The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 4)
Discussion
Chaps, its a priority 'gate'. Your views would be fine if that were not the case, but like it or not the car should not have run through the 'gate' with a vehicle coming the other way. That is all there is to it and given I'm hardly known for my pro cyclist views on here I am surprised anyone else can see if differently.
Seesure said:
Cyclist may have had priority...
But he makes not attempt to proceed with caution or self preservation...
In my opinion (humble or not) it's a great example of how s
te this country has become with road users thinking that because they have right of way they don't have to consider or be aware of other traffic...
In all honesty we need a bit more real Darwinism to wake the dopey majority of mouth breathers up who seem to think they are "entitled" to act the way they want on the roads because they have "uman rites"...
A prime example of "Might is right" there - I'm not condoning the driver of the car...but the cyclist could have considered what may happen ahead on a potential hazard of the road ...
Drivers are becoming more and more aggressive over very minor infractions and DCW's highlight the issue. The 'I'm right, your wrong' aggressive driving mindset IMO is a mental health issue.But he makes not attempt to proceed with caution or self preservation...
In my opinion (humble or not) it's a great example of how s
te this country has become with road users thinking that because they have right of way they don't have to consider or be aware of other traffic...In all honesty we need a bit more real Darwinism to wake the dopey majority of mouth breathers up who seem to think they are "entitled" to act the way they want on the roads because they have "uman rites"...
A prime example of "Might is right" there - I'm not condoning the driver of the car...but the cyclist could have considered what may happen ahead on a potential hazard of the road ...
A lot of people talking about "right of way".
Nobody has "right of way" and the highway code explicitly advises that you should always give way if it can help avoid an incident.
Should the car have followed the van - no, not if they couldn't see the road ahead was clear. But there was no reason for that scenario to result in an collision. Sometimes being right has to come secondary to being safe.
Incidentally - here is the Google streetview of the area this happened:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6412646,-1.20946...
Nobody has "right of way" and the highway code explicitly advises that you should always give way if it can help avoid an incident.
Should the car have followed the van - no, not if they couldn't see the road ahead was clear. But there was no reason for that scenario to result in an collision. Sometimes being right has to come secondary to being safe.
Incidentally - here is the Google streetview of the area this happened:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6412646,-1.20946...
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 19th June 10:14
cb1965 said:
a) Between 20 and 30 and as fast as the cars you say? So it's OK for the cars but not the cyclist?
b) Speed limits don't apply to cyclists anyway.
c) The car following through just followed through ... you should never follow through a priority gate like that... you should always check, doubly so as you don't have priority in that direction.
d) The cyclist probably thought the car following was going to stop.... as it should have done. I admit had it been me I would have been more circumspect, but that is because I treat other drivers like the impatient fools most of them are.
e) I doubt in a court of law the car driver would come out of this with anything other than full blame.
f) My opinion was not humble... that would have been IMHO.
a) The white car had no oncoming traffic. Granted he flew over the speed hump, but NO oncoming traffic. Nothing to avoid.b) Speed limits don't apply to cyclists anyway.
c) The car following through just followed through ... you should never follow through a priority gate like that... you should always check, doubly so as you don't have priority in that direction.
d) The cyclist probably thought the car following was going to stop.... as it should have done. I admit had it been me I would have been more circumspect, but that is because I treat other drivers like the impatient fools most of them are.
e) I doubt in a court of law the car driver would come out of this with anything other than full blame.
f) My opinion was not humble... that would have been IMHO.
b) Are you having a giraffe? So no speed restrictions means it's ok to fly through choke points? Seriously.
c) the car had it's view totally obstructed. As did the cyclist.
d) Assumption. And calling most motorists fools doesn't really make you look impartial.
e) I beg to differ.
f) pedant :-)
Moonhawk said:
A lot of people talking about "right of way".
Nobody has "right of way" and the highway code explicitly advises that you should always give way if it can help avoid an incident.
Should the car have followed the van - no, not if they couldn't see the road ahead was clear. But there was no reason for that scenario to result in an collision. Sometimes being right has to come secondary to being safe.
Incidentally - here is the Google streetview of the area this happened:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6412646,-1.20946...
The speed hump is another reason why the cyclist shouldn't have been approaching that situation with such speed. Nobody has "right of way" and the highway code explicitly advises that you should always give way if it can help avoid an incident.
Should the car have followed the van - no, not if they couldn't see the road ahead was clear. But there was no reason for that scenario to result in an collision. Sometimes being right has to come secondary to being safe.
Incidentally - here is the Google streetview of the area this happened:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6412646,-1.20946...
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 19th June 10:14
cb1965 said:
Chaps, its a priority 'gate'. Your views would be fine if that were not the case, but like it or not the car should not have run through the 'gate' with a vehicle coming the other way. That is all there is to it and given I'm hardly known for my pro cyclist views on here I am surprised anyone else can see if differently.
100% agree that the car should not have run through the gate as he did not have priority. However the car has a flaw, it's human counterpart which clearly did not see the cyclist. Had the cyclist anticipated this, he could have avoided it. This sort of thing happens all the time, particularly when cars have to pass parked cars by going onto the wrong side of the road. Cars behind will blindly follow the leader without checking for oncoming traffic. Does that mean oncoming traffic should plough on as they have right of way, crashing head first into the car which did not have priority? Or perhaps car drivers anticipate other motorists being bellends and adjust their driving accordingly?zedx19 said:
100% agree that the car should not have run through the gate as he did not have priority. However the car has a flaw, it's human counterpart which clearly did not see the cyclist. Had the cyclist anticipated this, he could have avoided it. This sort of thing happens all the time, particularly when cars have to pass parked cars by going onto the wrong side of the road. Cars behind will blindly follow the leader without checking for oncoming traffic. Does that mean oncoming traffic should plough on as they have right of way, crashing head first into the car which did not have priority? Or perhaps car drivers anticipate other motorists being bellends and adjust their driving accordingly?
This. The cyclist is still pedaling, for several seconds, towards the narrowing with no view of what is behind the van, that is appalling anticipation of an extremely common mistake.Dark85 said:
zedx19 said:
100% agree that the car should not have run through the gate as he did not have priority. However the car has a flaw, it's human counterpart which clearly did not see the cyclist. Had the cyclist anticipated this, he could have avoided it. This sort of thing happens all the time, particularly when cars have to pass parked cars by going onto the wrong side of the road. Cars behind will blindly follow the leader without checking for oncoming traffic. Does that mean oncoming traffic should plough on as they have right of way, crashing head first into the car which did not have priority? Or perhaps car drivers anticipate other motorists being bellends and adjust their driving accordingly?
This. The cyclist is still pedaling, for several seconds, towards the narrowing with no view of what is behind the van, that is appalling anticipation of an extremely common mistake.I'm sorry, that cyclist would 100% have been able to see the car following in the final moments before impact, yet they are still pedaling? 
As other posters had alluded to, if that were a car and this was dashcam footage, a point would be made about the differing speeds between vehicles. The car in this case, blindly following the van, is barely moving. The cyclist? Accelerating into danger.
I hope it hurt and he learned a valuable lesson, feel sorry for the driver.
As other posters had alluded to, if that were a car and this was dashcam footage, a point would be made about the differing speeds between vehicles. The car in this case, blindly following the van, is barely moving. The cyclist? Accelerating into danger.
I hope it hurt and he learned a valuable lesson, feel sorry for the driver.
C.A.R. said:
I'm sorry, that cyclist would 100% have been able to see the car following in the final moments before impact, yet they are still pedaling?
As other posters had alluded to, if that were a car and this was dashcam footage, a point would be made about the differing speeds between vehicles. The car in this case, blindly following the van, is barely moving. The cyclist? Accelerating into danger.
I hope it hurt and he learned a valuable lesson, feel sorry for the driver.
Feel sorry for the driver blindly following? The anti cyclist agenda doesn't half lead to some odd conclusions.As other posters had alluded to, if that were a car and this was dashcam footage, a point would be made about the differing speeds between vehicles. The car in this case, blindly following the van, is barely moving. The cyclist? Accelerating into danger.
I hope it hurt and he learned a valuable lesson, feel sorry for the driver.
Cyclist was a prick but the driver was a bigger prick.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6417738,-1.20842...
The googlemaps streetview image coming from the car's direction conveniently has a van in the van's position. There is no way in hell the car could see the speeding cyclist looking at this point of view because the cyclist is entering the area as the fan is still turning across back to it's side. .
