Twitter cyclists v Twitter driver video - who's right?
Discussion
powerstroke said:
Mave said:
At the end of the day this incident is nothing to do with registration or training and everything to do with using the roads with due care and attention, which IMHO neither the cyclist or motorist did on this occasion.
Au contraire , training would diminish excuses and registration would make offences like due care and attention and jumping red lights more accountable ...
Mind banning drop handle bars and Lycra would possibly be more effective at improving the standard of cycling
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 9th March 18:59
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 9th March 19:00
powerstroke said:
Au contraire , training would diminish excuses and registration would make offences like due care and attention and jumping red lights more accountable ...
meatballs said:
Pegscratch said:
PH User said:
otolith said:
Cyclist should have already positioned his bike to make sure that morons like the guy in the car knew that they weren't overtaking him there.
Did the cyclist do anything wrong?Slowing and swerving without making any observations whatsoever.
9 pages.
We all see a driver closing up too quickly on a cyclist at a pinch-point. The cyclist then swings wide without looking.
Not exactly dumb and dumber, but both could have done better. Yet we have folk essentially picking sides, to excuse one or other party and assign all blame to the other.
I enjoy driving, and like to do it well. If I was dash-cam man here I'd be very disappointed in myself. Driving standards, from all sorts of road users, seem to be in decline. There's not much prospect of improvement when even people here (supposedly an enthusiasts forum) can't look at things like this as an objective learning experience.
We all see a driver closing up too quickly on a cyclist at a pinch-point. The cyclist then swings wide without looking.
Not exactly dumb and dumber, but both could have done better. Yet we have folk essentially picking sides, to excuse one or other party and assign all blame to the other.
I enjoy driving, and like to do it well. If I was dash-cam man here I'd be very disappointed in myself. Driving standards, from all sorts of road users, seem to be in decline. There's not much prospect of improvement when even people here (supposedly an enthusiasts forum) can't look at things like this as an objective learning experience.
Looks to me like the cyclist sees/hears the other cyclist crash, and his reaction is to look over his shoulder which can cause a swerve on a road bike. Not saying that that's right, but it's a spur of the moment reaction to an accident.
Has the driver noticed that an accident has just happened? He doesn't seem bothered about stopping to check they are OK...
Has the driver noticed that an accident has just happened? He doesn't seem bothered about stopping to check they are OK...
mike80 said:
Looks to me like the cyclist sees/hears the other cyclist crash, and his reaction is to look over his shoulder which can cause a swerve on a road bike. Not saying that that's right, but it's a spur of the moment reaction to an accident.
Has the driver noticed that an accident has just happened? He doesn't seem bothered about stopping to check they are OK...
That’s exactly how I viewed it. The cyclist has made one of those spur of the moment errors that all road users make at times (due to being distracted by the accident), but never actually leaves his lane and corrects course very quickly.Has the driver noticed that an accident has just happened? He doesn't seem bothered about stopping to check they are OK...
The car driver on the other hand didn’t seem to have any plan when approaching the multiple hazards in front of him and that’s why it all nearly went wrong very quickly. That’s why I’m a bit mystified by many of the comments. This is a forum for driving enthusiasts. Surely the majority here have read Roadcraft etc?
Yes I’m also a bit baffled by someone who witnesses a nasty looking accident and just drives off...
Both at fault and I'm amazed it's taken 9 pages until two posts mention the car driver completely ignored the other cyclist's accident.
If I was driving there would have been zero chance of me hitting the other cyclist, no matter how much he swerved, as I would already have stopped to check on the guy that came off his bike.
If I was driving there would have been zero chance of me hitting the other cyclist, no matter how much he swerved, as I would already have stopped to check on the guy that came off his bike.
LMAO, the name "powerstorke" and the opinions being expressed can only lead to one mental picture!
If you can't see the failings of the driver in that clip you need to improve your driving. Driving on roads is all about avoiding the muppetry of others, mostly by observation / perdition. It's clear that you hate cyclists and that's fine in the context of this forum. however, as your doctor I prescribe a 6 month course of Caterham 7 which will be a vastly enjoyable as well as educational programme for you =)
If you can't see the failings of the driver in that clip you need to improve your driving. Driving on roads is all about avoiding the muppetry of others, mostly by observation / perdition. It's clear that you hate cyclists and that's fine in the context of this forum. however, as your doctor I prescribe a 6 month course of Caterham 7 which will be a vastly enjoyable as well as educational programme for you =)
Killboy said:
Gareth79 said:
From what I can see the driver probaly wasn't attempting an overtake, it was a swerve to avoid a rear-end collision.
You can see the cyclist stops pedaling just as they enter the traffic island, and are probably braking at that time too. The driver doesn't seem to react to the coasting or braking, and seems to pull right at the same time as the cyclist, which looks like an overtake but probably wasn't by choice. The cyclist swerving without looking properly compounded the situation.
Yes that all that's happened in that video? If so, you are probably about as observant as Mr Dash cam man. You can see the cyclist stops pedaling just as they enter the traffic island, and are probably braking at that time too. The driver doesn't seem to react to the coasting or braking, and seems to pull right at the same time as the cyclist, which looks like an overtake but probably wasn't by choice. The cyclist swerving without looking properly compounded the situation.
Looks like another advert for a Dashcam doesn't it?
If the cyclist had been injured or killed it would have shown their failure to perform an over the shoulder 'life saver' look before swerving further out into the road.
The cyclists riding was that negligent it could almost look like some of kind of rigged crash for compensation stunt.
I wonder why the over the shoulder check is called a 'life saver'?
If the cyclist had been injured or killed it would have shown their failure to perform an over the shoulder 'life saver' look before swerving further out into the road.
The cyclists riding was that negligent it could almost look like some of kind of rigged crash for compensation stunt.
I wonder why the over the shoulder check is called a 'life saver'?
Not looked at all the thread but anyone mention the roadworks?
Driver doesn't react at all to the advance warning sign (Road narrows from left) so should expect the cyclist to be moving out. Island means no room to right but he still charges in.
Both could have done better, cyclist should have looked and signalled (not that some drivers pay any regard to cyclists signalling) and driver should have been paying attention and slowed.
I am a cyclist - my assumption when riding is that drivers never pay attention to what is around them and it is normally correct
As the video is dated 2016 wonder why this has just come to the top?
Driver doesn't react at all to the advance warning sign (Road narrows from left) so should expect the cyclist to be moving out. Island means no room to right but he still charges in.
Both could have done better, cyclist should have looked and signalled (not that some drivers pay any regard to cyclists signalling) and driver should have been paying attention and slowed.
I am a cyclist - my assumption when riding is that drivers never pay attention to what is around them and it is normally correct
As the video is dated 2016 wonder why this has just come to the top?
carinaman said:
Looks like another advert for a Dashcam doesn't it?
If the cyclist had been injured or killed it would have shown their failure to perform an over the shoulder 'life saver' look before swerving further out into the road.
The cyclists riding was that negligent it could almost look like some of kind of rigged crash for compensation stunt.
I wonder why the over the shoulder check is called a 'life saver'?
If the cyclist had been killed or injured, it would have shown them veering 1-2 feet further towards the centre of the lane, yes, agreed.If the cyclist had been injured or killed it would have shown their failure to perform an over the shoulder 'life saver' look before swerving further out into the road.
The cyclists riding was that negligent it could almost look like some of kind of rigged crash for compensation stunt.
I wonder why the over the shoulder check is called a 'life saver'?
It would also have shown very poor driving from the motorist.
They are approaching the cyclist way too fast, appear to be 'aiming' to squeeze past at speed right after a pinch point, and most obviously, they appear to be planning on leaving absolutely nowhere near the minimum of 1.5 metres of clearance between the cyclist and themselves whilst passing. To leave 1.5m of clearance your car should be mostly over onto the other lane, but we can see from the road marking in this video that the car was nowhere near far enough over on his approach.
As has been said already in this thread, if you drove like that during a driving test you would have failed without question, and rightly so.
