Twitter cyclists v Twitter driver video - who's right?
Discussion
Killboy said:
321boost said:
No it was very similar from looking at their dashcam.
Cool, we'll just take your word for it.Cheers.
321boost said:
I have just realised that you are right it’s not similar. In this instance the driver reacted in a timely manner and saved the cyclist from injury which would’ve been caused entirely due to the fault of the cyclist.
Cheers.
You are delusional.Cheers.
As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, nor did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
Lord Marylebone said:
You are delusional.
As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, no did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
You would fail as a cyclist as well if you had to do a test to ride a bike on the road. As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, no did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
PH User said:
Lord Marylebone said:
You are delusional.
As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, no did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
You would fail as a cyclist as well if you had to do a test to ride a bike on the road. As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, no did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
I was responding to 321Boost who was making a silly claim that the driver wouldn’t be to blame whatsoever if they had actually collided.
Lord Marylebone said:
PH User said:
Lord Marylebone said:
You are delusional.
As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, no did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
You would fail as a cyclist as well if you had to do a test to ride a bike on the road. As has been pointed out, if this exact situation happened during your driving test, you would have failed, and rightly so.
For starters, the driver gave nowhere near the required amount of space to the cyclist, no did he make any attempt to slow down upon approaching the cyclist.
I’m not a cyclist, but I can clearly see when a driver is driving too quickly and too close to someone on a bicycle.
I was responding to 321Boost who was making a silly claim that the driver wouldn’t be to blame whatsoever if they had actually collided.
PH User said:
Well yeah that would be daft, you can't just drive into someone just because they do something stupid.
Exactly.You are required to pass cyclists carefully and give an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres of room between your wing mirror and them.
So essentially you have to, by law, be pretty much fully in the other lane when you pass them as per the image I posted earlier. You can’t just squeeze past them, or give them only 2-3 feet of clearance.
From the video can clearly see this driver was giving the cyclist nowhere near the correct amount of room as he attempted to come past them.
grudas said:
Disco You said:
Both. Poor of the cyclist to make a positional change without looking. Poor of the car to be overtaking too close and to have such a high closing speed around the pinch point.
+1Bill said:
Disco You said:
Both. Poor of the cyclist to make a positional change without looking. Poor of the car to be overtaking too close and to have such a high closing speed around the pinch point.
This IMO.I'd have been disappointed in my driving to have got into the car drivers situation, and I'd have been disappointed in my lack of observation if I was the cyclist.
My first viewing I caught sight of the two parallel lines across the road and thought they were previous roadworks and would have given the cyclist more space as the edges may have been potholes, That's what I thought he'd swerved for, On second viewing they may have been traffic monitor tubes
Bill said:
I don't think it's a deliberate swerve by the bike, I think his shoulders just follow his head when he looks round at the crash and that caused the wobble.
But it's a good demonstration of why drivers should give cyclists a wide berth.
That was also my interpretation after several viewings. Surprised it has taken this long for it to be mentioned!But it's a good demonstration of why drivers should give cyclists a wide berth.
Digger said:
Bill said:
I don't think it's a deliberate swerve by the bike, I think his shoulders just follow his head when he looks round at the crash and that caused the wobble.
But it's a good demonstration of why drivers should give cyclists a wide berth.
That was also my interpretation after several viewings. Surprised it has taken this long for it to be mentioned!But it's a good demonstration of why drivers should give cyclists a wide berth.
I think he was more interested in looking at the other cyclist than where he was going.
If you hit someone from behind, isn't it your fault majority of the time?
Cyclist didn't just move into the lane further, he also slowed down. And the car driver didn't brake to maintain a safe distance between the vehicle in front.
As there was an island to the right, the driver can't claim he was going for an immediate overtake.
Insurance would probably go 50-50? But as always, the cyclist breaks his back and the car would only get a dent, so Cyclist needs to wisen up.
Cyclist didn't just move into the lane further, he also slowed down. And the car driver didn't brake to maintain a safe distance between the vehicle in front.
As there was an island to the right, the driver can't claim he was going for an immediate overtake.
Insurance would probably go 50-50? But as always, the cyclist breaks his back and the car would only get a dent, so Cyclist needs to wisen up.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 8th March 17:51
Bill said:
I don't think it's a deliberate swerve by the bike, I think his shoulders just follow his head when he looks round at the crash and that caused the wobble.
But it's a good demonstration of why drivers should give cyclists a wide berth.
Definitely this. Bit too much weight on the side of the drops when looking over your shoulder and it is very easily done. Cyclist was distracted by the noise of the other cyclist falling which was made worse by being a deer in the headlights of a car driving at them at speed. Car driver wasn't sufficiently aware of their surroundings and went for a overtake that was always going to be tighter then they should perform. But it's a good demonstration of why drivers should give cyclists a wide berth.
Car driver is approaching too fast and would have been too close to the bike even if he had not moved across IMO. The bike slows in the narrowed gap by the Island, driver should have seen the other bike crash and then with the slowing bike, just checked his speed, for several reasons. Not least, that the bike crashing may indicate it is slippy, and the slowing bike, and narrowed road in the island / gap area, means he just needs to stop / slow to leave more room .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff