Was this car in the wrong?

thelawnet

DCodd wrote: »

Actualy it's my experience not an assumption. The reality is that rush hour traffic is full of drivers and road users of all description (inc cyclists) that are not at their best, concentration wise and are more concerned about getting to work or home, they are tired and usualy short tempered (well in Surrey anyway).

Perhaps you live in a different Surrey from me. Anyway, it doesn't help tired road users if you ride where they can't see you.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jclIjO_6I9U

The cyclist maintains poor road position. He would fail the UK motorcycle test with a riding style like that.

When encountering roadworks in his path, the cyclist should anticipate a change in his road position early, to avoid startling other road users and endangering himself.

In the footage he is seen swerving at the last minute into the carriageway to avoid an obstacle in the road which was obvious to him from some distance.

In the first video, the speed of the motorist, at least at the point he passed the cyclist, was probably not excessive.

He was certainly travelling nowhere near 100mph. Notice how quickly the motorist manages to stop to remonstrate with the cyclist. Even if the motorist had been travelling at 75mph (120km/h), he would have needed 172m to stop in those conditions. Yet the motorist stopped comfortably and safely in perhaps 30 metres.

At the point that the motorist passes the cyclist, I would estimate the motorist's speed to be under 40 mph. Out of interest, what is the speed limit on that stretch of road?

What we aren't told is why the motorist was angry with the cyclist. His anger might have been a natural reaction to the realisation that there had nearly been a very nasty collision. That's understandable. Like the horrified mother scolding the silly child for playing with fire.

Also, do we know whether the cyclist had an illuminated rear lamp on his bicycle?

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

He was certainly travelling nowhere near 100mph. Notice how quickly the motorist manages to stop to remonstrate with the cyclist. Even if the motorist had been travelling at 75mph (120km/h), he would have needed 172m to stop in those conditions. Yet the motorist stopped comfortably and safely in perhaps 30 metres.

It doesn't say that he is doing 100mph. He says that a third party told him that s/he was overtaken by the Subaru driver at 100mph. Major comprehension fail asbokid....

At the point that the motorist passes the cyclist, I would estimate the motorist's speed to be under 40 mph. Out of interest, what is the speed limit on that stretch of road?

30mph, 40mph, who knows, doesn't really make much difference you can be driving dangerously at 40mph in a 60mph limit and driving safely at 70mph in a 50mph limit.

What we aren't told is why the motorist was angry with the cyclist. His anger might have been a natural reaction to the realisation that there had nearly been a very nasty collision. That's understandable. Like the horrified mother scolding the silly child for playing with fire.

The driver is dangerous, I'm not quite sure why you are so keen to defend him. He gets angry at the cyclist because the cyclist beeps his (loud) horn at him and shouts at him when the driver overtakes dangerously with oncoming traffic and roadworks.

For your benefit (the other driver, from the later video, has learned this):



The cyclist is making good progress - around 25mph at a guess - and the car driver making the overtake needs to make sure that it's safe before passing, observing all likely hazards, or consider whether it's worth it at all - certainly overtaking only to pull over in the middle of the road seems rather futile.

Also, do we know whether the cyclist had an illuminated rear lamp on his bicycle?

The cyclist has several hundred pounds of recording equipment on there, and a bike costing several grand, no doubt he also a set of high-quality lighting too.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

The driver is dangerous, I'm not quite sure why you are so keen to defend him.

The cyclist had poor road position when he was approaching the roadworks, and he wobbled into the road to avoid the roadworks. If there had been a prang, that would have amounted to contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist. That was why the motorist was annoyed.

In motorcycle training, the rider is taught to maintain a road position as if he were driving a car, i.e. don't hug the gutter and sit to the right of the centre of the lane.

Maintaining poor road position is the cyclist's mistake. Not that it excused the motorist's vitriol.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"If the rule is to drive on the left-hand side of the road, the best position to ride in is the clear patch to the left of the centre line (the right tyre track, in other words). This will give you a buffer zone from the edge of the road, and keep you off the oil slick in the middle of the lane. You will also have a good view of side streets." (from the BBC..)

[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] correct lane position in the UK is shown by the rider in lane A..

[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

The cyclist had poor road position when he was approaching the roadworks, and he wobbled into the road to avoid the roadworks. If there had been a prang, that would have amounted to contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist. That was why the motorist was annoyed.

It is certainly not negligent, the one responsible for executing the maneuver safely is the overtaker, the near side obstructions are clearly visible as is the cyclist in front, and the driver is responsible for overtaking safely and has a special duty towards the more vulnerable road user. If you are driving behind a bicycle they do not restrict your view and you really should be watching the road and them carefully because bicycles do need to 'wobble' - potholes, slippery drain covers. You wouldn't overtake a car approaching those roadworks and you shouldn't do it to a bicycle.

In motorcycle training, the rider is taught to maintain a road position as if he were driving a car, i.e. don't hug the gutter and sit to the right of the centre of the carriageway.

Cyclists are a bit slower and are advised to cycle either in primary (centre of the lane) or secondary (near the left of the lane) depending on the road. In this video I believe he rides in secondary because the road is fast and wide enough for cars to pass him, it would have made him safer to take the lane earlier but sometimes this is isn't possible - you get a stream of cars overtaking you and cannot move out till the last minute.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"If the rule is to drive on the left-hand side of the road, the best position to ride in is the clear patch to the left of the centre line (the right tyre track, in other words). This will give you a buffer zone from the edge of the road, and keep you off the oil slick in the middle of the lane. You will also have a good view of side streets." (from the BBC..)

[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] correct lane position in the UK is shown by the rider in lane A..

[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Those are motorbikes, not bicycles. The Stationery Office publication 'Cyclecraft' notes:

"The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Here you will be within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers..., and you will have the best visibility... The road surface will be [better]..." "The primary riding position should be your normal riding position where you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasis your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely." "It is often the best position too on roads where there is no following traffic and on multi-lane roads with light traffic."

"Because the primary position can inconvenience following drivers it is reasonable to ride further to the left when this could help others, so long as your own safety is not thereby impaired." "The secondary riding position is 1 mtre to the left of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide, but no closer than 0.5 metres from the edge of any road." "The secondary riding position is relative to the moving traffic lane, not the road edge. Riding further left, even if there is space will [mean drivers ignore you]" "Only when travelling very slowly such as uphill should you travel ride further left, but always at least 0.5 metres from the edge"

"On busy roads, it will be necessary to keep to the secondary position most of the time."

Personally I would look around when moving out, but I'd be listening for approaching traffic also, it's difficult to read the situation in a video in terms of what's going on behind.

sequence

asbokid you seem oblivious to the fact that bicycles are not motorcycles. Motorcycles have engines, meaning that they can go much faster than a cyclist (generally speaking) thus it's very good practice to keep a primary position at all times on motor bike. Cyclists however can not drive at considerable speed all the time, so it's a good idea to keep to left except at junctions/pinch points.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

Those are motorbikes, not bicycles. The Stationery Office publication 'Cyclecraft' notes:

"The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Here you will be within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers..., and you will have the best visibility... The road surface will be [better]..." "The primary riding position should be your normal riding position where you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasis your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely." "It is often the best position too on roads where there is no following traffic and on multi-lane roads with light traffic."

"Because the primary position can inconvenience following drivers it is reasonable to ride further to the left when this could help others, so long as your own safety is not thereby impaired." "The secondary riding position is 1 mtre to the left of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide, but no closer than 0.5 metres from the edge of any road." "The secondary riding position is relative to the moving traffic lane, not the road edge. Riding further left, even if there is space will [mean drivers ignore you]" "Only when travelling very slowly such as uphill should you travel ride further left, but always at least 0.5 metres from the edge"

"On busy roads, it will be necessary to keep to the secondary position most of the time."

Personally I would look around when moving out..

Well that's the key..

The cyclist made a mistake - and that is what it was - of hugging the curb, up until he reached the roadworks, whereupon he forfeited priority.

At that point, I guess he should have stopped, signaled with his right hand, waited until the road was clear, and only then pulled off again.

Better still, he should have maintained a position in the middle of the lane, and should not have moved inwards towards the curb between each set of roadworks. He was being polite but he didn't have to be, and it did him no favours.

No doubt the driver would still have got annoyed whatever the cyclist had done, but at least the cyclist would not have been (partially) in the wrong.

boliston

I generally use "secondary" position which is the part of the road that is normally trodden by the nearside wheel of motor vehicles - it usually is slightly smoother for this reason.
When approaching a "pinch point" then secondary is not safe so go with primary till the pinch point is passed.
Other times to avoid secondary are when passing junctions as there is the risk that a cyclist will not be seen when in secondary position.

asbokid

sequence wrote: »

Cyclists however can not drive at considerable speed all the time, so it's a good idea to keep to left except at junctions/pinch points.

I agree, but that was a "pinch point"..

There was a set of (shamefully unlit) roadworks ahead. The cyclist should have anticipated their obstruction to his path by moving towards the centre of the lane, and staying there. He should have made that manoeuvre in plenty of time to warn other road users, where necessary, indicating beforehand.