Twitter cyclists v Twitter driver video - who's right?
Discussion
50/50 from me (cyclist). Cyclist should look before moving he looks whilst moving. Car should have slowed and moved out 2m from the cyclist. Both got away with it.
As for the fool on the floor he didn’t indicate right and didn’t slow down enough when cornering no wonder he hit the deck. He took that turn like he was a moto GP rider knee on the floor style.
As for the fool on the floor he didn’t indicate right and didn’t slow down enough when cornering no wonder he hit the deck. He took that turn like he was a moto GP rider knee on the floor style.
monthou said:
Several people - myself included - have said that as cyclists / bikers they blame the cyclist. It would be interesting to know how many of those absolving the cyclist of blame are regular cyclists - I would hope the answer is not many. Cyclists need to make good observations and they need to ride predictably. Taking the lane is fine, but not without looking.
The driving obviously wasn't great but I see worse from my saddle most days. I'd feel lucky to get away with what he (the cyclist) did there.
The cyclist was definitely contributory to the situation, by not using the correct procedures for turning right/around (which IMHO I presume the cyclist was attempting to do).The driving obviously wasn't great but I see worse from my saddle most days. I'd feel lucky to get away with what he (the cyclist) did there.
NGee said:
He did give the cyclist sufficient room, otherwise the cyclist would be dead.
It's when you read assesments like yours in this thread it becomes clear why driving standards are so poor. Even with the benefit of a video to watch over and over you see things that didn't happen and have zero hazard perception.
As a car driver, I really winced when I watched that (actually watched it about 15 times...)
I just felt right from the start that the car was approaching the cyclist too fast, and was attempting to ‘squeeze past’ the cyclist without even slowing, and while still in the pinched/hatched area.
He certainly didn’t look like he was planning on giving the cyclist the minimum of 1.5m of space when passing.
Cyclist didn’t help by moving out and not looking, but if you look closely, he only moves out by around 1-2 feet, and if the driver had given him at least the 1.5 metres he is supposed to, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as close.
When I pass cyclists I move across into the other lane, and give them at least the 1.5 metres clearance.
It almost looks to me like the driver didn’t even see the cyclist until he swerved. Maybe he was too busy looking at the cyclist that fell over?
So I think they are both to blame.
Cyclist was 40% to blame and driver was 60% to blame.
Edited to add this image:
This is how far over the driver should have been in preparation to pass the cyclist:
We can see from the video he was absolutely no where near far enough over when he was almost passing.
Driver should have slowed down, waited until they were past the hatched area, moved out to give 1.5 metres, and then passed.
But clearly he was approaching too quickly and intent on passing too closely.
I just felt right from the start that the car was approaching the cyclist too fast, and was attempting to ‘squeeze past’ the cyclist without even slowing, and while still in the pinched/hatched area.
He certainly didn’t look like he was planning on giving the cyclist the minimum of 1.5m of space when passing.
Cyclist didn’t help by moving out and not looking, but if you look closely, he only moves out by around 1-2 feet, and if the driver had given him at least the 1.5 metres he is supposed to, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as close.
When I pass cyclists I move across into the other lane, and give them at least the 1.5 metres clearance.
It almost looks to me like the driver didn’t even see the cyclist until he swerved. Maybe he was too busy looking at the cyclist that fell over?
So I think they are both to blame.
Cyclist was 40% to blame and driver was 60% to blame.
Edited to add this image:
This is how far over the driver should have been in preparation to pass the cyclist:
We can see from the video he was absolutely no where near far enough over when he was almost passing.
Driver should have slowed down, waited until they were past the hatched area, moved out to give 1.5 metres, and then passed.
But clearly he was approaching too quickly and intent on passing too closely.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 8th March 11:41
Driver101 said:
NGee said:
He did give the cyclist sufficient room, otherwise the cyclist would be dead.
It's when you read assesments like yours in this thread it becomes clear why driving standards are so poor. Even with the benefit of a video to watch over and over you see things that didn't happen and have zero hazard perception.
monthou said:
Cyclists need to make good observations and they need to ride predictably. Taking the lane is fine, but not without looking.
The driving obviously wasn't great but I see worse from my saddle most days. I'd feel lucky to get away with what he (the cyclist) did there.
Great points; on the same page. It's quite a fascinating topic having a foot in both camps and watching this play out.The driving obviously wasn't great but I see worse from my saddle most days. I'd feel lucky to get away with what he (the cyclist) did there.
I'm an old motorcyclist and when I cycle I use loads of the survival skills from that (eg did the cyclist that fell off lean the bike over a wet smooth manhole cover..?). So, as much as I can, I never entrust my safety to civilian utility drivers
. There is NO WAY I'd have veered out like that on a bike without looking in order to do an U'ie - it's a madness - plus I invested a tenner in a mirror which quadruples my situational awareness. I'd also like to think I'd have paused a couple of secs in the car before going past him too to give a little more space. Sadly there seems to be a lot of 'right but dead' blame game attitudes out there and survival by minimising all possible risk trumps them all.Neither are perfect.
However from the case law I have heard of, the highway code and the video, the driver would have had 100% civil liability had they collided.
Various bits of the highway code cover the drivers behaviour/responsibilities (146, 163, 167, 212, 213, probably missing some).Vs rule 160 (which could be argued is explicitly overruled in the case of cyclists/motorcyclists by 213 and official advice (cyclecraft) suggests keep left can reasonably be interpreted for motorbikes and bicycles as keep to the left most lane - the centre of it is still keeping left; hence why we also have a separate instruction to keep well left on right hand bends), in this case HW code rule 213 applies. (Why did the other cyclist fall? did we just go over something slippery now on wheels that meant they subsequently slipped due to loss of traction, was there debris; Given roadworks might there be more?. The fall is also likely much louder to the cyclist (try to avoid reacting to a loud noise behind you; You can't; It is a built in survival instinct.) You go where you look, hence looking round results in some swerving (yes, we learn to avoid this, but there are limitations to that...) (also see target fixation, e.g. both cyclists and motorcyclists managing to hit things on otherwise clear roads by looking at the obstacle not the space).
No doubt somoene will argue you should then use mirrors. Doing this would almost certainly require making bicycles much wider to provide a big enough mirror, sacrifice the highly visible act of looking round (that is explicitly in the HW code as an indicator (i.e. it should be treated as a signal) and need to deal with a bicycle not being big enough to provide a relatively stable point - a mirror that is shaking around is potentially worse than nothing because you can't reliably see anything in it...
Had the cyclist not swerved, given the proximity of the pinch point and speed of approach, the car would almost certainly have been too close when overtaking anyway. There simply wasn't enough room after the pinch point for them to pull around properly. While it wouldn't even begin to qualify as a bad overtake by the standards of what I experience regularly when cycling, that doesn't mean it was good. Just easing off on approach would have guaranteed the cyclist was properly clear of the pinch point and made the swerve basically irrelevent to a correct overtake.
With regards to hand signals - Had the cyclist given a hand signal their hand would have been in a similar position to the outside point after the swerve; And NO I should not have to wait for you to finish an overtake before signalling; I shouldn't make the manoeuver if you are part way through an overtake, but it is CRITICAL that I can signal AT ALL TIMES as I still need to signal to any vehicles behind you.
The biggest issue this discussion (and twitter) show is the number of dangerous drivers, who rather than taking this fortunately mild incident as a learning experience as to why they are supposed to drive defensively and allow sufficient room are instead busy blaiming the cyclist for a completely normal reaction that the HW code requires they allow for. It isn't good driving to pull off an emergency swerve/stop to avoid the collision in this case; Good driving would have meant that neither was necessary (even if you still want to do so to allow extra margin after it happens...). The twitter OP is a perfect example of the problem; Rather than using this as a learning opportunity (You need to allow cyclists more room because very occasionally things do go wrong) they seem to be hoping people will let them off by blaiming the cyclist.
However from the case law I have heard of, the highway code and the video, the driver would have had 100% civil liability had they collided.
Various bits of the highway code cover the drivers behaviour/responsibilities (146, 163, 167, 212, 213, probably missing some).Vs rule 160 (which could be argued is explicitly overruled in the case of cyclists/motorcyclists by 213 and official advice (cyclecraft) suggests keep left can reasonably be interpreted for motorbikes and bicycles as keep to the left most lane - the centre of it is still keeping left; hence why we also have a separate instruction to keep well left on right hand bends), in this case HW code rule 213 applies. (Why did the other cyclist fall? did we just go over something slippery now on wheels that meant they subsequently slipped due to loss of traction, was there debris; Given roadworks might there be more?. The fall is also likely much louder to the cyclist (try to avoid reacting to a loud noise behind you; You can't; It is a built in survival instinct.) You go where you look, hence looking round results in some swerving (yes, we learn to avoid this, but there are limitations to that...) (also see target fixation, e.g. both cyclists and motorcyclists managing to hit things on otherwise clear roads by looking at the obstacle not the space).
No doubt somoene will argue you should then use mirrors. Doing this would almost certainly require making bicycles much wider to provide a big enough mirror, sacrifice the highly visible act of looking round (that is explicitly in the HW code as an indicator (i.e. it should be treated as a signal) and need to deal with a bicycle not being big enough to provide a relatively stable point - a mirror that is shaking around is potentially worse than nothing because you can't reliably see anything in it...
Had the cyclist not swerved, given the proximity of the pinch point and speed of approach, the car would almost certainly have been too close when overtaking anyway. There simply wasn't enough room after the pinch point for them to pull around properly. While it wouldn't even begin to qualify as a bad overtake by the standards of what I experience regularly when cycling, that doesn't mean it was good. Just easing off on approach would have guaranteed the cyclist was properly clear of the pinch point and made the swerve basically irrelevent to a correct overtake.
With regards to hand signals - Had the cyclist given a hand signal their hand would have been in a similar position to the outside point after the swerve; And NO I should not have to wait for you to finish an overtake before signalling; I shouldn't make the manoeuver if you are part way through an overtake, but it is CRITICAL that I can signal AT ALL TIMES as I still need to signal to any vehicles behind you.
The biggest issue this discussion (and twitter) show is the number of dangerous drivers, who rather than taking this fortunately mild incident as a learning experience as to why they are supposed to drive defensively and allow sufficient room are instead busy blaiming the cyclist for a completely normal reaction that the HW code requires they allow for. It isn't good driving to pull off an emergency swerve/stop to avoid the collision in this case; Good driving would have meant that neither was necessary (even if you still want to do so to allow extra margin after it happens...). The twitter OP is a perfect example of the problem; Rather than using this as a learning opportunity (You need to allow cyclists more room because very occasionally things do go wrong) they seem to be hoping people will let them off by blaiming the cyclist.
PH User said:
The cyclist did swerve without looking which is a big no no.
In this case, he moved over about a foot, maybe 2, hardly a "serve" but any driver should allow for a cyclist (or any vehicle for that matter) moving left/right a foot or two. Regardless, the cyclist is entitled to use any part of that side of the road (most, sensibly keep a couple of feet away from kerb). For all we know that cyclist was going to turn right in a second.If you're driving along and have to "swerve" for whatever reason (mostly an instant reaction to something), you don't look in the mirror/blind spot check before swerving do you?!
All road users should anticipate the vehicle ahead may move suddenly (whether a cyclist slipping/topping over or a car moving to avoid a hazard that falls onto the road etc.) and leave sufficient space.
The cyclist may well be responsible for making themselves far more of a hazard than needed to, however had the car hit the cyclist, the driver would be at fault.
Put it this way, if you were the driver and next day you were in the same situation, would you have tried that overtake again or would you have better anticipation this time round.....
Dracoro said:
PH User said:
The cyclist did swerve without looking which is a big no no.
In this case, he moved over about a foot, maybe 2, hardly a "serve" but any driver should allow for a cyclist (or any vehicle for that matter) moving left/right a foot or two. Regardless, the cyclist is entitled to use any part of that side of the road (most, sensibly keep a couple of feet away from kerb). For all we know that cyclist was going to turn right in a second.If you're driving along and have to "swerve" for whatever reason (mostly an instant reaction to something), you don't look in the mirror/blind spot check before swerving do you?!
All road users should anticipate the vehicle ahead may move suddenly (whether a cyclist slipping/topping over or a car moving to avoid a hazard that falls onto the road etc.) and leave sufficient space.
The cyclist may well be responsible for making themselves far more of a hazard than needed to, however had the car hit the cyclist, the driver would be at fault.
Put it this way, if you were the driver and next day you were in the same situation, would you have tried that overtake again or would you have better anticipation this time round.....
"The anti car attitude"
Honestly, as someone who cycles a lot, you have NO idea about how big, sustained and uninformed the anti bike movement is. Propagated by f
king rags like the Daily Mail, and morons on twitter.
Anyway, looks to me like probably the only things the car could have done differently was be a little slower and give a wider berth, but you can't deny making a move without looking first is asking for trouble.
A lot of the problem with people on bikes is that it takes years and a lot of miles to really be able to ride safety in traffic, and most people just don't do enough of it to get that experience. And because you're the one that's going to come to harm almost in every situation, it really pays to know the road and how people behave inside out. It is the reason that entirely separate lanes are really the only way if you want mass cycling as transport.
Many drivers are of course useless, but if they get it wrong, most of the time its only going to be minor damage to them/the car vs life changing injury.
Honestly, as someone who cycles a lot, you have NO idea about how big, sustained and uninformed the anti bike movement is. Propagated by f
king rags like the Daily Mail, and morons on twitter.Anyway, looks to me like probably the only things the car could have done differently was be a little slower and give a wider berth, but you can't deny making a move without looking first is asking for trouble.
A lot of the problem with people on bikes is that it takes years and a lot of miles to really be able to ride safety in traffic, and most people just don't do enough of it to get that experience. And because you're the one that's going to come to harm almost in every situation, it really pays to know the road and how people behave inside out. It is the reason that entirely separate lanes are really the only way if you want mass cycling as transport.
Many drivers are of course useless, but if they get it wrong, most of the time its only going to be minor damage to them/the car vs life changing injury.
PH User said:
The cyclist swerved as he lost concentration, that's not something that I would be defending.
I'm not defending them (it was hardly a swerve he moved right, albeit erratically, a couple of feet), regardless I'm saying drivers should anticipate this sort of thing, it's really isn't that difficult.Just because someone ahead of you does something stupid, doesn't mean you have to make the whole situation worse!
Killboy said:
£50 says that driver would have instantly failed a driving test if that happened during one
I know this post was just a bit of fun, hence the smiley, but it raises a good point.If that had happened during a driving test, the driver would have failed. Absolutely 100% failed.
1) Approached the cyclist far too fast, did not slow down well in advance.
2) Did not fully anticipate the hazard of the cyclist and the possibility that the cyclist may swerve further into the carriageway.
3) Did not leave anywhere near enough room when about to pass the him.
4) Was overtaking while still in a hatched area.
Given the above, do some people still think the driver is totally blameless?
Lord Marylebone said:
I know this post was just a bit of fun, hence the smiley, but it raises a good point.
If that had happened during a driving test, the driver would have failed. Absolutely 100% failed.
1) Approached the cyclist far too fast, did not slow down well in advance.
2) Did not fully anticipate the hazard of the cyclist and the possibility that the cyclist may swerve further into the carriageway.
3) Did not leave anywhere near enough room when about to pass the him.
4) Was overtaking while still in a hatched area.
Given the above, do some people still think the driver is totally blameless?
Because they have an in-built hate for cyclists, like most of the UK. It really is an embarassing personality trait of our country (one of many). If that had happened during a driving test, the driver would have failed. Absolutely 100% failed.
1) Approached the cyclist far too fast, did not slow down well in advance.
2) Did not fully anticipate the hazard of the cyclist and the possibility that the cyclist may swerve further into the carriageway.
3) Did not leave anywhere near enough room when about to pass the him.
4) Was overtaking while still in a hatched area.
Given the above, do some people still think the driver is totally blameless?
Dracoro said:
PH User said:
The cyclist swerved as he lost concentration, that's not something that I would be defending.
I'm not defending them (it was hardly a swerve he moved right, albeit erratically, a couple of feet), regardless I'm saying drivers should anticipate this sort of thing, it's really isn't that difficult.Just because someone ahead of you does something stupid, doesn't mean you have to make the whole situation worse!
I agree though that you should anticipate poor road use by others.
PH User said:
He erractilly moved right a couple of feet? Or in other words, a swerve.
I agree though that you should anticipate poor road use by others.
Depends how you define a swerve, if a car moved 2 feet right, would that be a swerve?I agree though that you should anticipate poor road use by others.
But, that's besides the point, as we agree it was very poor anticipation by the driver.
PH User said:
He erractilly moved right a couple of feet? Or in other words, a swerve.
I agree though that you should anticipate poor road use by others.
As always with these things, would you treat a horse the same way? If you can say yes, then probably you couldn't have done anything different in a car.I agree though that you should anticipate poor road use by others.
The problem with many drivers is that they've never cycled on the road. So they'll be oblivious to many of the things that you have to seriously be wary of as a cyclist, most in your control of course, but sometimes very hard to avoid.
Cyclist hits a huge pothole and falls into the road, you run him over if you're on his back wheel/giving barely any space
Cyclist rides over a drain cover in the wet and skids out, same as above
Gravel on junctions etc etc same outcome
The roads in the UK are not in bad shape, but there's lots of things that you just don't need to worry about in a car, that you do on a bike. And if you're not giving people space then it is possible you'll end up doing huge damage.
I was cycling years ago in Parliament Sq, I hit a rut in the road which jammed my chain and threw me over the bars, because some
bus driver was right on my wheel he was quite close to killing me, all because of his attitude of sitting 6 ft off my wheel. Idiotic and needless.Funk said:
Bill 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.Cyclist veers out without warning BUT car driver should not be overtaking where there are restrictions (you don’t ever drive onto hatched lines) and as such he passed too close.
Cyclists veer for all kinds of reasons, sometimes it’s their fault, sometimes it’s unavoidable. That’s why you wait until you can give them enough space to pass.
qwerty360 said:
Neither are perfect.
However from the case law I have heard of, the highway code and the video, the driver would have had 100% civil liability had they collided.
Various bits of the highway code cover the drivers behaviour/responsibilities (146, 163, 167, 212, 213, probably missing some).Vs rule 160 (which could be argued is explicitly overruled in the case of cyclists/motorcyclists by 213 and official advice (cyclecraft) suggests keep left can reasonably be interpreted for motorbikes and bicycles as keep to the left most lane - the centre of it is still keeping left; hence why we also have a separate instruction to keep well left on right hand bends), in this case HW code rule 213 applies. (Why did the other cyclist fall? did we just go over something slippery now on wheels that meant they subsequently slipped due to loss of traction, was there debris; Given roadworks might there be more?. The fall is also likely much louder to the cyclist (try to avoid reacting to a loud noise behind you; You can't; It is a built in survival instinct.) You go where you look, hence looking round results in some swerving (yes, we learn to avoid this, but there are limitations to that...) (also see target fixation, e.g. both cyclists and motorcyclists managing to hit things on otherwise clear roads by looking at the obstacle not the space).
No doubt somoene will argue you should then use mirrors. Doing this would almost certainly require making bicycles much wider to provide a big enough mirror, sacrifice the highly visible act of looking round (that is explicitly in the HW code as an indicator (i.e. it should be treated as a signal) and need to deal with a bicycle not being big enough to provide a relatively stable point - a mirror that is shaking around is potentially worse than nothing because you can't reliably see anything in it...
Had the cyclist not swerved, given the proximity of the pinch point and speed of approach, the car would almost certainly have been too close when overtaking anyway. There simply wasn't enough room after the pinch point for them to pull around properly. While it wouldn't even begin to qualify as a bad overtake by the standards of what I experience regularly when cycling, that doesn't mean it was good. Just easing off on approach would have guaranteed the cyclist was properly clear of the pinch point and made the swerve basically irrelevent to a correct overtake.
