The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread Vol 3
Discussion
will_ said:
Because "by and large" (whatever that means) they don't.
"by and large" is a commonly used phrase meaning "mostly" or "in general". I'm genuinely surprised you've never heard that phrase before.Are you certain that cyclists are exempt from the majority of laws pertaining to the use of roads (e.g. signage, priority etc.) ?
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 17th January 10:55
will_ said:
He wasn't "tanking up the inside" - he wasn't going fast at all. In addition he slowed at hazards (like the junction) and was covering the brakes throughout.
The van driver could have seen him in his mirror (had he bothered to look) anytime from 21 seconds on the clip to 33 seconds (just before the accident). More than enough time.
Cycling up the inside of traffic is always dangerous. Yet again a modicum of self preservation could have prevented this, irrespective of fault. Perhaps he values the compensation money above the danger and possible consequences.The van driver could have seen him in his mirror (had he bothered to look) anytime from 21 seconds on the clip to 33 seconds (just before the accident). More than enough time.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 17th January 10:57
Mr2Mike said:
will_ said:
Because "by and large" (whatever that means) they don't.
"by and large" is a commonly used phrase meaning "mostly" or "in general". I'm genuinely surprised you've never heard that phrase before.Are you certain that cyclists are exempt from the majority of laws pertaining to the use of roads?
Secondly, that's not what he said.
Try again.
Mr2Mike said:
will_ said:
He wasn't "tanking up the inside" - he wasn't going fast at all. In addition he slowed at hazards (like the junction) and was covering the brakes throughout.
The van driver could have seen him in his mirror (had he bothered to look) anytime from 21 seconds on the clip to 33 seconds (just before the accident). More than enough time.
Cycling up the inside of traffic is always dangerous. Yet again a modicum of self preservation could have prevented this, irrespective of fault. Perhaps he values the compensation money above the danger and possible consequences.The van driver could have seen him in his mirror (had he bothered to look) anytime from 21 seconds on the clip to 33 seconds (just before the accident). More than enough time.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 17th January 10:57
Cycling up the inside of traffic is not "always dangerous" - here, it's where the cycle lane has been put. You would be the first to complain if the cyclist was riding in the middle of the road.
It is dangerous when drivers fail to check properly when swerving into space dedicated to others. I note you make no comment about that. If that was a bus-lane rather than a cycle lane, do you think the van driver would have done the same?
Cycling up the outside of traffic can equally be dangerous. As always, it depends on the circumstances.
I really have no idea what you expect cyclists to do in order not to be blamed in a collision. Not be moving? Not be born? Or maybe, just not be there at all, because you hate cyclists?
Mr2Mike said:
Cycling up the inside of traffic is always dangerous. Yet again a modicum of self preservation could have prevented this, irrespective of fault. Perhaps he values the compensation money above the danger and possible consequences.
What in your opinion should he have done differently then?jke11y said:
I have cycled up that stretch of Kings Road hundreds of times (my old shop is in the video); what happened in the clip is absolutely typical, vehicles would always stray into the cycle lane and cyclists would bomb about totally unawares. I saw a few crashes in my time there, its a narrow bit of very busy road.
If there is a cycle lane you never go into it full stop: = Van drivers fault.Should the cyclist be going slower ? Yes, because people do stupid things and he is soft and breakable.= Silly man
Personal responsibility/The Letter of the Law = this is the debate.
Mr2Mike said:
Cycling up the inside of traffic is always dangerous. Yet again a modicum of self preservation could have prevented this, irrespective of fault. Perhaps he values the compensation money above the danger and possible consequences.
He was riding pretty sensibly really.Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 17th January 10:57
Perhaps there's an outside chance if he'd seen the bus on the other side, and a van coming, he might have anticipated the van driver edging over to give them room, but I think it's a stretch.
It's definitely the van driver's fault, but it's trying to claim he was stationary that makes him the knob for me, rather than it just being an innocent mistake.
Edited by InitialDave on Wednesday 17th January 11:42
will_ said:
Only if it's on film.
Shame you didn't have a camera on your car to video that crash you had with a cyclist (apart from the fact that it was completely made-up).
In your opinion it was completely made up.... that's a massive difference. Fact versus the conjecture of a future organ donor!Shame you didn't have a camera on your car to video that crash you had with a cyclist (apart from the fact that it was completely made-up).
t with your I'm a holier than thou motorist / I'm a holier than thou cyclist bullscb1965 said:
will_ said:
Your true colours shine through again.
Seriously you over sensitive little man, what do expect when you are happy to cast aspersions right, left and centre? FFS, grow a pair!What is the rules on vehicles leaving a bus/taxi/cycle lane with a solid white line in order to merge into the normal traffic lane? For example a taxi wants to leave the bus lane (solid white line) and merge into normal traffic who has right of way?
As it seems peoples inability to yield to one another and general entitlement means that such a question is regularly asked?
As it seems peoples inability to yield to one another and general entitlement means that such a question is regularly asked?
Crosswise said:
Mafffew said:
eldar said:
The article to go along with this is quite scaryhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-42...
"Nicholas Walker, defending, said: "It is only good fortune no-one was very seriously hurt. It is every driver's nightmare to be on a road and see a HGV coming towards them."
He said Hughes has since been diagnosed with sleep apnoea and, when police spoke to him afterwards, he failed every driver awareness test."
"The court heard how Hughes had earlier started feeling sleepy but did not take the opportunity to take a break as he did not want to be late and get in trouble with his bosses." - I've read about this sort of thing a few times, particularly when an incident like this comes up. Is there much truth in it, and how is this allowed to continue?
One example from when I was driving tour buses. A driver on a Christchurch - Dunedin leg felt she was too tired to safely continue driving, nothing irresponsible, she just hadn't slept well. She phoned up her manager and arranged for a relief driver to be sent at a point which would not disrupt the tour as they had a planned stop. Obviously this is not a desirable situation for the company, it's not common to have a driver ready to take over at a moments notice, but she had done what she thought correct in the interests of safety. This was the first instance for this driver, but it was company policy to have a meeting with the driver in such a situation. The outcome, she was taken off tour bus routes and sent to a partner company driving city buses, she took a $3ph pay cut and went from working 60+ hour weeks with great perks to 40 hours.
Laurel Green said:
the stand out thing for me there is that so many of the offending drivers appear to be completely oblivious to everything around them - other vehicles, traffic lights, pedestrians etc. They just sail along until...BOOM!Excellent swears from the aussies as ever.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff