The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Dashcam" Thread

[NoNeed]

Martin4x4 said:

DoubleSix said:

Tampon said:

Ok one for the PH pedants.

Who fault is this? cabbie not giving way or pissed up cyclist with poor lighting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAR8NQn9_uQ

Is that a rhetorical question? I mean, you don't really need any help answering that do you??

If you watch the full video, it's not that straight forward.

Cyclist had right of way, but poor lighting, dark clothing and was drunk (& perhaps stoned).

Car should have given way, but wtf did he stop? I'm guessing he just froze when he saw the cyclist.

Why didn't the cyclist attempt to stop or swerve? He had plenty of time after car stopped, probably because he was drunk.

I think I would have to go 50-50.

If in the daytime it would be the car 100% but this was at night with no lights on the bike and its rider in dark clothing. The cr had its lights on so you must ask why the cyclist didn't see the danger and try and stop.

I Think mostly cyclist in that one not 50-50

[Blue Oval84]

Tampon said:

Ok one for the PH pedants.

Who fault is this? cabbie not giving way or pissed up cyclist with poor lighting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAR8NQn9_uQ

Are you having a laugh?

The cyclist clearly had a light on the front of his bike (even if it wasn't the brightest thing going) and the road was lit up like Picadilly fking circus.

Even if he'd had a drink, I'm not sure that a sober cyclist could necessarily have avoided that.

Cabbie's fault - 100%.

[Stickyfinger]

Blue Oval84 said:

Are you having a laugh?

The cyclist clearly had a light on the front of his bike (even if it wasn't the brightest thing going) and the road was lit up like Picadilly fking circus.

Even if he'd had a drink, I'm not sure that a sober cyclist could necessarily have avoided that.

Cabbie's fault - 100%.

Dark clothing, no reflective , way way inadequate lighting for town riding.
The Cyclist was not making himself very visible was he ?

And DRUNK and giving it some speed

100% sure >?

[Harji]

NoNeed said:

Martin4x4 said:

DoubleSix said:

Tampon said:

Ok one for the PH pedants.

Who fault is this? cabbie not giving way or pissed up cyclist with poor lighting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAR8NQn9_uQ

Is that a rhetorical question? I mean, you don't really need any help answering that do you??

If you watch the full video, it's not that straight forward.

Cyclist had right of way, but poor lighting, dark clothing and was drunk (& perhaps stoned).

Car should have given way, but wtf did he stop? I'm guessing he just froze when he saw the cyclist.

Why didn't the cyclist attempt to stop or swerve? He had plenty of time after car stopped, probably because he was drunk.

I think I would have to go 50-50.

If in the daytime it would be the car 100% but this was at night with no lights on the bike and its rider in dark clothing. The cr had its lights on so you must ask why the cyclist didn't see the danger and try and stop.

I Think mostly cyclist in that one not 50-50

Makes no difference, the sooner people understand that drivers must be sure that the road is clear of oncoming traffic before turning right, it can never be anyone else's fault coming in a straight line. There was a motorcyclist killed recently (you tube video of crash shown by family of biker to highlight dangers) travelling over 90 mph, car turns right without checking oncoming traffic causing the rider to hit the car side on like the video for the cyclist.

The driver got done for not checking oncoming traffic, same as the video shown here, no difference, not 50-50, driver at fault 100%.

[Blue Oval84]

Stickyfinger said:

Dark clothing, no reflective , way way inadequate lighting for town riding.
The Cyclist was not making himself very visible was he ?

And DRUNK and giving it some speed

100% sure >?

Speed wise, I would suggest he was probably under the speed limit for the road.

Drunk, irrelevant, he didn't have time to stop even if sober (in fact being drunk would probably mean he stayed more relaxed and was less badly injured as a result)

He had a flashing LED light on the front, it wasn't the brightest thing in the world admittedly, but it was there. And the road was well lit. The driver could have seen him, but he made a mistake. We all do it, unfortunately this time it resulted in a collision.

If that went to court it would still be 100% the driver's fault.

[TheInsanity1234]

The car seemed to stop as soon as the cycle made contact with the car, which suggests they started turning, saw the cyclist and immediately started to brake.

Of course, the car is at fault as the car should've been giving way to traffic approaching, no matter how drunk they are.

However, the cyclist did seem to have a fair amount of time to see the car starting to turn, and so could've braked (they would still hit the car, but they wouldn't have been flung over the bonnet like that I reckon).

[Harji]

Stickyfinger said:

Blue Oval84 said:

Are you having a laugh?

The cyclist clearly had a light on the front of his bike (even if it wasn't the brightest thing going) and the road was lit up like Picadilly fking circus.

Even if he'd had a drink, I'm not sure that a sober cyclist could necessarily have avoided that.

Cabbie's fault - 100%.

Dark clothing, no reflective , way way inadequate lighting for town riding.
The Cyclist was not making himself very visible was he ?

And DRUNK and giving it some speed

100% sure >?

Driver turning right not checking oncoming traffic, are you sure? Cyclists light is never going to glare , as bright as car or street light. As for dark clothing, lets ban dark cars then shall we? As for maybe having a drink, the cyclist still did nothing wrong and that was not known at the time of incident (see my post about biker getting killed in simialr circumstances above while going around 90mph, judge ruled driver at fault)

Hint, check the procedure for turning right please.

[Tampon]

And we are off...

[NoNeed]

Harji said:

Makes no difference, the sooner people understand that drivers must be sure that the road is clear of oncoming traffic before turning right, it can never be anyone else's fault coming in a straight line. There was a motorcyclist killed recently (you tube video of crash shown by family of biker to highlight dangers) travelling over 90 mph, car turns right without checking oncoming traffic causing the rider to hit the car side on like the video for the cyclist.

The driver got done for not checking oncoming traffic, same as the video shown here, no difference, not 50-50, driver at fault 100%.

There is a very good reason that it is an offence to cycle without light at night and that is so motorists can see.

And as for your dink and drugs make no difference comment at least one police force disagree. http://www.sussex.police.uk/help-centre/ask-us/roa...

[Harji]

NoNeed said:

Harji said:

Makes no difference, the sooner people understand that drivers must be sure that the road is clear of oncoming traffic before turning right, it can never be anyone else's fault coming in a straight line. There was a motorcyclist killed recently (you tube video of crash shown by family of biker to highlight dangers) travelling over 90 mph, car turns right without checking oncoming traffic causing the rider to hit the car side on like the video for the cyclist.

The driver got done for not checking oncoming traffic, same as the video shown here, no difference, not 50-50, driver at fault 100%.

There is a very good reason that it is an offence to cycle without light at night and that is so motorists can see.

And as for your dink and drugs make no difference comment at least one police force disagree. http://www.sussex.police.uk/help-centre/ask-us/roa...

He was cycling with a light, and I agree, you shouldn't cycle under the influence, but what I'm saying is that the driver just simply did not check oncoming traffic and that is a basic part of driving.

ETA to add, I understand the influences of alcohol, but the point I'm trying to say is that even the driver turned into an oncoming car instead of a cyclist and that driver happened to be under the influence, the driver turning right would STILL be at fault. Just as the driver was who killed the rider doing over 90mph .

Edited by Harji on Monday 31st August 00:04

[NoNeed]

Harji said:

He was cycling with a light, and I agree, you shouldn't cycle under the influence, but what I'm saying is that the driver just simply did not check oncoming traffic and that is a basic part of driving.

I think the driver did check but short of coming to a complete standstill getting out and lighting up the road with a powerful torch there was not much he could have done as the cyclist did nothing, absolutely nothing to conform with the highway code that not only would have kept him safe and made him visible he was intoxicated which would have impaired his own vision and reaction time.

While the car driver did cross the cyclists path in this instance, to prosecute would be a massive miscarriage of justice and serve no real purpose. Making the cyclist pay for the damage and an enforce highway code manadatory cycling course would prevent a re-occurance, if only such a course existed.

[Blakewater]

Harji said:

Makes no difference, the sooner people understand that drivers must be sure that the road is clear of oncoming traffic before turning right, it can never be anyone else's fault coming in a straight line. There was a motorcyclist killed recently (you tube video of crash shown by family of biker to highlight dangers) travelling over 90 mph, car turns right without checking oncoming traffic causing the rider to hit the car side on like the video for the cyclist.

The driver got done for not checking oncoming traffic, same as the video shown here, no difference, not 50-50, driver at fault 100%.

That's of little use to the motorcyclist though. He was doing a silly speed on approach to the junction and overtaking as well. The driver turning was most likely watching the car he overtook, thinking he/she could get across in front of it and never expected someone to be hammering through the junction doing something like 75% more than the speed limit. Had the motorcyclist simply passed a speed trap at that speed he would have found himself in a courtroom. Had he survived the accident he could well have faced some sort of legal prosecution. Instead he's dead, but at least we can say he was in the right over the car driver. The video was released as much as a message to motorcyclists to slow down and take care as to motorists to be more observant at junctions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZCadhDW_i0

[Blue Oval84]

NoNeed said:

I think the driver did check but short of coming to a complete standstill getting out and lighting up the road with a powerful torch there was not much he could have done as the cyclist did nothing, absolutely nothing to conform with the highway code that not only would have kept him safe and made him visible he was intoxicated which would have impaired his own vision and reaction time.

While the car driver did cross the cyclists path in this instance, to prosecute would be a massive miscarriage of justice and serve no real purpose. Making the cyclist pay for the damage and an enforce highway code manadatory cycling course would prevent a re-occurance, if only such a course existed.

Utter rubbish, the cyclist had a flashing light on the front of his bike, and the road was very well lit. The light may not have been one of those ridiculous flashing strobes, but it was clearly visible in the video, and no doubt even more so in real life.

[NoNeed]

Blue Oval84 said:

Utter rubbish, the cyclist had a flashing light on the front of his bike, and the road was very well lit. The light may not have been one of those ridiculous flashing strobes, but it was clearly visible in the video, and no doubt even more so in real life.

I ahve watched that video twice and didn't see it. I will watch again.



Nope that bike was unlit.

[Stickyfinger]

Harji said:

He was cycling with a light, and I agree, you shouldn't cycle under the influence, but what I'm saying is that the driver just simply did not check oncoming traffic and that is a basic part of driving.

ETA to add, I understand the influences of alcohol, but the point I'm trying to say is that even the driver turned into an oncoming car instead of a cyclist and that driver happened to be under the influence, the driver turning right would STILL be at fault. Just as the driver was who killed the rider doing over 90mph .

Edited by Harji on Monday 31st August 00:04

There is a reason the law states that at night you should have adequate lights on anything legal for use on the road, no matter if it is a dark car or pink bus. Bikes has a duty to be seen as much as cars.
The bike lights were poor to the extent the witness's there were under the impression there were none.

??....3 foot wide dark object, traveling maybe 20/25mph, artificial lighting with high contrast ?? small light maybe 4 led's low power....I ask when soft objects will learn to protect themselves more as much as I wish drivers would take that extra look.

[NoNeed]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have just had a close up og the bike on the fence and can say quite catagorically there was no cycle lights on that bike.

What I did see looks like one of those flashin tyre valves, how a motorist is suposed to see that when the wheel rim is in the way I have no idea.

[Blue Oval84]

NoNeed said:

I have just had a close up og the bike on the fence and can say quite catagorically there was no cycle lights on that bike.

What I did see looks like one of those flashin tyre valves, how a motorist is suposed to see that when the wheel rim is in the way I have no idea.

It wasn't a flashing tyre valve, it was a flashing light on the front, but this would be the problem with watching a video of the incident, it's never quite the same.

[rich888]

Blue Oval84 said:

NoNeed said:

I think the driver did check but short of coming to a complete standstill getting out and lighting up the road with a powerful torch there was not much he could have done as the cyclist did nothing, absolutely nothing to conform with the highway code that not only would have kept him safe and made him visible he was intoxicated which would have impaired his own vision and reaction time.

While the car driver did cross the cyclists path in this instance, to prosecute would be a massive miscarriage of justice and serve no real purpose. Making the cyclist pay for the damage and an enforce highway code manadatory cycling course would prevent a re-occurance, if only such a course existed.

Utter rubbish, the cyclist had a flashing light on the front of his bike, and the road was very well lit. The light may not have been one of those ridiculous flashing strobes, but it was clearly visible in the video, and no doubt even more so in real life.

For the sake of argument can you just take a snapshot of the video with the bicycle light on, if you use VLC viewer to view the video footage you can freeze the frame you are interested in and then take a snapshot.

[Blue Oval84]

rich888 said:

For the sake of argument can you just take a snapshot of the video with the bicycle light on, if you use VLC viewer to view the video footage you can freeze the frame you are interested in and then take a snapshot.

No, I honestly can't be bothered because it's quite visible in the video, it doesn't need a freeze frame. I've already said it's not particularly bright, but it is there.

Only on Pistonheads would people try to prove that a cyclist going straight on, with a light, on a streetlit road, being hit by a car turning across his path, was in the wrong...

[drab]

The lights are most clear when the bike is on the ground and the camera man goes to inspect it