I'm not a cyclist, and I have no reasons to be massively pro-cyclist, but I think the standard of driving by the motorist was really poor and he showed very little hazard perception or care towards the cyclist.
As soon as I watched it my immediate reaction to the driving was "He's is approaching the cyclist way too fast like he hasn't even seen him, or just doesn't care"
Yes, the cyclist should have taken more care not to wobble/veer as he looked behind, but the car river was equally at fault, and the fact that so many on PH seem determined to parrot the whole 'Cyclists bad. Car drivers rarely at fault' narrative is just making us all look really silly.
I'm a motorist and I'm happy to admit when my driving is sloppy or falls below standard, and I'm also happy to call out fellow motorists when I see their driving fall below standard.
Lord Marylebone said:
If the cyclist had been killed or injured, it would have shown them veering 1-2 feet further towards the centre of the lane, yes, agreed.
It would also have shown very poor driving from the motorist.
.....
I'm a motorist and I'm happy to admit when my driving is sloppy or falls below standard, and I'm also happy to call out fellow motorists when I see their driving fall below standard.
Take your reasoned, balanced view and gtfo off this forum.It would also have shown very poor driving from the motorist.
.....
I'm a motorist and I'm happy to admit when my driving is sloppy or falls below standard, and I'm also happy to call out fellow motorists when I see their driving fall below standard.
Edited by echazfraz on Wednesday 10th March 11:47
powerstroke said:
Au contraire , training would diminish excuses and registration would make offences like due care and attention and jumping red lights more accountable ...
Mind banning drop handle bars and Lycra would possibly be more effective at improving the standard of cycling
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 9th March 18:59
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 9th March 19:00
I'd posit that most red lights are not jumped by cyclists on drops and wearing lycra when out cycling for the sport of it, but by cyclists in cities where all the red lights are.
There's irony in your username being "powerstroke" and being this anti-cyclist - did a cyclist steal your wife? You seem very against them. And not just for the actions of one of them in the incident in question here.
echazfraz said:
Due care and attention isn't an offence that a cyclist can be guilty of (unless they're driving their car at the time), so good luck with making cyclists accountable for that.
You might want to have read of thisRTA 1988 s.29 said:
Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
Cat
RTA 1988 s.31 said:
Regulation of cycle racing on public ways.
(1)A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles is guilty of an offence, unless the race or trial—
(a)is authorised, and
(b)is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed,
by or under regulations under this section.
(1)A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles is guilty of an offence, unless the race or trial—
(a)is authorised, and
(b)is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed,
by or under regulations under this section.
I must have broken that hundreds of times. Mostly before I turned 12.
Well fancy that, a thread on a specific cycling/driving incident has turned into the cliched word blancmange of Lycra and road tax/cycle registration.
I can’t remember the last time I read a new or noteworthy opinion on cyclists and drivers sharing the roads.
There’s not a yawn long enough for how f
king boring and tedious it is.
I can’t remember the last time I read a new or noteworthy opinion on cyclists and drivers sharing the roads.
There’s not a yawn long enough for how f
king boring and tedious it is.
The biggest danger this incident shows is the number of motorists who refuse to learn...
Yes, cyclists shouldn't swerve. However this is an example of why highway code rule 213 exists. It is all but impossible to train people not to react to unexpected loud noises, like the other rider falling off. I have seen a 1970s(ish) public information film (sorry, cant find it again
) which used dogs barking in a garden next to the road as one example of why cyclists might swerve and you should allow room.
Had instead it been a pothole or debris or raised ironworks (not impossible given the road works nearby) it wouldn't be debatable that 213 applies, yet the incident would have otherwise been identical...
Fortunately this case was minor, but rather than using it as a reminder that sometimes things go wrong, and your responsibility when driving is to allow for that, not drive assuming it will go right (as this driver was; replies to other tweets state they expected the cyclist to perfectly maintain a straight line).
The thing that makes this driver (and several posters here an on twitter) dangerous is not that they got complacent and assumed that as nothing had gone wrong before nothing would go wrong in future and so made a mistake that compounded with the cyclists reaction, but that after it went wrong they decided that it was the vulnerable road users fault for not being perfect (yet the mistake made is one they are EXPLICITLY required to allow for) and that they can't possibly be expected to follow the highway code and leave a proper margin for error in future to prevent it happening again.
Yes, cyclists shouldn't swerve. However this is an example of why highway code rule 213 exists. It is all but impossible to train people not to react to unexpected loud noises, like the other rider falling off. I have seen a 1970s(ish) public information film (sorry, cant find it again
) which used dogs barking in a garden next to the road as one example of why cyclists might swerve and you should allow room.Had instead it been a pothole or debris or raised ironworks (not impossible given the road works nearby) it wouldn't be debatable that 213 applies, yet the incident would have otherwise been identical...
Fortunately this case was minor, but rather than using it as a reminder that sometimes things go wrong, and your responsibility when driving is to allow for that, not drive assuming it will go right (as this driver was; replies to other tweets state they expected the cyclist to perfectly maintain a straight line).
The thing that makes this driver (and several posters here an on twitter) dangerous is not that they got complacent and assumed that as nothing had gone wrong before nothing would go wrong in future and so made a mistake that compounded with the cyclists reaction, but that after it went wrong they decided that it was the vulnerable road users fault for not being perfect (yet the mistake made is one they are EXPLICITLY required to allow for) and that they can't possibly be expected to follow the highway code and leave a proper margin for error in future to prevent it happening again.
qwerty360 said:
The biggest danger this incident shows is the number of motorists who refuse to learn...
Yes, cyclists shouldn't swerve. However this is an example of why highway code rule 213 exists. It is all but impossible to train people not to react to unexpected loud noises, like the other rider falling off. I have seen a 1970s(ish) public information film (sorry, cant find it again) which used dogs barking in a garden next to the road as one example of why cyclists might swerve and you should allow room.
Had instead it been a pothole or debris or raised ironworks (not impossible given the road works nearby) it wouldn't be debatable that 213 applies, yet the incident would have otherwise been identical...
Fortunately this case was minor, but rather than using it as a reminder that sometimes things go wrong, and your responsibility when driving is to allow for that, not drive assuming it will go right (as this driver was; replies to other tweets state they expected the cyclist to perfectly maintain a straight line).
The thing that makes this driver (and several posters here an on twitter) dangerous is not that they got complacent and assumed that as nothing had gone wrong before nothing would go wrong in future and so made a mistake that compounded with the cyclists reaction, but that after it went wrong they decided that it was the vulnerable road users fault for not being perfect (yet the mistake made is one they are EXPLICITLY required to allow for) and that they can't possibly be expected to follow the highway code and leave a proper margin for error in future to prevent it happening again.
I agree. The cyclist on the twitter post acknowledged he made a mistake and held his hands up. The motorist steadfastly refused to acknowledge he could have, should have, done anything differently. I particularly winced at his comment that he knew the cyclist wouldnt turn right because he saw him every day and he never turned right. Yes, cyclists shouldn't swerve. However this is an example of why highway code rule 213 exists. It is all but impossible to train people not to react to unexpected loud noises, like the other rider falling off. I have seen a 1970s(ish) public information film (sorry, cant find it again
) which used dogs barking in a garden next to the road as one example of why cyclists might swerve and you should allow room.Had instead it been a pothole or debris or raised ironworks (not impossible given the road works nearby) it wouldn't be debatable that 213 applies, yet the incident would have otherwise been identical...
Fortunately this case was minor, but rather than using it as a reminder that sometimes things go wrong, and your responsibility when driving is to allow for that, not drive assuming it will go right (as this driver was; replies to other tweets state they expected the cyclist to perfectly maintain a straight line).
The thing that makes this driver (and several posters here an on twitter) dangerous is not that they got complacent and assumed that as nothing had gone wrong before nothing would go wrong in future and so made a mistake that compounded with the cyclists reaction, but that after it went wrong they decided that it was the vulnerable road users fault for not being perfect (yet the mistake made is one they are EXPLICITLY required to allow for) and that they can't possibly be expected to follow the highway code and leave a proper margin for error in future to prevent it happening again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff