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?”
76 thoughts on “Video: Ninja skills cyclist lands on feet in miracle escape after being hit by car that cuts across him”
Lucky to escape without
Lucky to escape without breaking anything there. I love how in the moment of realisation that there’s nothing that can be done, he comes out with some classic Anglo Saxon language.
Hope he got back on the bike soon
A very lucky escape. Also, in
A very lucky escape. Also, in the 20 seconds of video before the “accident” I counted 5 vehicles either parked in or encroaching into the cycle lane!
NeilG83 wrote:A very lucky
A few encroaching, but none parked. Those are parking bays, you can thank the genius council for another great piece of legacy cycling infrastructure.
Seriously, I’m going to have
Seriously, I’m going to have to stop looking at Road CC news as I am starting to get anxious about riding my bike. I get near misses on virtually every ride I do, but incidents like this scare me witless 🙁
andybwhite wrote:Seriously,
Same here, at least on any decent ride on proper roads. Around town is usually OK, typical numties but usually not too hairy.
Dear road.cc
Please post a
Dear road.cc
Please post a youtube video of someone have a really nice, peaceful, relaxing ride in some beautiful countryside.
Ideally, it should contain friends and cake.
Best wishes,
Your readers.
bikebot wrote:Dear
Here you go, my most recent… http://youtu.be/9qmJc1tLCUs
B-)
bikebot wrote:Dear
Seconded! (and don’t forget a light tail-wind, too).
bikebot wrote:Dear
http://lvis.org.uk/lvis-audax-2014-part-2/
Quote:Dear road.cc
Please
The Wen to Wen promises bucolic rewards, betwixt the Wens.
How about this?
How about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPO_tUfAgzY
The four of us were doing a recce ride for a later group ride. A cracking few days in France with every car we saw automatically giving way to us even when we were being idiots.
bikebot wrote:Dear
+lots!
Absolutely nailed the landing
Absolutely nailed the landing though, must have done some gymnastics at some stage.
“you may wish to turn the
“you may wish to turn the volume down”. lol, understatement! Pretty hushed in the parish office today, most of the nuns are in, quietly working away. Might just see what this video is all about, I thought..
Quote:Dear road.cc
Please
Agreed – Roadcc, you’re sending out totally the wrong message by focussing on these stories. We ride bikes because we enjoy it and seeing repeated stories about collisions suggests cycling is dangerous rather than enjoyable. c 120 cyclist died in the UK last year, and 50,000 died of heart disease so sitting at home on the sofa is actually far more dangerous.
If it helps, I’m starting to avoid using roadcc because of the focus on the negativity. You may want to let your advertisers know that!
There’s plenty of campaigning groups fighting hard for our rights and our protection so if you show fewer of the negative stories I’m sure we won’t lose out
Wow, lucky to get away with
Wow, lucky to get away with no serious injuries from that! It’s amazing really that the driver tried to contest being at fault, given she knew it was on video. It was a very poor piece of driving.
I can’t believe the driver
I can’t believe the driver tried to dispute the claim… or was it the insurance company doing that on the drivers behalf?
The poor cyclists didn’t see that car until the last minute did they?
I’m loving the videos, you’re
I’m loving the videos, you’re drowning out another scary story with a feel good vibe that makes me want to go explore somewhere I’ve never been. =D>
Though I’ll probably discover another sodding hill X(
Take note editors.
O M G ! I can only concur
O M G ! I can only concur riding on the roads with any traffic around you is dangerous. Period. Thousands of cyclists are crashed into every year and they sustain minor to serious injuries sadly a small proportion are killed simply for riding their bikes. This needs to be addressed. Not showing footage such as this where it exists does cyclists and cycling a massive disservice as in many instances on the roads we are still seen as a nuisance or inconvenience to be pushed or shoved out the way.
In this instance although the woman appears to have admitted she was at fault to the police, it is not clear whether she has been prosecuted which she SHOULD BE for such awful driving, but the bitch then allegedly denied it was her fault when the cyclist claimed against her insurers.
Unfortunately head cams have become a necessary piece of recording equipment when cycling. Without one you risk getting absolutely no justice as you are not taken seriously. If you have one and a well positioned one with a good picture you at least stand a chance of getting pathetic justice. As has been seen in many many previous instances where cyclists have been knocked down drivers lie through their teeth to try avoid blame and prosecution for their dangerous and terrible driving. A head cam might not save your life but it might prevent the driver from getting away with what they have done to you by telling a pack of lies as your head cam will hopefully show what actually happened.
It will help scare some
It will help scare some drivers into realising their driving has consequences other will now believe if they bat into a cyclists who’s travelling at a reasonable speed they just swear a lot and walk off fine…
Lucky boy to escape that
Lucky boy to escape that without serious injury and what utterly s***e driving!
I must be very lucky (and I am tempting fate here horribly) – 20 years commuting and this sort of thing has never happened to me. If I see a driver ahead waiting to make a right turn I assume they will not see me and slow down just in case. Does make me think a helmet cam is worth getting though.
Is it the Netherlands where there is a presumption of car driver fault in any accident with a bike?
Col Nago wrote:
Is it the
It’s every European country with the exception of UK, Ireland, Romania, Malta, and Cyprus.
userfriendly wrote:Col Nago
All parts of the old British Empire, and Romania. If its good enough for Hungary, its good enough for us.
Col Nago wrote:Lucky boy to
Agreed. Every sympathy to Cyclejack but I’ve got to say he is braver (if that’s the right word) than me cycling full-on at 22mph in those conditions. It was raining (so bike brakes less effective), he was approaching a junction with one car obviously turning right, across his path, and another car turning left out of the junction, and again across his path. Many car drivers simply do not expect bikes to be approaching at speeds of 20mph+. I know that they’re at fault but it is the cyclist who is going to get hurt. Either of those drivers *might* have pulled out so you do what you need to do to protect yourself.
I would always have backed off pedalling and be covering the brakes whenever approaching a junction like that. I want to make eye-contact with the driver/drivers before I even begin to relax. I can’t be alone in that surely?
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.
If you watch the video there
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.
7thGalaxy wrote:
If you watch
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.
Joeinpoole wrote:You are *so*
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.
Joeinpoole wrote:7thGalaxy
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!
“Drive at a speed that will
“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.
dazbert wrote:”Drive at a
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.
Joe, I agree that we need to
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.
Joeinpoole wrote:It’s just
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.
The admission of guilt on the
The admission of guilt on the Police statement should surely have made the video evidence secondary in the insurance claim?
Glad he made such a graceful landing and was relatively unhurt.
WOW!!!!!!!!! 6 numbers for
WOW!!!!!!!!! 6 numbers for Friday Night plz.
For you’re own sanity don’t
For you’re own sanity don’t read the YouTube comments on the video. Several mouth-breathing trolls wittering on about him going too fast or suggesting he is in it for the compensation money ~X(
GrahamSt wrote:For you’re own
A lot of the mouth breathers are accounts created by campaigners from the “Drivers Union”, who regularly troll any cyclist video on Youtube. All the regular cyclist channels have blocked them, but when a video gets a bit of media coverage they dive in.
A lot of people believe that the “JollySelfRighteous” account is an alias created by Keith Peat, due to the similarities in prose and often bizarre arguments.
I presume the (lying) driver
I presume the (lying) driver is facing a charge of driving without due care and attention, or is that wishful thinking?
To the people complaining
To the people complaining about accident videos on road cc, they are trying to raise awareness of the issue, if enough people stamp their feet something more might be done to improve safety for cyclists. When councils put in proper cycling infrastructure, when drivers are better educated, when idiots realise they face more than a slap on the wrist for dangerous driving, these videos will be far less common.
I’m so glad I don’t live in London, I have to deal with idiots but they’re nowhere near as bad as this, creeping out of junctions into the road, cycle lanes disappearing under cars. Fair play to the rider for wanting to get back on the bike, that could easily have scared him off from ever riding to work again.
IanRCarter wrote:To the
Campaigners don’t preach to the choir!
I am in Holland at the
I am in Holland at the moment. What a revelation, the array of cycling of all ages. The segregated cycle paths all over the place. Cars have to stop for cyclist crossing junctions. My son and I have just cycled 20 miles on dedicated tracks from one town to another without hardly touching a road. Why why can’t Britain adopt some of these fantastic ideas?
CXR94Di2 wrote:I am in
The big difference is that their seems to be a genuine desire in the Netherlands to make cycling the first choice for local travel. For this reason cycles are prioritised at junctions, thus rewarding those who make the positive choice to cycle. In the UK the opposite is true. There is no political will to change behaviors in the mainstream so cyclists continue to be de-prioritised. In other words, they want us to drive cars for travel and use bikes for sport/leisure. Even where we see cycle infrastucture it almost always serves motorists more than cyclists.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Because no one in this country, other than cyclists, actually give a shit.
Guys. OK so the videos are
Guys. OK so the videos are frightening. Do something about it. Badger your MP, your council, your local plod.
That just gave me chills, I
That just gave me chills, I had a very similar accident last year. I hit slightly further back on the car so came to a dead stop. I was off the bike for six months and am just getting back to it.
I didn’t have such a quick experience claiming…
Did the Police prosecute the
Did the Police prosecute the driver?
Citroën is cyclist-friendly
Citroën is cyclist-friendly vehicle though.
Bike lanes are dangerous,
Bike lanes are dangerous, check out this link.
http://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ
“But when it came to my
“But when it came to my insurance claim against her she disputed it.”
Because you have to deny responsibility in all insurance claims so lawyers get their share. Where is the fun in putting your hand up and saying; I am responsible, I got it wrong, I’m sorry.
kitkat wrote:”But when it
This is a common misconception. You don’t have to deny liability – your insurance policy requires that you don’t admit liability, which is something quite different. You shouldn’t lie (and your insurance policy can’t require that you do) but you should, according to your policy, simply say nothing about fault. That isn’t so lawyers get their share (most of these things never see a lawyer, and are dealt with by claims handlers), it is so that insurance companies can assess the circumstances away from the heat of the moment and take view on whether they will have to pay out. Obviously, they then play a game of trying to minimize the amount, and some of them do that more scrupulously than others – that’s the joy of commercial insurance policies. But don’t be fooled into thinking that your insurance requires you to deny liability or to always claim it wasn’t your fault.
I am surprised and pleased in
I am surprised and pleased in equal measure that the video was sufficient evidence for the insurance. Whether or not it was sufficient for the police is another matter….
On the issue of reporting these collisions, there are a couple of things to consider. Firstly, yes, there is possibility that such videos “dangerise” [Ugh I hate that word] the activity. Which as people already have anxiety of cycling would only heighten that. However, I am guessing that the intended audience for road.cc is the cyclist and they already manage the risk and know things like “it is only as dangerous as gardening”. Indeed, road fatalities (for motorists) are so common place that unless it impacts on a region like closing a major motorway for several hours or involves a tragic instance, whole family dies, then it might not even make regional news. Another thing to consider is that good news doesn’t sell. A video of my having a pleasent ride in the sun getting a PB on strava doesn’t get as many views as the time the mini pulled out from a side road and I dodged it doing 40mph (it was on a downhill section). The other thing to consider, and this is probably the most important part, virtually every one of these collisions (I don’t use the word accident as someone is to blame either through their dilberate action or inaction) it shows motorist privilidge. It demonstrates the inequality that we face every day on the roads and what the result of these can be. The guy who overtook me this morning as I was turning right, the guy who pulled out on my on the roundabout while we never hit and I never felt threatened it was a demonstration that I was considered less of a person because I didn’t have a motor. The rule of prvilidge is dangerous and those who are privileged often do not see it, they will say things like well you are treated the same under law, infact you have bonuses as you don’t pay road tax or have insurance or have to pass a test and cycle through all the red lights and on pavements. So then you have the argument that it is VED and it’s through tax you pay for roads and ultimately a bike travelling at 20mph has roughly 10% the energy of a small car hitting someone at 20mph so of course there is a difference, you don’t need a gun licence to own a waterpistol. Then you cite how you are cut up and near misses and all the other behaviour that you are subjected to while on a bike that you just don’t get when driving.
It is for this priviledge that I think road.cc highlights these issues as if you don’t stand up and say, this is unfair, this is a result of being treated as a second class road user, that you allow such behaviour to continue.
Should have gone back and
Should have gone back and chinned the driver
bikebot wrote:A lot of the
Yeah I know there are some professional trolls on YouTube, but sadly it’s not just there. The video got picked up by the “Uni Lad Mag” on Facebook and some of the comments there are even more depressing: loads of stuff about how it was definitely the cyclists fault (!?!), he has no right to be on the road, should have been on the pavement, doesn’t pay road tax etc etc etc
I despair for humanity some times.
Oh good, I see the Daily Mail have got hold of it now…
The standard of driving all
The standard of driving all through the video is bad. Lots of cars well out into the road while pulling out, even over kerbs. Way worse than anything I see around Cambridge, but in general that is normal for the London area.
However, in those circumstances, and seeing that kind of behaviour and given that it’s wet I would be a lot more cautious about my speed. Normally when commuting I don’t do much above 20 (and average around 15) and only when the road is clear for a while. In the wet and on those kinds of roads I would say 12-15 is the max I would do. Going past a junction you should be in primary position well before it which might discourage such a right turn, (and the left hook). Even then you can’t be certain you won’t have a similar accident but it should reduce the chances of it happening. Covering your brakes at all times is essential but in the wet he stood absolutely no chance of stopping in that time scale.
Very lucky man but I would suggest he or any other inexperienced cyclist does a Level 3 course in bikeability or reads ‘Cyclecraft’ before venturing out onto such a dangerous road. If possible find a better route.
I’m with the folks urging
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.
I can’t quite agree
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.
With more cars driving with
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).
I know that road pretty well
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.
Hindsight’s wonderful and I’m
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.
I ride along that road about
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.
so the cyclist got a new
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.
I don’t think blaming the
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!
BikeBud wrote:
I don’t think
Glad we agree on that. But then you go on saying:
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.
Watching that clip again and
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. 😉
Totally agree with this
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 :))
The rider was completely in
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.
“I didn’t get hit by a
“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.
Aye. Great post, Quince. Take
Aye. Great post, Quince. Take all my likes.
[[[[[ JOEINPOOLE—so how’s
[[[[[ 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.
This is turning out to be a
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?
No, but I’m sure his family
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?
So Joeinpoole, let me try and
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. :W
levermonkey wrote:Have I got
You’ll need to supply a map to the moral compass store before that happens.
levermonkey wrote:So
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!
Joeinpoole wrote:levermonkey
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!— levermonkey
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.
Joeinpoole you’re wrong on
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.
To throw in a couple more
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