Driver who turned into path of cyclist warns of "dangerous" cycle lanes

ktache wrote:

I do find that many drivers seem to pay less attention, do dodgier things the closer they get to their homes.  Complacency I guess.  Speeding and use of phones.  Familiarity?  Their children might not be playing in the street just then, but their neighbours sprogs might be.  They are by definition residential areas.  I tend to pay more as I get nearer, I'd feel very foolish falling and breaking the collarbone a few metres from home.

And lots of left hooks.

What I really dislike are those blue signs that warn YOU as a CYCLIST on a cycle path of concealed driveways.  You know if you're hit on them the insurance company will use the sign as a reason for reducing fault.  I try not to use them.  Should there be a sign in the driveway telling the motorist that they might want to try paying attention?

That and the bumpiness of the height changes to accomodate the dropped curb.

But if we aren't using the provided facilities we get shouted at or punishment passed, no matter how crap they are.

+1 for complacency.

I'm not sure there are comprehensive stats on this, but googling turns up various surveys etc (like this one http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/08/most-car-crashes-happen-near-home-18...) about most collisions occurring within a few miles of the home.

The causes of distraction or complacency will be numerous but that seems to signify that you're less likely to pay proper attention or take due care if you're just driving to the shops. Yet another reason to discourage driving for journeys that can easily be made on foot or bike.

jthef wrote:

For me there are too many mitigating factors to totally blame the driver. Don't get me wrong it was because of his actions this happened.

these include the following

the car lights making it hard to see anything at the other side of them.
the drivers age as you get older it is harder to see at night (that is just nature unless you are going to ban all 50+ from driving).
the white van is like a moving screen stopping or reducing the chance of seeing the cyclist sooner.
When crossing traffic it is natural just to try to nip across the traffic so you don't block the road (I know he should of looked but a lot of people will think they are being good).

That's not "mitigating factors": that's all evidence for the prosecution, and proof that he (the driver) ought to have been paying far more attention than he ought to.

You shouldn't ever just "nip across traffic so you don't block the road" unless you can see that your entire path/route is clear to do so.  As others have said, he was crossing a cycle path and a footpath to get onto his driveway: he has right of access, but no special priority.  If he and his neighbours have all had near-miss incidents accessing their driveways then he ought to be taking a lot more care.  And to raise the favourite strawmen of the Daily Fail reader: what if that cyclist had been a little kiddie on a scooter?  or someone with a pushchair?  or an old person on a mobility scooter?

Bottom line: the motorist took a chance, made a mistake, and is trying to push some of the blame elsewhere.

Quote:

When u see the bike light on the camera it is too late unless the bike could stop, so was he going too fast? (BTW I would of been going just as fast or faster   so I'm not blaming the cyclist either).

But the cyclist was on the cycle path.  They had priority, not the motorist driving across in front of them.

When you are driving, and you have to turn right, do you check for other traffic before making your manoeuvre or do you just nip across and if anything bad happens well then the other vehicle was going too fast???

Quote:

And I don't know how you will get round this one. As in a lot of cases there is not room to fix it. Unless you get all those car drivers on bikes.

Well, now, here's one idea: why don't all those car drivers simply pay a bit more attention to what is around them.

kcr wrote:

I've been run down on a path by a driver exiting their drive. Luckily knocked into a parking bay rather than the adjoining dual carriageway, but I got a broken hand. I was wearing hi viz, had lights on and it was daylight. He just didn't look or slow down. This sort of path design is very poor, and doesn't provide adequate protection. In fact, in some ways, it may be more dangerous than travelling on the road.

It is more dangerous, and there is research which shows it.

Paths like this remove the risk of the least likely bike/car collision, that of being hit from behind, but vastly increase the risk of the most likely collision, being hit at a junction.  They also mean that the cyclist loses right of way at every junction and conflict with pedestrians is introduced.

As Cycling UK put it once "shared use paths are an admission of failure to make the roads safe."

burtthebike wrote:

kcr wrote:

I've been run down on a path by a driver exiting their drive. Luckily knocked into a parking bay rather than the adjoining dual carriageway, but I got a broken hand. I was wearing hi viz, had lights on and it was daylight. He just didn't look or slow down. This sort of path design is very poor, and doesn't provide adequate protection. In fact, in some ways, it may be more dangerous than travelling on the road.

It is more dangerous, and there is research which shows it.

Paths like this remove the risk of the least likely bike/car collision, that of being hit from behind, but vastly increase the risk of the most likely collision, being hit at a junction.  They also mean that the cyclist loses right of way at every junction and conflict with pedestrians is introduced.

As Cycling UK put it once "shared use paths are an admission of failure to make the roads safe."

Had a few incidents where I was nearly hit by a driver entering/exiting a driveway, or even driving on the pavement or setting off from being parked on the pavement.  This is why I don't use many of the cyclepaths that drivers keep telling me are "there for your safety" (along with the pedestrians in dark clothing, pedestrians changing direction suddenly, dogs on leads etc etc).  

ClubSmed wrote:

Good job there wasn't a jogger on the path!

I've nearly been taken out twice on the pavement by cars either reversing out of their drive or pulling in as this gentlemen did.  I avoided being hit but it was still unpleasant, however i did record good times - the extra adrenalin helps

Ush wrote:

It's a good argument for a >= 1000 lumen light with massive spillage around the edges of the beam pattern and none of that German bicycle light, cutoff beam nonsense. http://road.cc/content/review/143954-magicshine-mj-858-front-light The MJ-902 seems even better.

This is what makes the whole topic such a pain. On the one hand "1000 lumens is too bright, you are dazzling drivers"...on the other "I can't be expected to see you unless you mount an WW2-era anti-aircraft searchlight on your handlebars"

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Ush wrote:

It's a good argument for a >= 1000 lumen light with massive spillage around the edges of the beam pattern and none of that German bicycle light, cutoff beam nonsense. http://road.cc/content/review/143954-magicshine-mj-858-front-light The MJ-902 seems even better.

This is what makes the whole topic such a pain. On the one hand "1000 lumens is too bright, you are dazzling drivers"...on the other "I can't be expected to see you unless you mount an WW2-era anti-aircraft searchlight on your handlebars"

Parked vehicles on the roadside are likely to obscure the front light of the bike for cyclists approaching head-on, and cause definitie visiblity problems for cyclists coming up on the pavement from behind.  Vehiclessuch as vans - and even the modern (so-called) "Mini" estate is a huge thing. You simply can't whizz along at much more than walking pace on such cycle paths - or run, for that matter - without taking note of vehicles turing into/out of driveways, no matter what the visibility is.

WillRod wrote:

An entirely preventable collision for which the car is completely liable, especially since he knows his neighbours have had similar issues with their driveways. Also preventable by making highways subject to the same health and safety as industrial sites that have traffic movements... 

Plant machinery and vans on industrial sites are often painted with high-viz chevrons and stripes, have orange flashing lights and are subject to a 10mph speed limit, and required to honk their horn when passing through pedestrianised areas.

Cars are often painted black, forget their lights when driving in town, drive too fast and make manoeuvres without looking properly or warning anyone. Perhaps we should put the onus on the cars to ensure safety? I saw a pedestrian nearly get hit by a Tesla electric car today because the stupid old git driving it wasn't looking, and had turned off the noise generator designed to prevent such an incident!

 

rant over  

Nice rant, but cars don't decide to do anything, the driver does.  It is a fundamental mistake to blame the car when it is the driver at fault, and excuse mostly used by drivers to shift the blame.

burtthebike wrote:

Of course it's classic victim blaming, the driver used to be a health and safety rep.

Total failure to analyse the cause of the collision and blame the victim for not doing something which wouldn't have made any difference: just like all the other H&S reps I've met.

Reminds me of when my employer's H&S reps wanted to bring in a helmet rule for riding on company business, which was opposed by the BUG, so we had a meeting.  There were eight of us, four H&S reps and four cyclists.  All the cyclists were slim and looked fit, but all the H&S reps were overweight, with at least two being obese.  They still had the nerve to lecture us.

I wonder if he's reported the collision to the police?

Hmmm... I ride a bike and I'm a union H&S rep. Don't think the two are mutually exclusive which seems to be the tone your post suggests.

Must admit I don't like any cycle route that has driveways or entrances crossing. Still think of Jason MacIntyre every time I cross one.