Cyclist ignores red light, gets hit, driver is prosecuted...

[Digby]

Pachydermus said:

really? you stop and crawl past EVERY junction where a car might suddenly decide to turn in front of you? I call complete BS on that one because if nothing else you would have been rear-ended by someone not expecting you to slam on at an open junction.

Anything with two cars, absolutely.

Car on the left? I slow a great deal and stay right as much as possible.

Car on the right? Slow and prepare to enter the road on the left if required.

A scrub in speed and knowing what may happen (along with possible eye contact etc) has kept me in the saddle since the 70's.

The same for my friend riding for 60 years.

You won't avoid all accidents, obviously, but you can cut down on thousands of ones such as those in the vid clip. It all depends on whether you want to or not.

As for "Slam on at a junction"....I can't remember the last time I ever needed to. Again, it's all about planning ahead.

[Pachydermus]

Digby said:

Anything with two cars, absolutely.

Car on the left? I slow a great deal and stay right as much as possible.

Car on the right? Slow and prepare to enter the road on the left if required.

A scrub in speed and knowing what may happen (along with possible eye contact etc) has kept me in the saddle since the 70's.

The same for my friend riding for 60 years.

You won't avoid all accidents, obviously, but you can cut down on thousands of ones such as those in the vid clip. It all depends on whether you want to or not.

As for "Slam on at a junction"....I can't remember the last time I ever needed to. Again, it's all about planning ahead.

I still say unless you come to a complete halt they will get you if they want to get you. I would have been doing 15mph max when I got taken out. How much slower do you think you can go on a motorcycle to avoid someone who turns despite you being there?
Remember that tt in the range rover who wiped out the family last year? I don't recall anyone at the time stupid enough to try and argue they could have avoided it... and yet here you are.

[Digby]

Pachydermus said:

Remember that tt in the range rover who wiped out the family last year? I don't recall anyone at the time stupid enough to try and argue they could have avoided it... and yet here you are.

Maybe I have magic powers *shrugs*

When was the last time you had to slam on your brakes at a junction to avoid the scenario shown in the clip?

For me, that would be never.

Let's try to find out why.

Why are you having to slam on the brakes? Are you not looking ahead, not anticipating an issue, going too quickly etc?

Maybe I can help.

[Pachydermus]

Digby said:

Pachydermus said:

Remember that tt in the range rover who wiped out the family last year? I don't recall anyone at the time stupid enough to try and argue they could have avoided it... and yet here you are.

Maybe I have magic powers *shrugs*

When was the last time you had to slam on your brakes at a junction to avoid the scenario shown in the clip?

For me, that would be never.

Let's try to find out why.

Why are you having to slam on the brakes? Are you not looking ahead, not anticipating an issue, going too quickly etc?

Maybe I can help.

I'm not the one slamming on the brakes, you're the one who claiming you slow to a crawl past every junction although I'd bet you're still going faster than the cyclist in the video above. I still say if someone decides to turn in front of you then unless you do stop at every junction there comes a point where an accident is unavoidable.

[Digby]

Pachydermus said:

I'm not the one slamming on the brakes, you're the one who claiming you slow to a crawl past every junction

Well, no, I didn't say every junction, you assumed.

You talked of slamming on the brakes and getting hit up the arse and I tried to tell you why that has never happened to me.

I'm asking why would you need to slam on the brakes in the above clip?

Why would you need to get hit at all?

Why not assume someone is about to turn?

That's what I do. Never been knocked off in my life.

Pachydermus said:

I still say if someone decides to turn in front of you then unless you do stop at every junction there comes a point where an accident is unavoidable.

Much like I said above, then.

[Pachydermus]

Digby said:

Pachydermus said:

I'm not the one slamming on the brakes, you're the one who claiming you slow to a crawl past every junction

Well, no, I didn't say every junction, you assumed.

right so you're just talking complete bks then.

Digby said:

I'm asking why would you need to slam on the brakes in the above clip?

in the above clip you had he slowed down slightly he probably would have smacked into the back of the car instead of the front. Had he slowed down more he'd get run over by the idiot tailgating him, never mind that you'd never get anywhere stopping at every junction.

Digby said:

That's what I do. Never been knocked off in my life.

neither had I up until the point I was. It just amazes me that you can't see there's a point at every junction where avoiding action becomes impossible unless you come to a stop and wait for everyone else to do the same.

I have an idea, why don't you borrow a dashcam and film one of your masterclass journeys through a busy town so we can see just how much you do or don't slow down at every junction.

[Digby]

Pachydermus said:

It just amazes me that you can't see there's a point at every junction where avoiding action becomes impossible unless you come to a stop and wait for everyone else to do the same.

Instead of appearing to get angry etc, read what I am saying.

I'm talking about the clip. I'm talking about how to avoid such accidents like those in the clip.

I'm talking about how to avoid such accidents in the same situation as shown in the clip.

I said there will still be accidents.

You mentioned slamming on the brakes. Why would you need to in that clip?

In that clip, you see two cars, you slow down. You avoid the accident when the tt in the car pulls across.

What are you talking about? Every single junction known to man with every single variable thrown in?

Carry on. I'm not.

Pachydermus said:

in the above clip you had he slowed down slightly he probably would have smacked into the back of the car instead of the front. Had he slowed down more he'd get run over by the idiot tailgating him, never mind that you'd never get anywhere stopping at every junction.

The car behind would have gone round him and probably smacked into the car.

Everyone may have stopped and then they all got hit by a plane.

Who can say.

There was no need for the rider to hit the car. He probably won't ever again in such a situation now he's learned a lesson, either.

Edited by Digby on Sunday 19th February 20:35

[Randy Winkman]

Pachydermus said:

It just amazes me that you can't see there's a point at every junction where avoiding action becomes impossible unless you come to a stop and wait for everyone else to do the same.

[Hackney]

heebeegeetee said:

The cyclist said he was ticketed for going through an amber, which means the footballer couldn't have passed through on green.

The cyclist also can't remember what happened.
The driver's offence seems to be proceeding when it was not safe to do so, rather than proceeding when he should not have. That would indicate his light was green and there's been nothing to suggest otherwise.

Unless there was some fault with the lights (not reported) the logical conclusion is that the cyclist when through an amber light quite slowly (and would have been able to stop / avoid a collision) or he went through a red.

As I said before: without the cyclist the driver has committed no offence. Without the driver the cyclist has still committed an offence, don't you agree?

[Digby]

Hackney said:

As I said before: without the cyclist the driver has committed no offence. Without the driver the cyclist has still committed an offence, don't you agree?

He clearly stated he doesn't want to discuss the colour of the light the rider passed through. That's not what this topic is about!

It's all about car drivers going on green.

[Digby]

Randy Winkman said:

Pachydermus said:

It just amazes me that you can't see there's a point at every junction where avoiding action becomes impossible unless you come to a stop and wait for everyone else to do the same.

Have one from me, too. I agree with you completely. I'm not sure why you assume I don't.

[Pachydermus]

Digby said:

Randy Winkman said:

Pachydermus said:

It just amazes me that you can't see there's a point at every junction where avoiding action becomes impossible unless you come to a stop and wait for everyone else to do the same.

Have one from me, too. I agree with you completely. I'm not sure why you assume I don't.

because quotes like this indicate otherwise:

Digby said:

My wheel wouldn't have been clipped because, in the scenario shown above, I would have assumed I hadn't been seen and would have been almost stopped and crawling across the junction, waiting to see what was about to happen.

beats me how you avoid someone turning into you when you're already past the point of no return.

[Digby]

Pachydermus said:

beats me how you avoid someone turning into you when you're already past the point of no return.

The rider in the clip only was due to not slowing.

[heebeegeetee]

Hackney said:

1. The cyclist also can't remember what happened.
2. The driver's offence seems to be proceeding when it was not safe to do so, rather than proceeding when he should not have.


3. As I said before: without the cyclist the driver has committed no offence. Without the driver the cyclist has still committed an offence, don't you agree?

1. The cyclist says he's been ticketed for going through an amber. I hope this is untrue, because this is something that drivers do daily en masse, delaying other drivers who have priority.

2. Oh dear god! Still, the mind of the motorist.

3. I totally agree that in any situation where should the circumstances be different, the circumstances would have been different.

If my aunt had bks she'd be my uncle, so I'm don't see the value in "if". Why not just stick to the reality?

[anonymous-user]

Digby said:

Pachydermus said:

beats me how you avoid someone turning into you when you're already past the point of no return.

The rider in the clip only was due to not slowing.

The rider had no reason to slow. Now I appreciate he is the fleshy vulnerable road user in this instance and comes off worse than the car but had he slowed down it would further encourage the car to turn right across his path and the driver may then expect every cyclist to do the same.

That's why it's dangerous to act in a way that is not in accordance with the highway code, it's sets a dangerous precedence. It's like people who flash others out of junctions and into the path of approaching cars... oooh, Someone flashed me, it must be safe, no need to check left or right.....

[Ed.]

pablo said:

Digby said:

Pachydermus said:

beats me how you avoid someone turning into you when you're already past the point of no return.

The rider in the clip only was due to not slowing.

The rider had no reason to slow. Now I appreciate he is the fleshy vulnerable road user in this instance and comes off worse than the car but had he slowed down it would further encourage the car to turn right across his path and the driver may then expect every cyclist to do the same.

That's why it's dangerous to act in a way that is not in accordance with the highway code, it's sets a dangerous precedence. It's like people who flash others out of junctions and into the path of approaching cars... oooh, Someone flashed me, it must be safe, no need to check left or right.....

I recently got my motorbike licence, I was repeatedly told to assume everyone was trying to kill you and look far ahead for possible hazards. In the clip above I would have been concerned about both the car on the left pulling out and the oncoming car turning into the side road as I crossed the pedestrian crossing. I would have slowed down until I was sure neither would hit me, to a stop if necessary then called the driver a tt out of earshot.
The driver was totally to blame but the cyclist could have done more to protect himself. I realise it's a pain to keep stopping and it's a lot easier to get back up to speed on a motorbike but at least you get there. Smidsy moments happen all to often as it is.

[Murph7355]

Ed. said:

I recently got my motorbike licence, I was repeatedly told to assume everyone was trying to kill you and look far ahead for possible hazards. In the clip above I would have been concerned about both the car on the left pulling out and the oncoming car turning into the side road as I crossed the pedestrian crossing. I would have slowed down until I was sure neither would hit me, to a stop if necessary then called the driver a tt out of earshot.
The driver was totally to blame but the cyclist could have done more to protect himself. I realise it's a pain to keep stopping and it's a lot easier to get back up to speed on a motorbike but at least you get there. Smidsy moments happen all to often as it is.

100% on the money.

I drive the same way, even if it slows me down.

[Hackney]

Digby said:

Hackney said:

As I said before: without the cyclist the driver has committed no offence. Without the driver the cyclist has still committed an offence, don't you agree?

He clearly stated he doesn't want to discuss the colour of the light the rider passed through. That's not what this topic is about!

It's all about car drivers going on green.

I do apologise. I've read the post I quoted again and still can't see where he said that. But I must be wrong.

I'm going to quote this anyway:

heebeegeetee said:

On page 2 of this thread I said both were at fault, and I've repeated that on this thread, so you're wrong. It's motorists who can't accept the evidence of the annual statistics, or in this case, the court who did not get their info from the Daily Mail.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 18th February 09:40

The court also fined the cyclist, clearly they did not get their info from the daily mail.
I do agree that both were at fault though.

[RicharDC5]

Ed. said:

In the clip above I would have been concerned about both the car on the left pulling out and the oncoming car turning into the side road as I crossed the pedestrian crossing. I would have slowed down until I was sure neither would hit me, to a stop if necessary then called the driver a tt out of earshot.

But if the car didn't turn everyone else would be calling you a tt out of earshot (and you could potentially get rear-ended).

How do people get anywhere if everyone is slowing down and possibly stopping at every junction where there is traffic waiting to turn when they go past?

You'd have to live in the ass end of nowhere, where there is almost no traffic.

Edited by RicharDC5 on Monday 20th February 16:02

[Digby]

RicharDC5 said:

But if the car didn't turn everyone else would be calling you a tt out of earshot (and you could potentially get rear-ended).

How do people get anywhere if everyone is slowing down and possibly stopping at every junction where there is traffic waiting to turn when they go past?

You'd have to live in the ass end of nowhere, where there is almost no traffic.

Exaggerating much?

The car in the clip is still moving...obvious to someone looking ahead and who has a level of self-preservation or training.

There is another car on the left. It's a dodgy situation and demands caution.

Trying to defend the riders actions by suggesting "slamming on brakes" and "Rear-ended" etc are laughable.

Everyone here suggesting they would have slowed a great deal, will unlikely ever get hit in such a situation.

No doubt, like myself, others have avoided being hit in such situations.

That's a simple fact. There's no reason to debate it.

If you don't like it, rather than telling others how you want them to ride, ride as the guy in the video did.

I certainly won't be. I didn't even as a kid.