Video: Ninja skills cyclist lands on feet in miracle escape after being hit by car that cuts across him

Rider suffers nothing worse than bruises after spectacular crash sends him and bike flying

by Simon_MacMichael   July 23, 2014  

Romford crash cyclejack YouTube still

A cyclist who decided to swap the train for his bike for his commute into London to get fit escaped with nothing more than bruises after a spectacular crash caused by a motorist turning across him, with the episode filmed by his helmet camera.

The incident happened on London Road in Romford, on only the second occasion the rider, who posted the video to YouTube under the user name Cyclejack, decided to ride to work.

The impact sent both the rider and his bike flying – if you’re at work, you may wish to turn the volume down before watching the video with the rider swearing as he realises he can’t avoid hitting the car.

 

In the video’s description on YouTube, he says: “I was travelling around 22mph through Romford. Drizzly conditions so I was being cautious around bends and roundabouts. I didn't expect this!

“I just about got my hands to the brakes (it can just be seen on the frame before impact) but I had no chance of stopping.

“I'm not quite sure how I wasn't seen. I'm over 6ft and was wearing a bright blue jacket. If I was seen then it's a very bad judgement in my speed.

“After a very uncomfortable trip to the hospital in a neck brace and spinal board and various x-rays I escaped with just bruising. So I consider myself lucky.

“At the time the driver was apologetic and was informed by the police that I was recording my ride and seemed to admit fault. But when it came to my insurance claim against her she disputed it. Safe to say the video has saved me a lot of hassle and 3 weeks later the cheque has already arrived from the insurance company.

“My 4 week old Giant bike was written off but thanks to the guys at Cycle Store they put me one of the two they had left aside and I'm looking forward to getting back out there.”

He adds: “I will say the condition of the cycle lanes are a disgrace along that road, along with many I come across. With the usual obstacles of parked cars, drivers edging out of junctions, pot holes, glass, drains –  why would you cycle in a cycle lane?”

75 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

I'm with the folks urging caution here. It was obvious that that junction had a very good chance of throwing up a problem, when he was well away from it - I started to tense up seeing the two cars (probably only seeing themselves...).

In those cases, slowing down and getting ready to brake / take avoiding action is the best course of action to take. Ploughing ahead at full speed and damning the torpedoes usually ends badly.

Not so much a six pack as a barrel!

posted by Bigfoz [76 posts]
24th July 2014 - 16:32

66 Likes

I can't quite agree whole-heartedly with those who say the cyclist should have been more cautious. This looks to be a very busy road and I'd venture that this guy probably has to negotiate/pass a lot of busy and potentially troublesome junctions on his route. I agree that it's vital to be aware and alert, particually at points like this but to substantially vary pace (enough to make a difference) at every junction he passes is asking too much. He estimates his speed at 22mph which still makes him one of the slowest vehicles on the road. I don't think it's right to expect him to slow down even more to keep safe from incapable drivers.

posted by Matt eaton [490 posts]
24th July 2014 - 16:54

55 Likes

With more cars driving with their lights on permanently, it only makes sense to ride during the day with lights on too.
I have my Lezyne Mini on full flash when I'm in traffic. I get a few drivers flashing me, but at least that proves I'm visible.
You have to over compensate when it comes to visibility. Not all drivers have spotless windscreens and unworn wiper blades. What worries me most is the amount of drivers using their mobiles (and the dope smoking drivers of Chesham).

Get off the computer and onto the bike.

boywoolner's picture

posted by boywoolner [20 posts]
24th July 2014 - 17:19

47 Likes

I know that road pretty well since i work in the area until a couple of weeks ago there was a speed camera in the middle of the road just after that junction mostly facing towards the cyclist (they flipped it round from time to time).
Approaching the junction the car has basically had a long straight run and every single car used to brake down to 30 before that junction.
Now the camera has been taken away no one brakes and i've seen a fair few cars just swing straight into that turning.
Although it just looks like a side street it's actually quite a busy turning as it's the last place before central Romford that you can get under the Rail line saving quite a bit of mileage if you are heading anywhere south of the town.
Personally i must admit that when i cycle across there i'm off the pedals,hands covering the levers and upright eyeballing any cars just in case.
Once you get past the junction it's a clear run for a mile or so and you can get back to leading the peloton in your head.

posted by Ratfink [37 posts]
24th July 2014 - 18:23

40 Likes

7thGalaxy wrote:

If you watch the video there was exactly 2 seconds between the point where the driver clearly moved right ... and the time of impact. Not ideal but still enough time to take some evasive action. He didn't even begin to slow down or slam a left turn to minimise the collision. Mind you, maybe that's what saved him worse injuries in the end.

What a ridiculous load of waffle you've produced here. His speed is perfectly safe for that road, you can't really go everywhere assuming that people (over whom you have right of way) are going to direct their cars at you without warning. I don't slow down for junctions where I have right of way - it's just asking for people to try and squeeze past you. Also it reinforces the 'bicycle is second class on the road' mentality in both the rider and the driver's head.

The car that hits him barely indicates, and clearly isn't looking. There's much less than two seconds, and even in those two seconds, there's not really anywhere to go - turn left you'd still get hit, turn right you'd be in the oncoming traffic + more chance you'd slide and get run over, which would be a lot worse.

You are *so* wrong and your view is so breathtakingly idiotic, if that's how you *really* conduct yourself on the road, that I'm fully expecting your good self to be a personal contributor to the KSI statistics within the next couple of years.

Rule 126 of the Highway Code provides the following advice;

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

That's excellent advice and, believe it or not, it applies to cyclists too. In the video Cyclejack bizarrely maintains his fast pace even though it was apparent that his way could quite predictably be blocked by either of TWO vehicles. At 22mph. On a wet road. Fucking madness in my view.

As a car driver I am legally 'entitled' to drive on a minor road at 60mph. After all, I have the 'right of way' and everything. Do I maintain my speed around a blind bend at that speed? Not a chance. There might be a tractor or a broken-down vehicle in the road. I'm even more cautious when riding my bike because I don't have the protection of a metal cage with air-bags. Truth is, Cyclejack did NOT have a clear road in front of him when 200 yards from the point of collision ... although in his view and yours, he did. Wrong judgement.

Writing my previous post on this subject last night made me slightly late to meet the boys in the pub. When I got there I explained this incident, and my view of it, to my mate Jim, a local taxi driver. His view immediately was that not only should a cyclist have backed off ... but he would have done the same in his taxi (a huge 9-seater Citroen Dispatch). That vehicle is his livelihood and there's no way he is going to risk it being off the road due to "the crap driving of some silly tart" if he can help it. He would very happily 'concede ground' to a smaller vehicle, without the right-of-way, if it enabled him to continue earning a living. It amazes me that you *are* prepared to risk life and limb protecting what you believe to be your 'right of way' ... especially when you know that the only real difference you are ever likely to make will be an addition to the KSI statistics.

If you watch the video there really *was* fully 2 seconds in which to react. Time it yourself. I have done several times. I know that if I had been riding that bike from say 10 seconds before the collision then I know I would have had a least 3-4 seconds to take avoiding action ... from a significantly lower speed. There's no way that car would have hit me because I'd have been able to avoid it. Easily. Yes, I'm 'conceding ground' if you like to the bigger vehicle, but at least I'm alive to report it.

I've never worn a 'cycling helmet' in my life ... because I'd already been cycling perfectly safely for 20 years before the bloody things were invented (worse thing that ever happened to cycling in the UK IMHO). I'll bet that *you* wear one all the time though ... whilst cycling like a reckless dickhead with absolutley no ability to judge the appropriate speed for the conditions. Heigh-ho.

posted by Joeinpoole [308 posts]
25th July 2014 - 2:15

32 Likes

Hindsight's wonderful and I'm sure there's no end of discussion as to whether more high viz, flashing lights would have helped. What struck me (excuse the wording), was what has happened to the traditional way of indicating, slowing down, checking for oncoming traffic and then executing a turn, as opposed to barely slowing and peeling off into the opposite carriageway? Another thing that vexes me a bit is the speed I can get up on a road bike in traffic and the ability to do an emergency stop. I got 'brake checked' recently and was on a hybrid with hydraulic brakes. Stopped just in time but my first thought was that if I was on my road bike I would probably have slammed into the back of the car. Where's the affordable, small, neat fitting, decent picture, robust helmet cam? Reckon they'd sell like 'hot cakes' if someone invented one.

Shades

posted by Shades [233 posts]
25th July 2014 - 8:16

28 Likes

Joeinpoole wrote:
You are *so* wrong and your view is so breathtakingly idiotic, if that's how you *really* conduct yourself on the road, that I'm fully expecting your good self to be a personal contributor to the KSI statistics within the next couple of years.

Rule 126 of the Highway Code provides the following advice;

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

That's excellent advice and, believe it or not, it applies to cyclists too. In the video Cyclejack bizarrely maintains his fast pace even though it was apparent that his way could quite predictably be blocked by either of TWO vehicles. At 22mph. On a wet road. Fucking madness in my view.

As a car driver I am legally 'entitled' to drive on a minor road at 60mph. After all, I have the 'right of way' and everything. Do I maintain my speed around a blind bend at that speed? Not a chance. There might be a tractor or a broken-down vehicle in the road. I'm even more cautious when riding my bike because I don't have the protection of a metal cage with air-bags. Truth is, Cyclejack did NOT have a clear road in front of him when 200 yards from the point of collision ... although in his view and yours, he did. Wrong judgement.

Writing my previous post on this subject last night made me slightly late to meet the boys in the pub. When I got there I explained this incident, and my view of it, to my mate Jim, a local taxi driver. His view immediately was that not only should a cyclist have backed off ... but he would have done the same in his taxi (a huge 9-seater Citroen Dispatch). That vehicle is his livelihood and there's no way he is going to risk it being off the road due to "the crap driving of some silly tart" if he can help it. He would very happily 'concede ground' to a smaller vehicle, without the right-of-way, if it enabled him to continue earning a living. It amazes me that you *are* prepared to risk life and limb protecting what you believe to be your 'right of way' ... especially when you know that the only real difference you are ever likely to make will be an addition to the KSI statistics.

If you watch the video there really *was* fully 2 seconds in which to react. Time it yourself. I have done several times. I know that if I had been riding that bike from say 10 seconds before the collision then I know I would have had a least 3-4 seconds to take avoiding action ... from a significantly lower speed. There's no way that car would have hit me because I'd have been able to avoid it. Easily. Yes, I'm 'conceding ground' if you like to the bigger vehicle, but at least I'm alive to report it.

I've never worn a 'cycling helmet' in my life ... because I'd already been cycling perfectly safely for 20 years before the bloody things were invented (worse thing that ever happened to cycling in the UK IMHO). I'll bet that *you* wear one all the time though ... whilst cycling like a reckless dickhead with absolutley no ability to judge the appropriate speed for the conditions. Heigh-ho.

I'm sorry but I think you are well off the mark here. While its true that the road wasn't clear (there were other vehicles on it), his route certainly was and that's my interpretation of the part of the highway code you have quoted. It's good advice to generaly take care at junctions like this, to cover the brakes and be ready to react if someone does something stupid but to slow down substantially should not be neccesary and in many cases would not be the safest approach. Your pub conversation with a group of friends who have not seen the video doesn't carry much weight but I wonder how fast your taxi driver friend would have been going in the first place and what 'backing off' would consist of. If he was driving at 30mph and took his foot off the gas on approach to the junction his speed might easily have been similar to the cyclist's. Would he really have braked down to sub-20mph just in case someone ignored the way that the roads operate and drove right into him? For a cyclist to slow down like this for no apparent reason would be even worse due to the risk of being rear-ended. A following driver might also assume that the cyclist was turning left and move to overtake (not a wise move but there are a lot of poor drivers on the roads) which could have resulted in a much more serious collision.

Sure, the guy could have been a bit more careful, he could have taken it a bit slower etc., he could have dawdled along on the pavement instead of using the road but it's clear that the cyclist is not really the problem here.

posted by Matt eaton [490 posts]
25th July 2014 - 8:46

38 Likes

Joeinpoole wrote:
7thGalaxy wrote:

If you watch the video there was exactly 2 seconds between the point where the driver clearly moved right ... and the time of impact. Not ideal but still enough time to take some evasive action. He didn't even begin to slow down or slam a left turn to minimise the collision. Mind you, maybe that's what saved him worse injuries in the end.

What a ridiculous load of waffle you've produced here. His speed is perfectly safe for that road, you can't really go everywhere assuming that people (over whom you have right of way) are going to direct their cars at you without warning. I don't slow down for junctions where I have right of way - it's just asking for people to try and squeeze past you. Also it reinforces the 'bicycle is second class on the road' mentality in both the rider and the driver's head.

The car that hits him barely indicates, and clearly isn't looking. There's much less than two seconds, and even in those two seconds, there's not really anywhere to go - turn left you'd still get hit, turn right you'd be in the oncoming traffic + more chance you'd slide and get run over, which would be a lot worse.

You are *so* wrong and your view is so breathtakingly idiotic, if that's how you *really* conduct yourself on the road, that I'm fully expecting your good self to be a personal contributor to the KSI statistics within the next couple of years.

Rule 126 of the Highway Code provides the following advice;

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

That's excellent advice and, believe it or not, it applies to cyclists too. In the video Cyclejack bizarrely maintains his fast pace even though it was apparent that his way could quite predictably be blocked by either of TWO vehicles. At 22mph. On a wet road. Fucking madness in my view.

As a car driver I am legally 'entitled' to drive on a minor road at 60mph. After all, I have the 'right of way' and everything. Do I maintain my speed around a blind bend at that speed? Not a chance. There might be a tractor or a broken-down vehicle in the road. I'm even more cautious when riding my bike because I don't have the protection of a metal cage with air-bags. Truth is, Cyclejack did NOT have a clear road in front of him when 200 yards from the point of collision ... although in his view and yours, he did. Wrong judgement.

Writing my previous post on this subject last night made me slightly late to meet the boys in the pub. When I got there I explained this incident, and my view of it, to my mate Jim, a local taxi driver. His view immediately was that not only should a cyclist have backed off ... but he would have done the same in his taxi (a huge 9-seater Citroen Dispatch). That vehicle is his livelihood and there's no way he is going to risk it being off the road due to "the crap driving of some silly tart" if he can help it. He would very happily 'concede ground' to a smaller vehicle, without the right-of-way, if it enabled him to continue earning a living. It amazes me that you *are* prepared to risk life and limb protecting what you believe to be your 'right of way' ... especially when you know that the only real difference you are ever likely to make will be an addition to the KSI statistics.

If you watch the video there really *was* fully 2 seconds in which to react. Time it yourself. I have done several times. I know that if I had been riding that bike from say 10 seconds before the collision then I know I would have had a least 3-4 seconds to take avoiding action ... from a significantly lower speed. There's no way that car would have hit me because I'd have been able to avoid it. Easily. Yes, I'm 'conceding ground' if you like to the bigger vehicle, but at least I'm alive to report it.

I've never worn a 'cycling helmet' in my life ... because I'd already been cycling perfectly safely for 20 years before the bloody things were invented (worse thing that ever happened to cycling in the UK IMHO). I'll bet that *you* wear one all the time though ... whilst cycling like a reckless dickhead with absolutley no ability to judge the appropriate speed for the conditions. Heigh-ho.

The cyclist's way ahead is clear, he is able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. This is in no way altered by the fact that the car driver fails to yield at the junction.

As you point out the rider has two seconds (nearer 1.5seconds) from car turning to impact. If you take out the 'is she; isn't she' factor he probably has less than a second.
Overall stopping distance is based on thinking distance plus breaking distance.
So lets use your beloved Rule 126 (15th Edition 2007 - i.e. the current one).
On a dry road at 20mph the OSD is 40ft (20ft TD + 20ft BD).
On a dry road at 22mph the OSD is 44ft (22ft TD + 22ft BD).

On a wet road the TD will remain the same but the BD can be doubled so from 22mph the OSD is 66ft (22ft TD + 44ft BD).

Going back to Rule 126 the gap you are recommended to leave between yourself and the vehicle in front is 2 seconds in the dry and 4+ in adverse weather conditions.

From the moment the car driver failed to yield the collision was inevitable. The cyclist has no option but to break as hard as possible and hope that either
1) the car travels across his path quick enough to pass, or
2) that he has scrubbed enough speed off before collision to avoid serious injury.

I can find no fault in the cyclist's actions.

As a couple of side points.
1) Something to consider is that the cycle is fitted with rim-brakes and so there is the added complication of time taken for the brake-pads to cut through the water/dirt film before effective breaking. Even an MTB fitted with hydraulic disc-brakes and treaded tyres would probably not have been able to stop in time from 22mph.
2) Are you saying that on a cycle you would concede right of way at every junction you came to if there was a car waiting to turn or pull out? The vehicle behind is going to wipe you out!

posted by levermonkey [395 posts]
25th July 2014 - 9:25

44 Likes

I ride along that road about three or four days a week. There are lots of opportunities for cars to turn accross you or into the road from either side and as a general rule of thumb I always assume some idiot will do just that regardless of whether they've seen me or not. I also don't tank it (in fact I generally slow down to a 'I can stop or dodge speed') approaching junctions for the same reason. Its not about what I should or shouldn't have to do in principle, it's about what I have to do in reality not to get hit by a car.

posted by McVittees [20 posts]
25th July 2014 - 10:02

45 Likes

so the cyclist got a new bike. great, he already had a new bike 4 weeks ago, so no real advantage or gain there.

did he sue the driver for damages also, ie for being out of action due to th bruising etc and having a lovely trip to th hospital.
luckily he didnt have to sue for any distress caused because he seems like a decent chap who brushed it off and got back on th bike!

further to that, as the police charged the driver for anything? i hope so, but doubt it.

Feel the fear and do it anyway

hood's picture

posted by hood [117 posts]
25th July 2014 - 10:55

35 Likes

I don't think blaming the victim is the right approach at all. The driving was extremely poor and caused the accident. It is easy to criticise with hindsight, and from the safety of your internet connection.

However, experience does teach you that "being right" doesn't always help you continue "being alive". Within 1 week of cycling in Leeds I quickly started assuming that every single opportunity a driver had to do something stupid, they would do it. It kept me safer by being alert to almost every possible danger, and kept me calmer too!

posted by BikeBud [116 posts]
25th July 2014 - 11:49

42 Likes

Watching that clip again and presuming that the camera was mounted on his helmet.
He really doesn't seem to do himself any favours i would have checked behind me at least 3 times along there especially when pulling out past the car sticking right out of the junction.
I would have certainly clocked both cars at the junction and probably the guy by the crossing he seems to be just heads down piling through.
OK that's all fine in a perfect world but things like this happen i agree that it's the drivers fault but it's one of those things that's too easily done especially with the blind spots on some cars if you've not been seen on a first glance and once you are in that blind spot behind the mirror you continue to be in that spot as both the bike and the car head towards collision point you can't just believe they can see you.
Also at the very end he takes off what look like brown lens sunglasses i probably wouldn't have worn them in the rain.
I'll change my user name to mr cautious or something. Wink

posted by Ratfink [37 posts]
25th July 2014 - 15:48

22 Likes

Totally agree with this comment. I am always running the 'What If?' software which come as standard with most human OS. It's how, as a species, we have survived thus far. I understand the buzz that come with speed but unless you are the only rider on a velodrome you cannot just switch off the inbuilt warning system and expect to have a long and happy cycling life. When I cycle, or drive, I set off with the understanding that I am invisible, every other road user is a complete moron and is only looking for an opportunity to mess me up. So at least I have an opportuniy to react to what is ahead of me......getting whacked from behind of course is another matter!! And it does happen. The countryside has the added bonus of panicked animals trying to throw themselves through your spokes and farmers in agricultural vehicles trying to send texts whilst driving. Its good to be cautious and be alive to say why......but this isn't why my username is Chickenlegs Laughing

posted by Chickenlegs [9 posts]
25th July 2014 - 18:24

30 Likes

BikeBud wrote:

I don't think blaming the victim is the right approach at all.

Glad we agree on that. But then you go on saying:

BikeBud wrote:

However, experience does teach you that "being right" doesn't always help you continue "being alive".

Which is you saying the cyclist did something wrong that had he done it right could have prevented this. Which essentially is victim blaming.

"Being right" in this context means one of two things: being right legally and damn the consequences with no regards to the situation at hand, or making sure to be riding safely with regards to the circumstances.

You're implying the former, otherwise you wouldn't have made your second statement. But watching this video I can't see anything about his riding that would make me think it's anything but the latter.

Work harder. Buy a tank.

userfriendly's picture

posted by userfriendly [325 posts]
25th July 2014 - 19:30

32 Likes

The rider was completely in the right with regards to the law. But I personally wouldn't want to take the risk and the high moral high ground of saying 'told you I was right' whilst laying in the back of an ambulance. Unless you can get the attention of drivers crossing your path then look after yourself and try predict worse case.

I generally ride with my rear lights flashing even during bright days and when autumn winter approaches I use my Nite rider on flash mode to make oncoming vehicles aware of my presence. I do get flashed but hell I protecting myself.

posted by CXR94Di2 [228 posts]
26th July 2014 - 8:48

12 Likes

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

It was clear, and should have remained so. End of story.

posted by dazbert [3 posts]
26th July 2014 - 13:47

12 Likes

dazbert wrote:
"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

It was clear, and should have remained so. End of story.

Unfortunately most of us don't ride in your perfect world in which drivers always see a cyclist approaching, correctly judge their speed and never make a mistake. That's why we need to anticipate such issues before they happen and adapt our riding according to the conditions.

Cyclejack was always going to come a cropper riding like that. If not that day then it would have happened another day. I just hope he learns from it and quickly. Had he landed slightly more awkwardly on that occasion he could have broken his neck and been paralysed. It's just not worth taking that sort of risk to save a couple of seconds or to 'assert your rights' as a road-user.

posted by Joeinpoole [308 posts]
26th July 2014 - 14:57

2 Likes

Joe, I agree that we need to be cautious. And I'm pretty cautious myself; people will always make mistakes.

But I don't see car drivers slowing down every time they see someone ahead who could potentially move in front of them. I don't see motorcyclists doing it. And I don't see them being pilloried as reckless whenever they're involved in an accident which was not their fault, despite the fact that they travel far faster than 22mph.

posted by dazbert [3 posts]
26th July 2014 - 15:19

7 Likes

Joeinpoole wrote:
It's just not worth taking that sort of risk to save a couple of seconds or to 'assert your rights' as a road-user.

Eh, what?

He was in the middle of a lane, going straight ahead at a moderate pace.

If that's "assert your rights" in your book, then we're all f-ed.

He was riding the way he's supposed to in that instance, and the driver is a complete moron, cutting across without looking.

posted by jacknorell [572 posts]
26th July 2014 - 15:23

8 Likes

"I didn't get hit by a vehicle today, unlike this chap, which is clear evidence of my superiority as a human being and right to existence" - There's a really icky logic behind these sorts of posts. It's as though people will do anything do assert that the reason they haven't suffered the bad fortune of another is because they are intrinsically more 'skilful' or apt in some regard that the unfortunate person isn't. It's a vulturous habit of using other's misfortune to feed one's fragile ego.

The existence of persecuted people who condemn other equally persecuted people is hardly new or rare. It's always easier to define oneself by the established system - even if one is demeaned by it - than to subvert it. It's why you get that one anxious guy who hangs with the cool kids despite being constantly abused. It's the moral of the brother who runs away with the White Witch in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and it's the reason why women can be just as sexist as men, and in the same direction. And it never gets any less horrible.

It's one thing to be hit by a car, despite being within one's rights. It's another thing to be hit by a car, despite being within one's rights, and then be scorned by a legion of other cyclists making vague assertions that one somehow 'deserved it' for not being as savvy and clever as they are.

Greater things than can be achieved with a united front than with snide internal bickering. And a little sympathy can't hurt along the way.

posted by Quince [204 posts]
26th July 2014 - 15:43

19 Likes

Aye. Great post, Quince. Take all my likes.

Work harder. Buy a tank.

userfriendly's picture

posted by userfriendly [325 posts]
26th July 2014 - 16:05

5 Likes

[[[[[ JOEINPOOLE---so how's things in Cloudcuckoo-land? The driver here is 100% at fault. Are you suggesting this collision could not have happened if the cyclist had been riding at, say, 15mph instead of 22mph? Get a grip! I got hit in exactly the same way, by an oncoming driver turning right across me, when I had just taken off (AT JUST 7MPH) from a green traffic light.
When I asked the driver to explain himself, he had nothing to say, but finally one of his four mates realised he'd better say something, so he did. "Fuck off!". Not much of an apology, but I'm sure I have only myself to blame, for talking too fast--eh Joeinpoole?
P.R.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [306 posts]
27th July 2014 - 0:13

12 Likes

This is turning out to be a really illuminating discussion on the differing perception and attitudes of different cyclists. Good!

I'm starting to wonder if there really *is* a very significant difference in the risk-awareness or the risk-avertness between the helmet-wearing brigade and the never-worn-a-helmet-in-my-fucking-life camp (count me in the latter).

Seems to me that the "helmet-wearing+GoPro camera" brigade in particular somehow think that they are invincible on the road provided that at least *they* follow the HC.

No allowance whatsoever is made for any other road user because our helmet-cam warrior *knows* that he is in the right. Always.

Me? I just ride defensibly according to the conditions. All I really want is to get to my destination without a visit to A&E or the morgue or a road-rage incident.

Cyclejack *didn't* ride defensibly and very nearly paid a very high price for not doing so. If he had died at least he could have had "I had the right of way" written on his tombstone. That would have made it worthwhile wouldn't it?

posted by Joeinpoole [308 posts]
27th July 2014 - 1:13

3 Likes

No, but I'm sure his family would appreciate it if you didn't then urinate all over said tombstone and engrave "I'm still alive lol" into the side, before moving onto the grave of the next 'helmet cam-warrior' with unreserved glee.

"It's dangerous on them roads, y'know? Not safe for you on yer' little push bike. I dunno what some people are thinking, it's like they got a death wish summet'! I dun' care what the law says, if you get hit, it's not going to make an 'ole lot of difference, is it? If you want to stay safe, use a car, I say!" - Isn't that the logical conclusion of this sort of thinking?

Do cyclists 'bring it on themselves' for riding at 22mph? Do they 'bring it on themselves' for riding in the wet? Do they 'bring it on themselves' for riding a bicycle at all?

I hope that whatever you do, if doesn't result in injury or death, but using another's misfortune as a platform to demonstrate your personal superiority in the field of survival is in bad taste. Rather than picking fault with the individual who has failed to be protected by a system that should support him, why not question the system itself?

posted by Quince [204 posts]
27th July 2014 - 9:22

7 Likes

So Joeinpoole, let me try and get my head round your position.

Person A is walking down the left hand side of a wide pavement. Up ahead he sees Person B walking towards him on the opposite side of the pavement. As they come almost level with each other Person B suddenly and without prior warning produces a pickaxe helve and smashes Person A in the face.

According to your world view
Person A is completely at fault. He should have expected the attack, he should not have been walking down the pavement, he should not have got his face in the way of the helve.
Person B is innocent, how could he possible know that someone would be recklessly expecting to share the pavement and get in his way.

Have I got that right? If so I think you need to go and take a long hard look at yourself and your moral compass.

I look forward to your gratuitously offensive reply. Waiting

posted by levermonkey [395 posts]
27th July 2014 - 10:54

10 Likes

levermonkey wrote:
Have I got that right? If so I think you need to go and take a long hard look at yourself and your moral compass.

You'll need to supply a map to the moral compass store before that happens.

posted by jacknorell [572 posts]
27th July 2014 - 11:39

7 Likes

levermonkey wrote:
So Joeinpoole, let me try and get my head round your position.

Person A is walking down the left hand side of a wide pavement. Up ahead he sees Person B walking towards him on the opposite side of the pavement. As they come almost level with each other Person B suddenly and without prior warning produces a pickaxe helve and smashes Person A in the face.

According to your world view
Person A is completely at fault. He should have expected the attack, he should not have been walking down the pavement, he should not have got his face in the way of the helve.
Person B is innocent, how could he possible know that someone would be recklessly expecting to share the pavement and get in his way.

Have I got that right? If so I think you need to go and take a long hard look at yourself and your moral compass.

I look forward to your gratuitously offensive reply. Waiting

What an utterly ridiculous and puerile comparison.

Go right ahead then. Plough on at maximum speed, irrespective of the conditions, and just *trust* that every driver has seen you and correctly evaluated your speed before making their manoeuvre (always assuming that the driver actually cares about cyclists). Because you know that you "have the right of way", all drivers are properly qualified and insured and the law of the land will protect you.

Good luck with believing that the silly bit of polystyrene that you strap to your head will help you more than using your judgement and riding according to the conditions.

I am literally astounded that the concept of 'defensive riding', as taught by *every* reputable cycling or motorcycling school, is received with such hostility by the majority of forum contributors on road.cc. Weird!

posted by Joeinpoole [308 posts]
27th July 2014 - 23:55

2 Likes

Joeinpoole you're wrong on just about every count.

1. The cyclist has the right of way. The car should not turn across him.

2. The cyclist is doing a cruising speed. He is not accelerating at the crossing.

3. He has no time to react as the car moves very late across his path.

Despite your assertions he has no chance to pull evasive action. I'm sure if he did he would have. I can't see him wanting the possible hospital time. Whether he was wearing a helmet or not the incident would have been the same, but maybe not outcome given his helmet breaking (I'm not entering into an argument on helmet safety, but that in this case it plays no part in altering the cyclists behaviour as you assert - though the cracked helmet would suggest it saved his cranium a severe blow).

You do have to keep a beady eye out for all road users on a bike but you cannot legislate for poor driving - except to punish it.

posted by Colin Peyresourde [1200 posts]
28th July 2014 - 7:36

6 Likes

Joeinpoole wrote:
levermonkey wrote:
So Joeinpoole, let me try and get my head round your position.

Person A is walking down the left hand side of a wide pavement. Up ahead he sees Person B walking towards him on the opposite side of the pavement. As they come almost level with each other Person B suddenly and without prior warning produces a pickaxe helve and smashes Person A in the face.

