?

Although it's now rather moot in terms of this incident, with the knowledge that the taxi driver should have been familiar with the layout, it may still help with figuring out ways of preventing similar incidents in future.

[Red Devil]

Nightmare said:

We are obviously seeing different things then - as the images you've posted show a hedge you can't see through (and bear in mind that the Google streeview images are taken from the ball camera mounted on top of a van so a higher perspective than a cyclist would get)

I take your point about the elevated vantage point of the Google camera but I don't believe it makes that much difference in this case.
I can't see any hedge, only some low bushes on the left behind the sign. In any case I reckon a cyclist could see over the top of them.
This is view from the other side - https://goo.gl/maps/DpK9K - no hedge, only some saplings then a fence obscured by undergrowth.

Look again at my second link. It is quite definitely a large tree on the corner. You can see the white garage building behind the trunk!

Nightmare said:

Also....4 months back was April....foliage cover in April and August is very different.........

Try reading what I wrote again - less than 4 months ago at most. The Streetview images are dated May 2015, not April.
No specific date though, so we need contemporaneous photos to discover exactly what it looks like now.

Pete317 said:

I zoomed in to give some idea of the view the taxi driver would have had at the time - I realise the perspective would have been different, but not by much.

Again I beg to differ. I reckon it's the length of a cricket pitch to the tree on the corner.
Look at the link I posted above taken from the other side wherein you can see the white van.
Once you move past it the difference in perspective will be greater than you think imo.

[flemke]

Red Devil said:

flemke said:

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...

Imo you need more than a single image to get the picture here.
This sequence is the nearest you can get to the cyclist's likely path.
https://goo.gl/maps/7qfAz
https://goo.gl/maps/37fDV
https://goo.gl/maps/8QkIY

The image capture is dated less than 4 months ago at most.
It's not an impenetrable hedge on the left but a tree.
The gaps in the foliage are clearly visible.

I reckon the cyclist would have had more opportunity to see the taxi than vice-versa.
Given the lack of corresponding Streeview images it is only speculation though.

Agreed that would be the cyclist's point of view. We don't know colour of taxi, light/shadow conditions, etc.

I think your sequence of images shows that the cyclist was proceeding ahead into a space that he could see to be clear, along the "primary" route, whereas the taxi driver emerged from a side turning from which anyone should be expected to exit with caution and concede priority.


ETA: Looking at the images, I have to reiterate that I am gobsmacked that the taxi driver would attempt to pin all the blame on the cyclist. Talk about complete pi55-taking.

Edited by flemke on Saturday 29th August 18:37

[Chrisgr31]

I suspect that in reality it is something that could have happened to all of us whether we were the OP or the taxi driver. Both parties know the area and junction well. The OP hasnt told us if he has previously met a car at this point and I suspect not.

So what has probably happened is that familiarity has bred contempt, and neither party paid proper attention.

The OP has admitted that he was going faster than the taxi, and whilst he may have had the right of way that's debatable because it appears that both the turning the OP was going down and the one the taxi was coming out of are drives to businesses rather than roads. Its arguable that the one the taxi was coming out of was more dominant as that is the one the google car has been down.

I suspect the reality is that each party had no chance of seeing each other. and the closing speed was too high. The OP was going faster than the taxi though.

Without actually seeing the junctions and where the car and OP where it is even more difficult to lay blame, but I am inclined to 50:50.