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

Col Nago wrote:

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.

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.

userfriendly wrote:

Col Nago wrote:

Is it the Netherlands where there is a presumption of car driver fault in any accident with a bike?

It's every European country with the exception of UK, Ireland, Romania, Malta, and Cyprus.

All parts of the old British Empire, and Romania. If its good enough for Hungary, its good enough for us.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

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?

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.

kitkat wrote:

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.