According to your world view
Person A is completely at fault. He should have expected the attack, he should not have been walking down the pavement, he should not have got his face in the way of the helve.
Person B is innocent, how could he possible know that someone would be recklessly expecting to share the pavement and get in his way.

Have I got that right? If so I think you need to go and take a long hard look at yourself and your moral compass.

I look forward to your gratuitously offensive reply. Waiting

What an utterly ridiculous and puerile comparison.

Go right ahead then. Plough on at maximum speed, irrespective of the conditions, and just *trust* that every driver has seen you and correctly evaluated your speed before making their manoeuvre (always assuming that the driver actually cares about cyclists). Because you know that you "have the right of way", all drivers are properly qualified and insured and the law of the land will protect you.

Good luck with believing that the silly bit of polystyrene that you strap to your head will help you more than using your judgement and riding according to the conditions.

I am literally astounded that the concept of 'defensive riding', as taught by *every* reputable cycling or motorcycling school, is received with such hostility by the majority of forum contributors on road.cc. Weird!

1) The comparison is neither ridiculous nor puerile as that is effectively what happened.

2) Don't know how this ended up as a helmet debate. I certainly never brought it up. For your information I am neither pro- nor anti-helmet but pro-informed choice. For everyday riding and commuting I don't wear one, my choice.

3) The car driver failed to see a cyclist doing 22mph so they would not have seen a motorcyclist at 30mph. If the cyclist had been travelling at 10mph and was closer to the car he would still have been wiped out as the car driver DIDN'T SEE HIM AND FAILED TO YIELD.

4) The rider was in the secondary position on the road and should have been easily visible to the car driver. He WAS riding defensively.
If you wanted to be hyper-critical, and I don't, you could argue that he should have moved to the primary position.

You were wrong in your original post and you have remained wrong since.

posted by levermonkey [395 posts]
28th July 2014 - 16:39

5 Likes

To throw in a couple more points: surviving the commute is in no-one's interest more than the person filming. Giving one-off, vague, moralising and self-aggrandizing 'advice' to a person who probably isn't even reading reeks of smugly indulging one's ego and trying to use the unfortunate person as a rung to climb a step higher on the 'ladder of worth'.

Not only do your comments do nothing for the victim in question, but they enforce the assumption that it is the weak, the vulnerable and the few who must answer to the demands of those who find themselves in positions of power. In the video in question, the driver actually accelerates INTO the rider. Before the crash, the driver's velocity is near 0, while the rider's is around 22mph - well below what I assume to be the 30mph limit. Should each road user become momentarily brain dead and continue at the same velocity, the rider would have crossed safely, and the driver would have remained stationary at the turning point. However, the driver mades a conscious choice to press forward, either not looking, not thinking, or not caring, and actively changes state so as to cause the collision. It is spectacularly bad driving. Thankfully, it is so spectacularly bad as to be relatively rare. Nonetheless, the rider has unfortunately become the victim of such rarely spectacularly bad driving.

No matter what one does, one is never free of risk entirely. The nature of the internet is to push the most noteworthy content into the public view, which normally ends up being the most uncommon. No matter how safe your riding style, if we took a million Joeinpooles and stuck cameras on each of their heads, one of them would no doubt come a cropper of bad driving at some point. Then we could all be arguing about that video instead.

I'm sorry to launch such a personal attack, but some of these comments come across as tasteless, pointless, and with a whiff of personal agenda about them.

Yes, it is in each of our interests to ride, not only within the lines of the law, but in a manner that keeps us safe. However, as this video demonstrates, none of us are completely free from the actions of others. Gloating about how you were not hit by a falling piano while another was, would be in bad taste. Similarly, gloating at the misfortune of another who was not only riding rightfully, but perfectly sensibly, is also - in my view - in bad taste.

In short; the rider was using the roads as well as can be expected, the driver was using them thoughtlessly, recklessly and dangerously. There are two sentient beings involved in this collisions, and you have chosen to proportion blame to the person who is not only the victim, but who actions weren't life threateningly stupid.

Here's some better road advice: "When I drive my car, I make sure to check there are no oncoming vehicles that I will definitely collide with when I accelerate away from a turning point". It generally does the trick.

I'm sorry (again) to be snide or catty, but that's really what I think on the whole thing, and your approach to it. x

posted by Quince [204 posts]
28th July 2014 - 19:36

7 Likes