With regards to hand signals - Had the cyclist given a hand signal their hand would have been in a similar position to the outside point after the swerve; And NO I should not have to wait for you to finish an overtake before signalling; I shouldn't make the manoeuver if you are part way through an overtake, but it is CRITICAL that I can signal AT ALL TIMES as I still need to signal to any vehicles behind you.
The biggest issue this discussion (and twitter) show is the number of dangerous drivers, who rather than taking this fortunately mild incident as a learning experience as to why they are supposed to drive defensively and allow sufficient room are instead busy blaiming the cyclist for a completely normal reaction that the HW code requires they allow for. It isn't good driving to pull off an emergency swerve/stop to avoid the collision in this case; Good driving would have meant that neither was necessary (even if you still want to do so to allow extra margin after it happens...). The twitter OP is a perfect example of the problem; Rather than using this as a learning opportunity (You need to allow cyclists more room because very occasionally things do go wrong) they seem to be hoping people will let them off by blaiming the cyclist.
I have seen a case similar to this where the driver was found not at fault at all. However from the case law I have heard of, the highway code and the video, the driver would have had 100% civil liability had they collided.
Various bits of the highway code cover the drivers behaviour/responsibilities (146, 163, 167, 212, 213, probably missing some).Vs rule 160 (which could be argued is explicitly overruled in the case of cyclists/motorcyclists by 213 and official advice (cyclecraft) suggests keep left can reasonably be interpreted for motorbikes and bicycles as keep to the left most lane - the centre of it is still keeping left; hence why we also have a separate instruction to keep well left on right hand bends), in this case HW code rule 213 applies. (Why did the other cyclist fall? did we just go over something slippery now on wheels that meant they subsequently slipped due to loss of traction, was there debris; Given roadworks might there be more?. The fall is also likely much louder to the cyclist (try to avoid reacting to a loud noise behind you; You can't; It is a built in survival instinct.) You go where you look, hence looking round results in some swerving (yes, we learn to avoid this, but there are limitations to that...) (also see target fixation, e.g. both cyclists and motorcyclists managing to hit things on otherwise clear roads by looking at the obstacle not the space).
No doubt somoene will argue you should then use mirrors. Doing this would almost certainly require making bicycles much wider to provide a big enough mirror, sacrifice the highly visible act of looking round (that is explicitly in the HW code as an indicator (i.e. it should be treated as a signal) and need to deal with a bicycle not being big enough to provide a relatively stable point - a mirror that is shaking around is potentially worse than nothing because you can't reliably see anything in it...
Had the cyclist not swerved, given the proximity of the pinch point and speed of approach, the car would almost certainly have been too close when overtaking anyway. There simply wasn't enough room after the pinch point for them to pull around properly. While it wouldn't even begin to qualify as a bad overtake by the standards of what I experience regularly when cycling, that doesn't mean it was good. Just easing off on approach would have guaranteed the cyclist was properly clear of the pinch point and made the swerve basically irrelevent to a correct overtake.
With regards to hand signals - Had the cyclist given a hand signal their hand would have been in a similar position to the outside point after the swerve; And NO I should not have to wait for you to finish an overtake before signalling; I shouldn't make the manoeuver if you are part way through an overtake, but it is CRITICAL that I can signal AT ALL TIMES as I still need to signal to any vehicles behind you.
The biggest issue this discussion (and twitter) show is the number of dangerous drivers, who rather than taking this fortunately mild incident as a learning experience as to why they are supposed to drive defensively and allow sufficient room are instead busy blaiming the cyclist for a completely normal reaction that the HW code requires they allow for. It isn't good driving to pull off an emergency swerve/stop to avoid the collision in this case; Good driving would have meant that neither was necessary (even if you still want to do so to allow extra margin after it happens...). The twitter OP is a perfect example of the problem; Rather than using this as a learning opportunity (You need to allow cyclists more room because very occasionally things do go wrong) they seem to be hoping people will let them off by blaiming the cyclist.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff