A cyclist’s helmet camera has captured the moment a driver cuts across his path at a junction in Fulham, leaving him with a fractured wrist and bruising.
The video, titled Cycling Accident in London – Lucky Escape, shows some of the challenges of cycling in the UK: Myles Gatherer is riding toward a T-junction in a bike lane, before moving out to avoid two people crossing the road, while at the same time a driver, coming from the opposite direction, is turning right.
The driver proceeds into Gatherer’s path, and the moment of impact and cries of pain are captured as he hits the car, rolls across the bonnet and onto the ground.
Myles Gatherer told the Evening Standard: “When approaching the green lights two pedestrians crossed in front of me.
“I took the decision to manoeuvre around the pedestrians, after I cleared the pedestrians I entered the junction.
“When I entered the junction it became clear that a vehicle located at the oncoming side of the road intended to move across my trajectory.”
Gatherer was not seriously hurt, fortunately.
Some viewers have expressed the opinion the rider should have slowed down for the pedestrians.
YouTube commenter 95Gabe said: “If he had braked when he saw them…like a motorist would…he would have been going slow enough to avoid the collision. I am not absolving the motorist, but I suspect the cyclist was hidden behind the pedestrians which were crossing the road. Given that they were there the motorist probably thought it was safe to turn.”
What do you think?
84 thoughts on “Video: you’ll never guess what happens after this cyclist tries to avoid the pedestrians”
Driver was obviously
Driver was obviously completely in the wrong but Mr Gatherer lacked a sensible amount of caution heading into that situation, it can’t just have been me that saw what was coming from frame one of the film, no?
100% the driver’s fault IMO –
100% the driver’s fault IMO – he/she turned across through traffic – the cyclist was in primary position after going round the pedestrians and the driver has responsibility to check the road is free before moving…
However, if you follow the advice my grandad gave to my mum in the late 50s when teaching her to drive and “assume everyone else on the road is an idiot” the driver clearly presented a risk to the cyclist…
So, as in many incidents IMO, the driver caused the incident and should be on a charge of careless driving, but, given the lousy standard of driving in the UK, the rider could have anticipated such a stupid move and taken avoiding action e.g. slowed up when he saw the car trying to turn right…
Personally I’d like to see massive encouragment for all cyclists to take Bikeability – not in terms of victim-blaming, but teaching the skills to stay safe when the standard of driving and pedestrians is so low and represents a constant risk
As everyone has pointed out,
As everyone has pointed out, in strictly legal terms the driver is at fault. In ‘I am on a thin piece of metal with no protection surrounded by big metal boxes of death travelling far faster than I can’ terms, the cyclist should have at least slowed down slightly when those (admittedly stupid) pedestrians stepped out in front of him.
Always watch out of cars
Always watch out of cars turning across your path. Drivers don’t look properly and you need to have room to stop or avoid.
An unfortuante set of events,
An unfortuante set of events, his speed was quite high, maybe could of helped himself by slowing a little when peds were crossing road, the pedestrians distracted his attention, the car didn’t pay full attention to oncoming traffic. He is going to spend 6-10weeks thinking about the accident.
OK,
OK,
Driver is at fault but the cyclist doesn’t help himself and contributes to the accident.
Cyclist was way too fast to be in the bike lane.
Should be slowing down when the pedestrians cross the road.
Should be slowing down on the approach to a junction and anticipating what others may do.
Being in the right doesn’t stop you being dead.
Darkhairedlord wrote:
All of this – Riders in a built-up area should be thinking ahead a lot more, giving yourself the space and time to react to avoid potential incidents. The loss of two to three seconds pace here could have prevented this. (to be fair I would’ve probably slowed enough to give them an earful for crossing on a Red Man)
And, if the peds hadn’t been there is it likely the car would’ve still hit him anyway?
Yes, driver clearly at fault.
Yes, driver clearly at fault. He/she should not have done this, even though the cyclist was obscured by the pedestrians.
Note also that the cyclist also pulled out without looking, to avoid the pedestrians . The camera is helmet mounted, so would have clearly shown a glance over the shoulder. Yet there were none during the entire video, and so the cyclist could not have been fully aware of what was behind/right of him, potentially moving faster, and which would have been forced into the bollards or the opposite side of the road.
Muppetry in motion, all around. And as usual, it’s the more vunerable who come off worst.
I rode through this junction
I rode through this junction every day on my commute for about 2 years, and it’s really common for cars to pull way further in to that turn than is comfortable, as if they’re edging in to see if you’ll give way.
I’m mostly surprised I didn’t see this sooner, I’m sure it’s a pretty frequent event. I hope the rider has a full and fast recovery and doesn’t let the incident put him off what is still the best way to get around London.
This is precisely why I
This is precisely why I always haver a flashing front light when I ride in London – it makes you that much more visible. Can’t see if this rider had a front light?
The rider certainly wasn’t hanging about and dozy pedestrians are always a hazard in London … or any town/city, really.
Jem PT wrote:
He has a Lezyne Microdrive or similar on his helmet… can’t tell what mode it’s in though.
If you play it frame by frame
If you play it frame by frame you’ll see the cyclist was clear of the pedestrians as he enters the junction. You’ll also see that there is a pedestrian walking across the junction that the car driver is waiting to turn into. It could be the case that the drivers attention was fixed on the pedestrian on the junction he was going into and therefore failed to look ahead again before turning. Had he/she been paying proper attention to the road ahead the driver would have had ample time to see the cyclist coming towards him/her IMO.
Hazard in the road
Hazard in the road (pedestrians) should have been slowed for. As should the junction. The fact he didn’t is an indication he was going a bit quick and wanted to maintain momentum.
The driver is also in the wrong. Basics of advanced riding and advanced driving are TTR Time to React.
Neither gave themselves time or space to avoid the collision.
I used to have a driver working on my team that had constant little collisions. He swore it wasn’t his fault every time. I had to go out an assess his driving which was poor. He was always wanting to push on. Between putting in my report and him being asked to go on a remedial course he had another little incident.
“it wasn’t my fault” he said “she just pulled out in front of me.”
and my reply was that people pull out in front of other people all the time. But most of the time if you aren’t driving too fast you can usually stop before you hit them.
And I don’t go in for the how to split the 100% between the parties. They were both, in this case, 100% at fault.
This is what it’s like riding
This is what it’s like riding in Brighton – pedestrians simply don’t give a fuck!
Also, what’s with the rubbish click bait style “headline” for this? It’s Road.cc, we all know what’s coming next!
It would be difficult for a
It would be difficult for a motorist to see an object as slim as a cyclist travelling at that speed in a built up area. Either the motorist did not see the cyclist or the motorist did see the cyslist and made a split second decision there was time to make the manoevre. Either way it was the wrong decision. But the blame must lie with the cyclist for travelling at that speed in a built up area without being able to brake in time and therefore without due consideration for others.
commonsensehuman wrote:
What???
He was turned into, but because he couldn’t stop in time to avoid someone else’s careless driving he is to balme for the incident.
Bonkers argument.
commonsensehuman wrote:
What???
He was turned into, but because he couldn’t stop in time to avoid someone else’s careless driving he is to blame for the incident.
Bonkers argument.
Cyclosis wrote:
Not at all. It happens all the time. I see it every day. Ride like a nob, expect to die like a nob. The motorist made a split second decision. It was the wrong decision under the given circumstances. Had the cyclist been travelling at a sensible speed on that type of road he would have had time to brake and/or swerve to avoid the vehicle. He didn’t therefore he was travelling too fast to be able to react in time. The fault is with the cyclist.
commonsensehuman wrote:
There is a differnce between being able to avoid a danger and being *responsible* for that danger.
Had the cyclist stopped in time before being hit, the driver would still have been careless in pulling out and not looking out for oncoming traffic.
With thinking like yours, perhaps you should consider becoming a magistrate? You’d fit right in.
Cyclosis wrote:
But he didn’t, did he? He was travelling too fast to react quickly enough to do so. And if you follow that logic through at a human level, perhaps the motorists decision to make the manoevre was because he did not see the slender missile hurtling towards him until it was too late or if he did he did not expect it to be travelling at an an out of control speed in a built up area?
commonsensehuman wrote:
But under the law he is obliged to look out for other road users, be them slim, fat, in a car, on a motorbike or whatever.
I think you are over egging how fast he was going. Probably less than 30mph. Missile? Hardly.
It’s the drivers fault plain and simple — he pulled out into oncoming traffic (oncoming traffic that was acting lawfully) and caused a collision.
The cyclists size, or what he is wearing, or whether he shoulder checked, or whether you consider him to be hurtling is irrelevant.
Cyclosis wrote:
Nah, this is irrelevant
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Loxodonta_africana_-_old_bull_(Ngorongoro,_2009).jpg
commonsensehuman wrote:
I found the moron.
Out of control speed? He was well within the speed limit. Cyclists can’t win – harassed for going too slow, but apparently within the speed limit is too fast. Personally I would have slowed down around the pedestrians but he certainly wasn’t obliged to do so.
If the driver couldn’t see what was behind the pedestrians, he shouldn’t have pulled out. It’s as simple as that.
danthomascyclist wrote:
Irrelevant.
You can be going too fast for the conditions well under the speed limit. The two can be mutually exclusive.
I think that is what is meant by ‘out of control speed’ in this case – ie too fast for the conditions.
Having said that, the driver is definately to blame as he should have given way. The cyclist should have approached the junction more slowly.
commonsensehuman wrote:
But he didn’t, did he? He was travelling too fast to react quickly enough to do so. And if you follow that logic through at a human level, perhaps the motorists decision to make the manoevre was because he did not see the slender missile hurtling towards him until it was too late or if he did he did not expect it to be travelling at an an out of control speed in a built up area?
— Cyclosis
It makes no difference what speed the cyclist was doing the driver had no intention of stopping and, however fast you say the rider was going, the car was moving slowly and deliberately and had plenty of time to stop quickly. As I said earlier the driver had a clear line of sight after the pedestrian in the red jacket had crossed but chose to drive forwards anyway across the path of the rider and was still moving when he hit him.
It seems common sense isn’t so common after all.
This road is on my daily commute and, despite its width, is a very major road so using the excuse of “he did not expect it to be travelling at an an out of control speed in a built up area” simply doesn’t hold.
webster wrote:
It is when you want to live to see tomorow …
commonsensehuman wrote:
You need to change your user name…
PaulBox wrote:
No need, I just dropped by to stir things up a bit …
The car should not have
The car should not have turned across him – I don’t buy that the driver’s vision was obscured, he had plenty of time to see the cyclist and at least stop.
However, as cyclists we sometimes forget that rule one of the road is that you must be able to stop in the space you can see to be clear. Given the hazards, the cyclist failed to moderate his speed coming up to the junction and therefore was unable to avoid the collision.
Get well soon, take care in traffic folks.
Gizmo_ wrote:
He could see a clear space. The driver turned into it. There’s no speed so low that someone can’t move into a space where you can’t avoid them. In the limiting case, you can be completely stopped when someone steps off the pavement into the side of you.
If he’d been going across the junction even more slowly and a driver not looking where they were going had turned slightly later, the driver would still have hit him. I’ve had a driver pull onto a roundabout when I was already in front of them because they were looking sideways to see if a car was approaching.
It’s no use the driver being able to stop in the distance they can see is clear if they aren’t looking to see if it is clear. This driver apparently wasn’t; if they were, then it was the driver breaking “rule one”.
armb wrote:
Unquestionably the driver ‘broke rule one’ as you say. However, stopping in the “space” you can see to be clear isn’t “space that’s clear now”, it’s “space that will be clear when you get there”. By the time the bike reached the crossover point, the driver of the car had had time to make the mistake of entering that space.
So while the driver was in the wrong, the cyclist’s failure to assess the hazard correctly and adjust his speed appropriately to take account of the potential hazard – and give himself a safe option – is why he ended up on the floor instead of proceeding on his way, shaking his head about a near miss and cursing stupid drivers.
Gizmo_ wrote:
Nope. It was the driver’s failure to look or to care about what he might hit that is why the cyclist ended up on the floor…etc. (Also the general tolerance of poor-driving by the authorities and society, and a lack of decent road design)
It really is quite remarkable, the human compulsion to victim-blame. Its fairly clear where it comes from, I think, psychologically-speaking, but I still find it a curious thing to behold.
Gizmo_ wrote:
But the road _was_ clear. The vehicle moved into the road he could see to be clear.
The question is whether you can see for sure it is going to remain clear. And in making that judgement I think you unavoidably have to make some assumptions about what others will do, if you are to be able to move at all.
Generally the law seems to excuse drivers who drive too fast to stop when a cyclist moves in front of them (to avoid a pothole or just to take the lane).
what i see is he is way too
what i see is he is way too fast on a busy road with lots could happen at anytime, also did not seem he grab any brake when he make the move to pass the crossing people, another point he did not check his back when he move out of the cycle lane to see there is any traffic behind him, so he is taking his chances.
the right turning car may be wring but himself is more to blame, this could all be aviod easily if he goes slower and use the brake to slow down enough to let peopl cross and he will be able to stop before crash into the car.
Zihao_chn wrote:
He’s going way less than the speed limit there and the speed of the motorised traffic in his lane…
Quote:
Dafuq?? Has road.cc fianlly turned into Buzzfeed with shitty clickbait titles like this?
If its come to this, I’m pretty much done here.
Despite the comments of
Despite the comments of others I deeply disagree with most of you.
The driver did not attempt to stop to let the cyclist through the junction. The driver, if they had been competent, would have seen that the cyclist was still moving forward after the second pedestrian in the red jacket had cleared his path. The car continued forward assuming wrongly that the cyclist should be the one to take action to avoid the collision. The rider did in fact turn to his left to try and avoid the collision but the driver continued forward anyway and hit the rider. Teaching a rider how to ride defensively is like trying to teach a woman how not to get raped.
Most drivers, as we all know, are not out to kill us and most do anticipate our manoeuvres. If I ride constantly thinking about how every single driver on the road will potentially kill me then I won’t ride at all, I’ll either jump back in my car and drive to work or jam myself in to already overcrowded trains. Which would you prefer?
The driver is at fault.
The driver is at fault. Clearly. But all cyclists should take heed of the video. If you chose to ride at top speed though urban areas, especially on approach to junctions you are significantly increasing your chances of an accident. You don’t get to point the finger at someone else when you’re dead.
Both cyclist and motorist at
Both cyclist and motorist at fault surely?
And the click bait comments are spot on.
Start with laughably dated
Start with laughably dated clickbait, end with desperate trolling? Seriously? Is there a FORS-registered truckload of irony here that I’ve completely missed?
Bez wrote:
It would seem so, Bez!
I was always taught to slow
I was always taught to slow down when approaching traffic lights. It doesn’t matter whether you are cycling, or driving. This guy seems to be racing through the lights. As a traffic cop once ‘lectured’ me about going through on an amber light- “Your crumple zone is a lot less than the car’s”.
Looking at it again there is
Looking at it again there is a slight left kink to the road just before the junction. This is going to have the effect of putting traffic travelling in the cyclist’s direction nearer the centre of the road and making these collisions more likely. I think road design plays a part here as well as incautious speed and crap driving.
Good to see the art of irony
Good to see the art of irony is still appreciated. By some…….
Good grief. If cyclists
Good grief. If cyclists cannot see that was 100% the driver’s fault, what hope do we have with non-cyclists passing judgement on road traffic incidents (or whatever that are called today) involving cyclists.
If the dude on the bike had been in a car there would be none of this nonsense about it being his fault.
Podc wrote:
If the dude on the bike had been in a car he would have wiped out two pedestrians first. More likely he would have slowed right down. Bikes aren’t cars.
But taking your point. If a driver approached the lights swerved round two pedestrians without touching the breaks and hit something then I’d take the same view.
Road safety is not about everyone standing on their rights: that they had tight of way, weren’t speeding etc. It’s about people approaching the task of driving and riding with care.
Speed limits are maximum legal speeds, not compulsory speeds. You still have to look at the road in front of you and approach it at a safe speed. You also have to consider even bad drivers i do when I am cyccling just like I consider that not everyone on a bike is a “cyclist” in the way that some people use that here.
And if you are fit and quick on a bike that’s great. But you also have to consider that bikes are smaller than cars, less easy to see and that most cyclists are not travelling that fast. It may be the driver’s responsibility to assess your speed but in situations like this but but if you suddenly appear from behind pedestrians going faster than most cyclists can manage then you are placing a huge bet that the driver you need to be responsible is actually just pretty ordinary, maybe below average. (On average half of drivers are below average – if you follow my drift). If you are out there driving a car or a lorry or riding a bike and you are travelling in a way that is putting other road users reactions to the test all the time then you aren’t driving or riding safely.
Podc wrote:
If the dude on the bike had been in a car he would have wiped out two pedestrians first. More likely he would have slowed right down. Bikes aren’t cars.
But taking your point. If a driver approached the lights swerved round two pedestrians without touching the breaks and hit something then I’d take the same view.
Road safety is not about everyone standing on their rights: that they had tight of way, weren’t speeding etc. It’s about people approaching the task of driving and riding with care.
Speed limits are maximum legal speeds, not compulsory speeds. You still have to look at the road in front of you and approach it at a safe speed. You also have to consider even bad drivers i do when I am cyccling just like I consider that not everyone on a bike is a “cyclist” in the way that some people use that here.
And if you are fit and quick on a bike that’s great. But you also have to consider that bikes are smaller than cars, less easy to see and that most cyclists are not travelling that fast. It may be the driver’s responsibility to assess your speed but in situations like this but but if you suddenly appear from behind pedestrians going faster than most cyclists can manage then you are placing a huge bet that the driver you need to be responsible is actually just pretty ordinary, maybe below average. (On average half of drivers are below average – if you follow my drift). If you are out there driving a car or a lorry or riding a bike and you are travelling in a way that is putting other road users reactions to the test all the time then you aren’t driving or riding safely.
Right on bro
Right on bro
oozaveared wrote:
Agree with all of your post, but this is the nub of it all. The car driver is IMO (ir)responsible, but there are plenty of “them” out there.
Personally I think that
Personally I think that wearing a helmet has given him a false sense of security, and so he hasn’t checked his speed. If he hadn’t been wearing a helmet he’d most likely be fine now. So, stay safe, kids: don’t wear a helmet.
It’s remarkeable that a
It’s remarkeable that a cyclist not doing anywhere near the speed limit should slow down to ensure that he is not doing anywhere near being near the speed limit every time there are obstacles or things which might happen.
Meanwhile car drivers get to drive at a constant speed regardless of consequence or comment.
Of course the driver will
Of course the driver will take the blame, but I’d put at least 50% of that on the cyclist himself.
Firstly, the driver has seen the peds crossing, the cyclist makes a swere around them at a stupidly high speed to be entering a juction in the first place. I’m going out on a limb here, but that speed tells me he doesn’t slow down for lights, whether they are green or red.
A touch of the brakes would have scrubbed some speed and this whole thing could have been avoided.
Okay but how does this crazy
Okay but how does this crazy old trick help us get a flatter stomach?
vbvb wrote:
And how can I get an overstocked iPad for $40?
For me, both at fault for
For me, both at fault for differing things and to different degrees. Car should not have pulled across. Full stop. Question for me is why did the driver feel it safe to do so?
The rider having seen the car ahead should have assumed it ‘may’ pull across (and therefore possible).
From a cyclists point of view if that were me I’d be feeling partly responsible for my mishap.
Luckily though the cyclist ok so can ride again having hopefully learned a lesson.
The car driver however may not learn a lesson as they didnt get hurt. I may be wrong though.
An afterthought: if the cyclist was a car most people would be saying it was going into the junction too fast…….
Just for the record I am a cyclist and a car driver and feel all road users have responsibilty for others’ safety (and ones own).
“If he had braked when he saw
“If he had braked when he saw them…like a motorist would”
Ignoring everything else, this statement irks me. I can only say, as a pedestrian, I don’t see the basis for it. Sounds decidedly optimistic to me. Only yesteday I had to leap out of the way of a driver who could clearly see me but had no intention of slowing down when as far as she was concerned it was my job to get out of her way..
Motorists indeed will often _speed up_ for the pleasure of seeing you leap back out of their way so as to establish the correct pecking order. Generally they, unlike cyclists, know they can rely on a pedestrian’s self-preservation instinct to cede priority to their vehicles.
Occasionally peds will even run or jump back into the path of a bike in a quite understandable preference to counting on the motorist slowing down.
…and the guy was going
…and the guy was going faster than I would have, but the driver still should have been looking more carefully before cutting across. Two scampering pedestrians don’t render the cyclist invisible.
(Also, am I the only fool who repeatedly tried clicking the ‘play’ button on the still screen shot at the top of the page?)
Well, everyone involved,
Well, everyone involved, pedestrians, cyclist and driver could have done things that probably would have prevented the collision happening. The pedestrians and driver misjudged the approaching cyclist’s speed, the cyclist could have been more cautious when going around the pedestrians.
However the fault for CAUSING the collision lies with the driver, as he/she was obliged to give way.
That doesn’t mean that cyclists wouldn’t be wise to be cautious at junctions and contemplate defensive possibilities as a result of this cyclists unfortunate experience.
To give a parallel, if a driver is tailgating another, and the one in front has to emergency stop. The resulting collision was caused by the driver behind. However, the driver in front could have reduced the probability of being hit from behind by slowing down to allow more time to brake. (This is the advice driving instructor’s rightly give on dealing with tailgaters). This doesn’t mean that the driver performing the emergency stop is at fault however. Same as when something is stolen, the victim may have been able to reduce the probability of theft by purchasing additional physical security measures. However, they are NOT at fault for the theft, even if the item was left unlocked and unattended. Criticising the cyclist in this incident is, essentially, victim blaming.
The cyclist’s helmet light was in flashing mode. You can see this when he’s on the ground. IMHO this makes it unlikely that the driver didn’t see him unless he wasn’t looking at all.
I’m hoping the headline is
I’m hoping the headline is sarcasm, rather than a sign the site is descending to the seventh circle of click-bait hell.
(Sarcasm as in ‘you will of course guess what will happen – a motorist will do something arrogant and careless’)
As a former driving
As a former driving instructor, I would say this was a clear case of driving without due care and attention, the driver should be prosecuted accordingly. Had the driver been looking to see if it was safe to proceed, they would not have pulled across into the path of the on coming traffic.
100% the drivers fault.
100% the drivers fault.
And I’d like to punch everyone in this thread in the face that says otherwise.
100% the drivers fault.
100% the drivers fault.
And I’d like to punch everyone in this thread in the face that says otherwise.
Car driver clearly at fault.
Car driver clearly at fault. Cyclist not at fault but needs lessons in self preservation. I get at least 2 of these a week that generate a healthy blast of four letter words rather than an A&E visit because I anticipate the crappy driving and prepare accordingly.
Car driver clearly at fault.
Car driver clearly at fault. Cyclist not at fault but needs lessons in self preservation. I get at least 2 of these a week that generate a healthy blast of four letter words rather than an A&E visit because I anticipate the crappy driving and prepare accordingly.
And the headline. Sort it out road.cc. You’re better than this.
Argos74 wrote:
plus one.
I use the Garmin Virb Elite
I use the Garmin Virb Elite because without the screen stats you get a misguided sense of the speeds involved. Here’s the same type of incident with the extras:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/X4k-jJT9vQk
Note speeds, time, date, gradient, RPM, etc . . . no doubts for anyone viewing the footage after an incident. In my case doing 30kph in a 50 zone. Even the dumbest magistrate can see what happens without the predjudice of being a driver not familiar to what the world looks like from a bike.
Car driver NOT indicating
Car driver NOT indicating either. Have they been arrested yet and charged with driving without due care and attention? Are they even insured or have a license? MOT and Tax? No surprise as it’s a Vauxhall Corsa!
I don’t understand why the
I don’t understand why the cyclist didn’t slow down. As soon as I saw the (stupid) pedestrians I’d have killed my speed, then the following accident would have been totally avoidable.
kitsunegari wrote:
A little harsh. The pedestrians made a misjudgement; that doesn’t make them stupid.
I think a lot of people seem to be treating this all as a single incident, and I don’t see it that way. First there’s the issue with the people crossing the road: personally I think that the rider behaves at best discourteously and at worst threateningly towards them by (it seems) not slowing and by diverting course as little as possible. It doesn’t result in a collision, but the second pedestrian clearly has to speed up to get out of his way, and there was rather more risk there than necessary. It’s certainly not something I’d do.
The collision with the car is a quite separate matter. I don’t think it’s really valid to say “if he’d slowed, the collision would have been avoided”—perhaps so, but that’s really just a case of luck of timing: if you want to hypothetically slow the cyclist, you can also hypothetically shift the driver’s actions a little later in time as well. And whilst the cyclist’s speed is arguably excessive for narrowly missing pedestrians, it’s certainly not excessive for proceeding through the junction. Fundamentally, the driver has turned across the path of an oncoming vehicle, and—barring highly exceptional factors, which aren’t present in this scenario—that’s a pretty well-established case of unilateral fault.
Curses. I got dragged in.
kitsunegari wrote:
(Duplicate post. Not sure what happened there.)
Quite clearly the drivers
Quite clearly the drivers fault, the cyclist could not have been speeding as there is no such offence. He took action to avoid the mistake by the pedestrians. This is where Presumed Liability works in the rest of Europe as it ensures that those in vehicles that can cause the most harm, take reponsibility & are more cuatious with their actions. Too many people drive around these days in the little bubble of their cars completely oblivious of anything happening around them. I don’t say this as a cyclist, I see when walking & cycling too. If the driver had been paying attention then they would not have made the manouvere. I was always taught to drive, that you look down the road and anticipate what could happen. In a lot of cases drivers no longer do that. So to say there was blame on the cyclist, is a load of rubbish. The pedestrians made a mistake, the cyclist ensured that they did not come to harm, the driver did not.
Having just looked at the video a bit closer, the driver indicated, the pedestrians did not obstruct the view of the cyclist, the driver starts the manouvere before the cyclist even enters the junction. Probably a case of thought they had plenty of time. Acid test would the driver have failed a driving test, carrying out the manouvere? Probably.
It’s a subject close to my
It’s a subject close to my heart because I commute into central London every day.
It makes me wince but you can see it coming, why didn’t he slow down?
You’re always going to come off worse on a bike than in a car so discretion is the better part of valour.
Also having a video camera doesn’t give you carte blanche to ride like a maniac.
unclebadger wrote:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing when we all sit and watch the video, for all we now is that the cyclist was concentrating on avoiding the pedestrians, rather than looking down the road. Probably having a “WTF were those idiots doing..” moment, as cyclists we moan about car drivers but we all do it, that momentary lapse of concetration and you miss something.
Te
And that’s why they call it
And that’s why they call it an accident baby 🙂
And that’s why they call it
And that’s why they call it an accident baby 🙂
unclebadger wrote:
Irrelevant as the cyclist didn’t “ride like a maniac”. The driver _drove_ like an idiot, but that seems to get a pass because it so commonplace.
I don’t understand why people
I don’t understand why people are saying that it’s the cyclist’s fault for going too quickly. Yes, he would have avoided that particular incident by going either quicker (before the car turned) or slower (after the car turned), but then if he’d gone a different route, he would have avoided it as well.
The Highway Code makes it quite clear: ([url]http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road—road-junctions-170-to-183.html[/url])
The car driver clearly did not wait for a safe gap and thus it is very clearly the driver’s fault. The cyclist was following the rules of the road and mentioning the “motor vehicle speed limit” is irrelevant. Also, the pedestrians crossing the road are irrelevant as they were not involved in the car-turning-right incident.
Sorry but you have all missed
Sorry but you have all missed the main point, if the cyclist had left home 30 seconds earlier or ridden a little bit faster he would have avoided all this
Sorry couldn’t resist it
Sorry but you have all missed
Sorry but you have all missed the main point, if the cyclist had left home 30 seconds earlier or ridden a little bit faster he would have avoided all this
Sorry couldn’t resist it
Much of the time it’s quite
Much of the time it’s quite easy to see what’s coming if, prior to seeing what’s coming, you’ve just read an article that tells you what’s coming.
More importantly who clicked
More importantly who clicked on the YouTube links that showed lady who loses her skirt after this video finishes?
Driver pulled out, enough said.
The cyclist faced not one but
The cyclist faced not one but two unpredictable hazards: a driver indicating right, and pedestrians who’d already started crossing, who may have unsighted the driver. Whilst the cyclist may have been strictly within his rights, his riding was imprudent. He should have slowed well in advance of the junction, anticipating the needs of other road users whose physical and perceptual capacities may be inferior to his own.
Also, to my mind, his positioning was too far to the left for his speed. It’s harder to spot a cyclist against a busy background of pavement/lamp posts/shop fronts than on the crown of the road.
This crash was easily avoidable, had the cyclist but observed two cardinal rules of polite travel:
1) Do not accelerate into potential points of conflict.
and
2) Always give way to pedestrians.
Note: 2) here would have included slowing to a respectful speed: slow enough to make reassuring eye contact; perhaps even a smile, and bidding your fellow citizen good day, not swerving round them, inwardly cursing their existence.
At 00:15 the pedestrians are
At 00:15 the pedestrians are already in the road – they have priority
Spiregrain wrote:
The pedestrians crossed on red so did not have priority. That doesn’t give a driver or a cyclist the right to run into them obviously.