A London cyclist has posted a video to Twitter and appealed for help after being involved in a collision at a junction. Twitter user BrokenLegs says that the driver involved failed to stop and has asked for help identifying them.
In the helmet cam footage, the cyclist is approaching a side road when a Volkswagen Polo coming from the opposite direction turns across his path.
Cars travelling in the same direction as the cyclist partly obscure the car until it is too late. He collides with the side of it and we see the bike fly into the air as he falls.
There are a few groans and it is a good few seconds before the cyclist starts to pick himself up.
If anyone can help to identify the number plate of this hit and run on me, so i can inform the police, please let me know. pic.twitter.com/mbt5kwPREo
— BrokenLegs (@BrokenLegs) November 22, 2016
Both The Sun and The Mail have run the video asking which party was in the wrong.
There has also been a lively response to the video on Twitter with some users questioning whether the rider should have been cycling more cautiously in the circumstances.
57 thoughts on “Video: Cyclist appeals for help to track down hit and run driver”
Irrespective of fault, the
Irrespective of fault, the driver failed to stop and exchange details and, it would appear, failed to report an accident where injury was likely to have happened.
Hard to see how anyone other
Hard to see how anyone other than the motorist is wrong.
If the vehicle in the bus lane had been a bus, would anyone seriously say the bus was in the wrong.
No one is technically a fault
No one is technically a fault. The cars had stopped with room for the silver car to make it’s turn. The driver of the silver car was unsighted as was the cyclist, by the same black car.
As a vulnerable road user I always slow down in instances like this, it’s called commen sense.
MikeOnABike wrote:
Totally disagree.
If you drive you car (or ride your bike) across the opposite lane when you cannot see that it is safe to proceed then you are at fault. This driver was totally at fault.
I am extra careful in these situations too – because I know drivers are at fault for doing this kind of thing and being legally right while dead or seriously injured isn’t much compensation.
MikeOnABike wrote:
Are you serious? If it had been a bus in the bus lane, would you be saying nobody was at fault.
The cyclist had the right of way. The car driver should have given way.
Now if I had been the cyclist, I think I would have anticipated the piss poor driving, but that doesn’t mean that the driving wasn’t piss poor.
As for not stopping – that is of course a crime itself.
Hmm. I know it’s a nice empty
Hmm. I know it’s a nice empty bus lane but I’d say he’s going a bit too fast given that it’s cold, damp and therefore slippery, and he’s not factored in a big enough safety margin which is demonstrated by the collision occuring in the first place.
That said, psling is bang on stating that the driver failed to stop. I’m not going to look for any comments elsewhere as they’re bound to be filled with ‘Drivers’ using this as a case for cyclists to be insured
The cyclist SHOULD have taken
The cyclist SHOULD have taken more care at the junction to go slower (and I’m sure he will be from now on)
The Driver MUST not cross a lane of traffic unless it is clear to do so.
The Cyclist could have avoided it, but its still legally its the drivers fault
hoffbrandm wrote:
“Should” and “must” are usefully distinct terms – you’ll find them in legal practice advice. And your use of them is absolutely correct too, IMO.
hoffbrandm wrote:
This is my position too. The driver had restricted vision because of the other cars so should have been going much slower, and the cyclist should have recognised the risk and slowed too.
Hope the cyclist recovers well.
Just because the cyclist
Nope, the driver of the silver car is at fault. If you’re driving a bus rather than riding a bike, and someone flashes a car into the junction across your path, leading to a collision, is that nobody’s fault also?
Just because the cyclist could have avoided the collision by riding more defensively, pulling a Sagan or wearing a very tall hat, doesn’t make it his fault.
The cyclist rode at speed along a slippery bus lane without slowing down for the gap in traffic at the junction, which is an indicator that something is about to cross the lane. Careless, but not at fault. The driver turned across a lane while unable to see traffic in that lane, causing a collision. This means that it is 100% the driver’s fault.
Driver was entirely at fault,
Driver was entirely at fault, anybody who doesn’t realise this shouldn’t be on the roads.
8 or 9 seconds into the video you can see the Polo carry on down the road, didn’t even frickin stop! Looks like she might have had her kids in the car too.
Aero wheels on a commuter!
Aero wheels on a commuter!
Not how I would have ridden through that junction but still the drivers fault all day long.
I think there is an element
I think there is an element of 50/50 here. Both the cyclist and the driver are unsighted by the black car. The cyclists makes no effort to slow down as he approaches the junction, neither does the driver make any effort to creep forward ensuring that the bus lane is free of traffic.
Having said that the driver does need finding as she has clearly broken the law by failing to stop.
djpalmer32 wrote:
Yeah, but only one of them is turning across a lane of traffic when they can’t see.
I think hoffbrandm nails it. The cyclist could have done more to keep himself safe but the driver caused the accident.
djpalmer32 wrote:
Exactly. They were assuming it was clear because someone had slowed, left a gap and waved them through. But it is still their responsibility to check that the lane they are crossing (the bus lane) is actually free of other road users.
(Next time they do this, they might just get t-boned by a double-decker bus…)
It’s interesting from a
It’s interesting from a cycling security standpoint. Of course the driver was in the wrong legally, but:
– the cyclist didn’t seem to slow down
– the cyclist seemingly made no attempt to swerve to avoid the car
However wrong the driver was, it’s the cyclists’ bones…
isn’t the Polo’s number plate
isn’t the Polo’s number plate captured ???
The crash is society’s fault
The crash is society’s fault for making it acceptable to litter the place up with so many metal boxes on wheels, typically with only one or two of the seats filled, that people can’t see each other sufficiently to manoeuvre safely.
Driving off not knowing whether a man you’ve hit accidentally is dead or dying, that’s the fault of the scumbag in the VW. Should be banned for life for that, and that alone.
Hard to see how this is a
Hard to see how this is a debate. Drivers fault. Cyclist had right of way. End of discussion.
The fact that the car didn’t stop kind of gives the game away, does it not?
Just wondering how long we
Just wondering how long we would expect the car driver to wait for? If this is typical commuter traffic (I don’t know this road personally) then he/she might be sat there waiting to turn right for up to or beyond an hour before the traffic clears sufficiently to be able to spot a cyclist in the ‘hidden’ bus lane. That’s clearly not practical.
Clearly the driver should have stopped and checked on the cyclist.
I also think the cyclist should take more responsiblity for his own safety.
Oh, and a bus is a bit more visible than a cyclist.
MuddyGoose wrote:
Nobody’s arguing that the driver should sit their waiting until the entire road clears, that’s a complete straw man.
The driver did however proceed across the lane far too quickly. It should have been a tortoise-like creep, which would have resulted in brown pants for the cyclist, but nothing more serious.
There have been cases in this
There have been cases in this kind of scenario where liability has been split. It depends on visibility and if there were other risky/careless manoeuvres before the collision. But the majority fault has usually attached to the party performing the turn.
Either way, not stopping after an accident and exchanging details is a criminal offence. But this is all legal/enemies of the people territory to the Sun and Mail so unsurprisingly they didn’t care.
It’s a pretty simple one
It’s a pretty simple one really. The motorist is legally in the wrong.
1 They pulled across a carriageway into the path of oncoming traffic and caused a collision
2 They left the scene without exchanging details (an offence in its own right regardless of liability for the collision)
The rider is not technically to blame for the collision. He was legally entitled to ride at that speed in that lane. But he was not riding as safely as he could. There is a turning, there is stationary traffic. There’s a reasonable chance of oncoming traffic on the other side turning right.
I would have approached a scene with this much congestion with more care. And have been known to have a little stand on the pedals for a better view over the traffic and to be seen.
The driver need prosecuting. There are careless drivers out there. You need to ride in a way that means your safety is in your hands as far as possible not in theirs.
reg looks like ST04 LCG to me
reg looks like ST04 LCG to me, & DVLA tax checker says that reg belongs to a grey VW.
difficult to tell though.
japes wrote:
That appears to be a Golf.
The exact same thing happened
The exact same thing happened to me, I don’t remember it apart from what the police told me after speaking to witnesses – the said the driver was to totally to blame and had to attend a driving course or face prosecution
vw should have edged out
vw should have edged out first, totally at faul… how fast was the cyclist was tanking it down the bus lane for that kind of collision? epic bike throw!
Driver in the wrong… they
Driver in the wrong… they should have known it was a Strava segment.
MuddyGoose wrote:
Until it was safe to proceed…?
That’s almost certainly untrue since:
1. it’s a bus, cycle and possibly taxi lane. The whole point of it is to exclude most traffic and it’s unlikely that buses, taxis and cycles are going to be a constant stream. Even if there were sufficient numbers of them, then junctions and traffic lights break up the flow and create gaps; and
2. If there was SO much traffic then it would slow down, back up and leave gaps at junctions – just as the cars on the right had.
You seem to be suggesting that it’s OK to just pile through a gap even if you can’t see what’s coming just because you’re bored waiting. Sadly, it’s the kind of defence that might work if you only hit a cyclist….
Firstly the fault for the
Firstly the fault for the collision is entirely with the driver, he must not cross a line of traffic unless it is clear to do so. Secondly, the driver has committed a more serious offence (in law) by failing to stop.
That said, there is a big and painful difference between being 100% in the right and how we should ride in an enviroment like this. Anyone who riden in busy traffic has experienced something like this. We can argue it shouldn’t happen but it does and we need to be aware that it might and learn to read the tell tale signs and ride accordingly.
I will not filter past queuing traffic (left or right) at full speed, I will take much more care as I approach junctions. I will read the signs that motor traffic is being considerate to other road users and letting them through. The car emerging from the side road is another threat in that clip too and he is closing on that bus pretty fast. Default position with queuing traffic is expect something to turn and ride defensively within your vision scope.
The graveyard is full of cyclists who were 100% in the right
Does the driver of the BMW
Does the driver of the BMW ever get out?
“Newspapers ask whether
“Newspapers ask whether driver or cyclist was at fault”
“Both The Sun and The Mail have run the video asking which party was in the wrong.”
Anybody else spot the hilarious contradiction in those two statements?
I went over the bonnet of a
I went over the bonnet of a car in a similar circumstance, but in my case it was a bike lane, not a bus lane. The police were very very keen to prosecute for careless driving, but I declined since there was no harm (only a few small cuts and scrapes). They gave the driver a bollocking at the scene.
DrJDog wrote:
Slow clap for you.
Some of the comments on The Daily Fail site in relation to this video are pure, unadultered, posted by utter cavemen gold.
And this is why the highway
And this is why the highway code instructs never to flash as a signal to let someone out.
Driver in the black car flashes the car turning right, they mean “I will wait for you” driver in the silver VW takes this as “it is clear for you to turn”
Driver should pull across in front of the black car slowly until they can see whether the bus lane is clear and only then proceed the rest of the way, but the driver just goes for the maneouvre in one. If there had been a bus approaching it would likely have been visible over the cars. But it could just as easily have been a taxi. If the car had pulled across in front of a taxi and there had been a collision newspapers(sic) would not be asking who was at fault.
Also if the driver thought the cyclist was at fault they would have stopped and been complaining about damage to their car.
Proof yet again that numberplates and insurance being mandatory does not protect the injured party. It is reliant on guilty party doing the right thing and stopping.
Cyclist could have been more cautious, or could have been particularly smart in noticing that the car on the right had stopped leaving a gap and could be letting someone through, but even then they may have reasoned the car waiting to come out (who could clearly see them) was the inteneded beneficiary.
But the law is clear, it is not required to make every possible action to avoid the hazard caused by others. Priority is clearly established in all situations so we know who is required to be looking for other parties before crossing their line.
The new double width
The new double width segregated bike lane on Hills Road in Cambridge has a similar issue to this cideo. As you can see in the picture you feel like you are on a segregated lane& thus are “safe”. However I have had numerous close calls with cars doing the same manoevre as the VW Polo in this video. I normally am travelling between 18-20mph on my way to/from work but now slow down considerably when I spot that cars have left a gap for potentially another car to cross the cycle lane into a side road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.181315,0.140972,3a,75y,316.84h,78.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spciyY6bvLS2wrOvniUY5_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://rtpilondoncalling.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cam-8.jpg
The bus lane seems to
The bus lane seems to suddenly stop at the junction… just at the point where it should continue!
Turning vehicles should always give way to vehicles in bus lanes and cycle lanes, rule 183. It will be interesting if the police take any action. My friend was involved in a collision while driving (car pulled out on him at 60mph) and they said he should have slowed down when passing the junction, even though he had right of way!
I am willing to bet the police call it 505:50 because the cyclist should have slowed to walking pace and the poor driver is being made a scapegoat. I have 0 faith in the police these days, and would prefer d-lock justice to a feeble £20 fine or driver alertness course.
I was so very nearly in the
I was so very nearly in the same situation myself – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9c74wPALgc
Regardless of who’s right or wrong I soon realised I was taking a huge risk travelling so quickly up the inside of traffic so didn’t do it again.
The VW should obviously have stopped though in the OP’s vid.
@MuddyGoose: The driver must
@MuddyGoose: The driver must wait until they can see that the road is sufficiently clear. This applies for overtaking, turning across traffic, everything. The driver took a risk, hit someone, and then drove off. I hope they are caught and punished.
Section 170.2 RTA 1988 – if
Section 170.2 RTA 1988 – if the presence of your motor vehicle causes harm to persons or property you should provide details of the keeper and insurer to any person resonably requiring them at the scene, or failing this within 24 hours at a Police Station (s.170.3) Failure to do so is an offence as set out in s.170.4 Was s.22 in RTA 1930 and in same basic form for original Motor Car Act 1903
The car driver is a menace to
The car driver is a menace to society and should be jailed imediatly. so, for the cyclist: YOU ARE AN IDIOT. it clearly shows that you accelerated towards a crossroad where you slould know that IGNORANT car drivers are always there to do something stupid, YOU KNOW THAT. It is the drivers fault completely but for your health, it is YOU. YOU should predict the idiot, the ignorant, the cycle hater, the SUV BLOND BIMBO, the, the the… it is YOUR body that is at stake, not the assholes behind the steering wheel. ALWAYS BE PREPARED!
The fault, as in the action
The fault, as in the action that cuased the collision, does lie entirely with the driver of the car.
People may consider some other factors at play here but each of them is easily discounted leaving fault clearly with the driver as follows:
After the collision the driver committed a second offence by failing to stop and possibly a third by failing to report an incident where injuries were caused.
Sadly when cycling in trafffic we become so familiar with drivers not taking care that we need to ride defensively to avoid such collisions and that generally involves slowing down in this type of situation. That in no way makes the cyclist responsible.
Also sadly it is becoming more and more common that drivers do not take proper care as the law requires them to do – for example yesterday, within one hour, I saw three instances where pedestrians crossing roads quite properly (one at a pelican, one at a zebra and one at a pinch point disigned to slow traffic) came within a couple of feet of being hit by motor vehicles which failed to stop or slow down, in one case the reason was clearly the driver texting and therefore not aware of the people on the crossing and the red light.
The Government, DfT and Police really need to be held to account for their failure to provide the protection that we, the public, are entitled to from those drivers who routinely flout and ignore the law. Meanwhile we’re often best to expect the worst behaviour from others and behave accordingly.
shay cycles wrote:
The primary fault (turning across the lane without due care) is absolutely the drivers however, as people have pointed out, the rider is going fast for the situation – especially as it looks like he does not have visibility of the turning traffic (the right turning car is obscured in the initial part of the video). That said, personally I would favour the ability to walk without pain over being technically in the right, which is why I appreciated the advice 35-40 years ago when starting on motorcycles to treat all other road users as potential idiots. People can behave dangerously and apparently randomly entirely without malice – I find it wise to prepare for that in situations like this, where I know there is the chance of a turning vehicle which I cannot see.. similarly in e.g. heavily residential areas where there are numbers of parked cars and potentially lots of kids – I don’t HAVE to take it easy (technically) but I consider it in the interests of myself and others to do so. Not stopping afterwards is absolutely unforgiveable though.
I was involved in a similar
I was involved in a similar situation a few years ago, except I was on a Motorbike and it wasn’t a bus lane (road was splitting, left lane going left, right lane going right – the right lane was stopped)..
Fortunately, the driver in my case, did remain at the scene (well, wouldn’t you with a big arse Motorbike bouncing off your rear quarter) and was more shaken up than I was, although my broken thumb was a little bit painful.
The day before we went to court, the other side settled, and all liability was on them.
only go up the inside if you
only go up the inside if you’re looking for death
beezus fufoon wrote:
You never use bus (or cycle) lanes and always wait at the back of the general traffic queue?
Duncann wrote:
I overtake on the right, as instructed by the highway code – my bike and shoulders are just less than half a metre across, why on earth would I wait in traffic?
beezus fufoon wrote:
Overtaking is passing a slower moving car in free flowing traffic it does NOT apply when one lane is stationary, or even slow moving due to congestion. Otherwise there would be no point in right turn filter lanes as all other traffic would be obliged to wait while the cars in the non-moving right turn lane were waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic.
I am sick of this ‘undertaking argument’ being run out as a means to stop cyclists filtering on the left (as the highway code expressly permits) and this case is even more clear because the cyclist is using a bus lane.
WTF is the point of bus lanes if the bus is not allowed to pass all the queuing traffic in the non bus lane?
wycombewheeler wrote:
There is advice on overtaking in the Highway Code, but I can’t see a definition of ‘overtaking’ (might be missing it). RoSPA offers this…
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/overtaking.pdf
The Highway Code does say this however
It explicitly says you may overtake on the left if the traffic is moving slower than you, but the advice about taking care should surely still apply. It’s a pity that we have to think on behalf of others, but it can also prove prudent.
wycombewheeler wrote:
sure, you’re allowed to go up the blind side, just as you’re allowed free treatment on the NHS, or maybe even a nice coffin for your family to send you off in – whatever makes you happy
beezus fufoon wrote:
Going up the outside is no guarantee of safety, the closest I came to dying on the roads was passing slow moving traffic on the right as you advocate, (on a motorbike) when a van signalled someone to come out of a left side road to turn right across my path. Obviously the driver pulling out was not looking for bikes to the right of the traffic queue so knowing the van had stopped for him was focussed entirely on vehicles coming from his left.
Had there been a collision there could well have been questions asked about my use of the hatched area for passing and it would be far from clear cut whose fault the incident was.
Unlike this case where the cyclist has the whole bus lane to himself and the driver has not even considered anybody using it, even though they only have one direction to check for approaching vehicles, they could just have easily have missed a taxi.
The lesson for cyclists from this incident is not – “pass on the right”, it is “take care when passing slow moving traffic on either side”. But mostly it should be a lesson to drivers to look before crossing a lane which has priority.
wycombewheeler wrote:
of course it is no guarantee of safety and there is often a lot of “what ifs” – but just to point out – the bus lane is in fact blocked by two buses 50 metres ahead and there isn’t much of a gap there – personally, I would be looking to move to the outside, where there appears to be no oncoming traffic…
just curious what you would do when you got to the bus/car blockage 5 seconds up the road – are you advocating stopping and waiting patiently in the bus lane rather than weaving out and round both lanes – and whichever option you choose, why wouldn’t you be preparing to stop or looking to get outside the traffic at this point already?
beezus fufoon wrote:
Fair point about not waiting, I’ll do that myself sometimes, although usually not if there’s a free lane to the left (and many individual urban lanes aren’t wide enough for vehicle+cyclist). Also depends on oncoming traffic.
Going on the outside obviously makes you more visible to oncoming traffic wanting to turn across (as in this article’s case). Conversely, it doesn’t help with traffic emerging from the left – indeed it may make it riskier as you’ll often be tucker closer to the stationary/slow-moving vehicles on your left and the emerging driver may be less likely to be prompted to look properly without the prompt of an additional lane. More importantly if the traffic you’re passing is stationary, they may be more concerned with looking in the opposite direction for the traffic that is oncoming to you. Drivers going your way may also turn right without checking properly, especially if they’re in areas unused to two-wheelers overtaking them.
In summary, use observation and intelligence to assess whether passing on the left or right is better (esp. as the HC allows undertaking of slow-moving traffic on your right (Rule 268)).
Duncann wrote:
Generally I find that the right hand mirror is far more widely used than the left (and actually useful because it gives a better field of vision) – drivers are far more used to checking their right side when pulling out as it is the accepted side for passing, and hardly ever check their left hand mirror when turning left for the same reason – they simply do not expect anyone to be coming past on that side.
Equally, the same thing does happen with cars giving way to traffic emerging from the left, but in my experience, not only are you more visible from that position, but you are also able to observe more and take action. The angles are also different, and it seems to me that you are less likely to hit a car square on from that position – I just find it a lot safer, especially if there are more two-wheelers around, and it is often not difficult to keep pace with motorbikes under such conditions, which to me is preferable to trying to weave in and out between two lanes of traffic. YMMV.
beezus fufoon wrote:
I think you’re talking about a different scenario: one where drivers are already in the left lane and about to turn left. Neither of those is what was in the video or what I was talking about.
Duncann wrote:
you said, “Drivers going your way may also turn right without checking properly…” – which is a fair point, and which can happen on either the left or right side – for me personally, I would rather be on the right for the reasons I mentioned.
They shouldn’t be in the left hand lane if it is a bus lane, and so you’re more likely to be square on rather than at an angle to them where you could potentially swerve or at least take a glancing blow.
Regarding traffic emerging from the left rather the right (the opposite of the video above), seeing the backs of their heads as they inch out and then cutting in behind and around them is far easier because of the angles involved and the slower speed at which they approach the possibility of oncoming traffic.
In both cases, being on the right rather than inside seems preferable to me.
Driver’s fault but cyclist
Driver’s fault but cyclist should have been more cautious, as others have said. I’ve nearly come a cropper like this. If you’re travelling up an inside lane it’s always worth watching out when you pass a turning just in case someone cuts across like this. It’s all well and good being legally right while your broken limbs heal up.