When you approach a narrowing like that you approach at a speed in which you can stop within the distance you can see, regardless of mode of transport. When you also consider the cyclist's approach is alongside a school where a kid could run out in-front (even out of hours) my opinion is the bike was going too fast. If that had happened to the cyclist the kid would have been dead, the cyclist appears to be going at racing speed with little consideration for what's ahead. I am of course assuming the video is real time.
From the car's point of view it's reasonable to assume that following a vehicle at slow speed through a single width section is OK a car approaching here would see oncoming cars and know to ceed priority befroe the section and this is the key, before the section. When vehicles are in the narrowing they have priority over vehicles approaching, the car was there first. At 14 seconds you can clearly see the van still moving back onto it's side of the road, with the car in the narrowing whilst the cyclist isstill approaching at speed without any hint of slowing down.
Vision is also more impaired by inconsiderate parking in the area and it's a poorly designed section of road. There's obviously space at the side for a pass round for cyclists as others have stated and looking at the way the grass is worn on the verge it's tends to suggest its what happens.
Coming from a cyclist in my opinion the rider was reckless. I feel there is only minor fault on the driver but it does take 2 to make an accident.
The googlemaps streetview image coming from the car's direction conveniently has a van in the van's position. There is no way in hell the car could see the speeding cyclist looking at this point of view because the cyclist is entering the area as the fan is still turning across back to it's side. .
When you approach a narrowing like that you approach at a speed in which you can stop within the distance you can see, regardless of mode of transport. When you also consider the cyclist's approach is alongside a school where a kid could run out in-front (even out of hours) my opinion is the bike was going too fast. If that had happened to the cyclist the kid would have been dead, the cyclist appears to be going at racing speed with little consideration for what's ahead. I am of course assuming the video is real time.
From the car's point of view it's reasonable to assume that following a vehicle at slow speed through a single width section is OK a car approaching here would see oncoming cars and know to ceed priority befroe the section and this is the key, before the section. When vehicles are in the narrowing they have priority over vehicles approaching, the car was there first. At 14 seconds you can clearly see the van still moving back onto it's side of the road, with the car in the narrowing whilst the cyclist isstill approaching at speed without any hint of slowing down.
Vision is also more impaired by inconsiderate parking in the area and it's a poorly designed section of road. There's obviously space at the side for a pass round for cyclists as others have stated and looking at the way the grass is worn on the verge it's tends to suggest its what happens.
Coming from a cyclist in my opinion the rider was reckless. I feel there is only minor fault on the driver but it does take 2 to make an accident.
Edited by hornmeister on Tuesday 19th June 12:01
cb1965 said:
Chaps, its a priority 'gate'. Your views would be fine if that were not the case, but like it or not the car should not have run through the 'gate' with a vehicle coming the other way. That is all there is to it and given I'm hardly known for my pro cyclist views on here I am surprised anyone else can see if differently.
Spot on!
Cliftonite said:
cb1965 said:
Chaps, its a priority 'gate'. Your views would be fine if that were not the case, but like it or not the car should not have run through the 'gate' with a vehicle coming the other way. That is all there is to it and given I'm hardly known for my pro cyclist views on here I am surprised anyone else can see if differently.
Spot on!"I'm coming through no matter what because it's my priority" is a daft way to drive/ride and will often result in reshaped body parts (vehicle and/or human body parts). It's almost as if the cyclist was either being deliberately belligerent or just hadn't noticed the hazard developing ahead and either one means he/she committed a similar sin as the car that jumped the gate.
Two wrongs don't make paintwork shiny or limbs unbloodied.
hornmeister said:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6417738,-1.20842...
The googlemaps streetview image coming from the car's direction conveniently has a van in the van's position. There is no way in hell the car could see the speeding cyclist looking at this point of view because the cyclist is entering the area as the fan is still turning across back to it's side. .
When you approach a narrowing like that you approach at a speed in which you can stop within the distance you can see, regardless of mode of transport. When you also consider the cyclist's approach is alongside a school where a kid could run out in-front (even out of hours) my opinion is the bike was going too fast. If that had happened to the cyclist the kid would have been dead, the cyclist appears to be going at racing speed with little consideration for what's ahead. I am of course assuming the video is real time.
From the car's point of view it's reasonable to assume that following a vehicle at slow speed through a single width section is OK a car approaching here would see oncoming cars and know to ceed priority befroe the section and this is the key, before the section. When vehicles are in the narrowing they have priority over vehicles approaching, the car was there first. At 14 seconds you can clearly see the van still moving back onto it's side of the road, with the car in the narrowing whilst the cyclist isstill approaching at speed without any hint of slowing down.
Vision is also more impaired by inconsiderate parking in the area and it's a poorly designed section of road. There's obviously space at the side for a pass round for cyclists as others have stated and looking at the way the grass is worn on the verge it's tends to suggest its what happens.
Coming from a cyclist in my opinion the rider was reckless. I feel there is only minor fault on the driver but it does take 2 to make an accident.
Actually , the Google car appears to be showing exactly how it should be done- hanging well back from the van in front of it until van pulls left and leaves a clear view ahead.The googlemaps streetview image coming from the car's direction conveniently has a van in the van's position. There is no way in hell the car could see the speeding cyclist looking at this point of view because the cyclist is entering the area as the fan is still turning across back to it's side. .
When you approach a narrowing like that you approach at a speed in which you can stop within the distance you can see, regardless of mode of transport. When you also consider the cyclist's approach is alongside a school where a kid could run out in-front (even out of hours) my opinion is the bike was going too fast. If that had happened to the cyclist the kid would have been dead, the cyclist appears to be going at racing speed with little consideration for what's ahead. I am of course assuming the video is real time.
From the car's point of view it's reasonable to assume that following a vehicle at slow speed through a single width section is OK a car approaching here would see oncoming cars and know to ceed priority befroe the section and this is the key, before the section. When vehicles are in the narrowing they have priority over vehicles approaching, the car was there first. At 14 seconds you can clearly see the van still moving back onto it's side of the road, with the car in the narrowing whilst the cyclist isstill approaching at speed without any hint of slowing down.
Vision is also more impaired by inconsiderate parking in the area and it's a poorly designed section of road. There's obviously space at the side for a pass round for cyclists as others have stated and looking at the way the grass is worn on the verge it's tends to suggest its what happens.
Coming from a cyclist in my opinion the rider was reckless. I feel there is only minor fault on the driver but it does take 2 to make an accident.
Edited by hornmeister on Tuesday 19th June 12:01
If the original car had done this, he would have seen the bike, and the cyclist, reckless or not, would have gone on his way.
colonel c said:
In my most humble opinion. I blame STRAVA and the likes for this type of incident. The same with many ‘cyclists’ not using cycle paths and lanes etc. They don’t wish to be held up at all and thus ruin their times.
I suspect you may be right. Much money has recently been spent on a cycleway & footpath in one of the villages just outside Cambridge; the other day on the way into work there was a long snake of slow moving traffic, at the front of which was a cyclist on a racing bike. The cycle path was gloriously empty.Europa1 said:
I suspect you may be right. Much money has recently been spent on a cycleway & footpath in one of the villages just outside Cambridge; the other day on the way into work there was a long snake of slow moving traffic, at the front of which was a cyclist on a racing bike. The cycle path was gloriously empty.
Try getting stuck in Stevenage behind a cyclist. This is evidence that despite a 23-mile 13ft-wide extensive cycle network (which is usually faster than taking the roads) will still get ignored by your typical "Tour De France" wannabe. Stevenage Cycle Network Flop
Usual excuses are-
Pedestrians - very unpredictable. If you crash into one you might fall off your bike. Far better to spend it on the roads surrounded by large, faster-moving and unpredictable metal object instead.
Broken glass - yep. Broken glass never, ever appears at the edges of roads, it is specifically reserved for spreading on cycle paths, apparently.
The advantages are very obvious of course-
It's significantly safer - if you get struck by a car while using a cycle path then something has gone very wrong
It's all yours! - finally you can shout at people for getting in your way, instead of getting in the way of everyone else...
colonel c said:
In my most humble opinion. I blame STRAVA and the likes for this type of incident. The same with many ‘cyclists’ not using cycle paths and lanes etc. They don’t wish to be held up at all and thus ruin their times.
Agreed. It encourages a head down, stop for nothing mentality.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff