bike lanes again
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jacob":1r3i926e said:
But the taxi didn't stop, it turned into the rider's path. If the taxi had only pulled in the bike would have passed safely. It's not good practice to make a U turn without stopping first and making sure nothing is coming up behind. If someone runs into the back of you it can be assumed to be their fault, but not when they hit the side of your vehicle.
Where I live it's normal practice not to overtake people signalling right (or undertake people turning left, come to that). The lycra'd king of the road was going to fast and not paying anyone else any attention. If it was a motorbike as opposed to a pushbike, you'd be the first to criticise.
RogerS
Established Member
Finial":2h1a6k72 said:
There I have to disagree. All vehicles, cars, bikes etc should be driven in such a way that they can stop or react safely. The cyclist was going too fast and did not take into account any concept of adequate stopping distance. My initial thought on watching the video was that it was the taxi driver's fault but on watching it again, there was adequate use of his indicator.
Looking at it another way, say a child ran out into the road in front of the taxi who braked hard. That cyclist would have been up the back of the taxi.
andys wood shed
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2006
- Messages
- 403
- Reaction score
- 4
RogerS":3u579dua said:
Unfortunately not
The taxi performed the manoeuvre after 2 indications only
The minimum recommendation is three
Clearly a case of manoeuvre signal mirror
phil.p":2uacggk6 said:
That's true about the overtakes, and I hate it when drivers do it to me. But he wouldn't have started to overtake if the taxi hadn't slowed. He wasn't going any faster than the taxi until then. There was nothing wrong with the taxi driver slowing down. If the bike rider was too fast or too close to react to that he would have been at fault. But he was far enough out in the lane to pass, not directly behind. You could say the pass would have been too close because a driver or passenger might have opened a door in front of him (very common, though against the Highway Code). It's hard to see if he braked before the indicator came on - if not, maybe he was watching the pedestrian, or maybe he planned to pass. If the taxi hadn't turned into his path there would have been no problem. Two questions - did the taxi driver look carefully enough to see what was behind him before turning, and if not, do you think that turn would have got him through the driving test?
iNewbie
Established Member
I think you should take another look at that video. You'll find its cyclist error. Muppet didn't have his hands on the handlebars until it was too late...
It's a reasonable assumption in city traffic that unforeseen things happen. That is why, if we wish to stay alive to have another stupid discussion we have to forsee unforseen things happening. If that was a car, a motorcycle, a truck or even a horse overtaking, they would be deemed at fault ... so why not the cyclist?
The cyclist was probably sitting in the driver's blind spot - and riding like a hoon - which might be fine for something with an engine - they've got a hope of acceleration getting them out of trouble (and brakes enough to give them a chance of stopping) but unwise for a cycle.
The cyclist was probably sitting in the driver's blind spot - and riding like a hoon - which might be fine for something with an engine - they've got a hope of acceleration getting them out of trouble (and brakes enough to give them a chance of stopping) but unwise for a cycle.
iNewbie
Established Member
Phil, watch the video again. The cyclist didn't have his hands on the handlebars until the last few seconds - its the equivalent of jay-walking...
iNewbie":2h7jmjrb said:
I wondered that as well. It did look a bit odd but I decided it wasn't the case. If he was riding hands off I wouldn't defend it. But in any case it was not the primary cause of the crash. It was still a careless turn.
I didn't write that Roger. 
Finial wrote that. Beware the internet lol. I'm departing from this thread never to return. Life's too short.[/quote]
It only grinds you down if you let it.
Finial wrote that. Beware the internet lol. I'm departing from this thread never to return. Life's too short.[/quote]It only grinds you down if you let it.
phil.p":23si72b1 said:
Yes. I suspect he was in a blind spot. Very foreseeable that the driver would miss him, though he didn't try very hard. It's also a reasonable assumption that there might be a bike behind. It had been behind the taxi for some distance and must have been visible earlier. It didn't 'come out of nowhere'.
Again, this is why we need roads that allow for mistakes. It doesn't serve any useful purpose to argue about blame. Anyone on the road can make a mistake or cycle or drive badly.
iNewbie
Established Member
Finial":3vau8nyb said:
Its not a case of if he was. He was. Watch the slow motion part -later in the video. He was away with the fairies. I'd call that driving without undue care and attention...
http://www.idiotukdriversexposed.com/cy ... on-street/
I think you've a better screen than me.
iNewbie":yqdhsct6 said:
I looked again and you may be right. His position looks different before and after he passes the pedestrian. But I'm not sure. Bear in mind that if he was braking hard it would have thrown him forward. And if he was riding hands-off earlier he would almost certainly have seen the pedestrian and got ready to brake or swerve. Not many people cycle at speed with no hands and not looking either. I doubt if anyone here would.
It was still a bad turn.
- Status
