Very nearly wiped out a cyclist

GrumpyDil

born_again said:

HedgehogRulez said:

Sounds like pretty poor attempt at victim blaming a vulnerable road user to excuse shoddy driving behaviour by the OP.

It is time that regulation was updated that in case like this. That should a cyclist etc be injured that what they were wearing or their style of riding is taken into consideration, as part of the cause of their demise.
Maybe will/might just make them realise that you have to take responsibility for your personal safety. 

So that the likes of Little Jimmy Who is a angel & never does anything wrong. Yet is spotted many times riding in black clothing, no lights in the dark on one wheel, on wrong side of the road taunting drivers to hit them. Means that should a driver hit them, that driver walks away Scott free & little Jimmy gets just what they deserved.

As mentioned above there was recently a crash scene investigation program on the BBC where a user on a scooter was killed by a car driver. The eventful outcome was that because of the lighting/clothing etc the car driver had no liability as on re-creating the incident, the scooter rider only became visible around a second or so before the impact.

Slightly different scenario as this was on a high speed road but certainly lighting and clothing were taken into account in that situation.

Sea_Shell

GrumpyDil said:

born_again said:

HedgehogRulez said:

Sounds like pretty poor attempt at victim blaming a vulnerable road user to excuse shoddy driving behaviour by the OP.

It is time that regulation was updated that in case like this. That should a cyclist etc be injured that what they were wearing or their style of riding is taken into consideration, as part of the cause of their demise.
Maybe will/might just make them realise that you have to take responsibility for your personal safety. 

So that the likes of Little Jimmy Who is a angel & never does anything wrong. Yet is spotted many times riding in black clothing, no lights in the dark on one wheel, on wrong side of the road taunting drivers to hit them. Means that should a driver hit them, that driver walks away Scott free & little Jimmy gets just what they deserved.

As mentioned above there was recently a crash scene investigation program on the BBC where a user on a scooter was killed by a car driver. The eventful outcome was that because of the lighting/clothing etc the car driver had no liability as on re-creating the incident, the scooter rider only became visible around a second or so before the impact.

Slightly different scenario as this was on a high speed road but certainly lighting and clothing were taken into account in that situation.

Did you also see the episode in which a car turned right across the path of a scooter rider.  IIRC it was found that the scooter rider was almost invisible, from the drivers perspective?!?

MattMattMattUK

Sea_Shell said:

GrumpyDil said:

born_again said:

HedgehogRulez said:

Sounds like pretty poor attempt at victim blaming a vulnerable road user to excuse shoddy driving behaviour by the OP.

It is time that regulation was updated that in case like this. That should a cyclist etc be injured that what they were wearing or their style of riding is taken into consideration, as part of the cause of their demise.
Maybe will/might just make them realise that you have to take responsibility for your personal safety. 

So that the likes of Little Jimmy Who is a angel & never does anything wrong. Yet is spotted many times riding in black clothing, no lights in the dark on one wheel, on wrong side of the road taunting drivers to hit them. Means that should a driver hit them, that driver walks away Scott free & little Jimmy gets just what they deserved.

As mentioned above there was recently a crash scene investigation program on the BBC where a user on a scooter was killed by a car driver. The eventful outcome was that because of the lighting/clothing etc the car driver had no liability as on re-creating the incident, the scooter rider only became visible around a second or so before the impact.

Slightly different scenario as this was on a high speed road but certainly lighting and clothing were taken into account in that situation.

Did you also see the episode in which a car turned right across the path of a scooter rider.  IIRC it was found that the scooter rider was almost invisible, from the drivers perspective?!?

Was it also one of those illegal electric scooters being driven on the road?

sheramber

B0bbyEwing said:

user1977 said:

B0bbyEwing said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

And yet they were clearly visible on the dashcam footage.

I'm a cyclist & I think safety gear should meet a standard like with cars. You shouldn't be allowed to just slap a cheap waste of time light on your bike & because that's the box ticked then you're A-ok. A cyclist should be required to have lighting to a standard & reflective clothing in the dark should be a requirement & anyone found cycling without wearing that should be penalised. 

In what way would that differ from the current law?

I'll be honest, I don't actually know what the current law is. Based on the number of people on bikes I see who wear what I consider inadequate gear I would've said that the requirements are lacking.

Perhaps that's not it. Maybe the law is there & the requirements are adequate. Maybe it just falls in to yet another case of needs better policing which isn't going to happen. Much like when you report people with no tax, MOT or insurance (or all 3) and the police couldn't care less. Even better, they argue you shouldn't be reporting no MOT offenders to them yet .gov website says that's exactly who you should report to.

So maybe it comes under the category of "can't be bothered" & they'll only be bothered when a cyclist is killed. Then they've got no choice but to start looking in to it. Doesn't help the dead cyclist though. Bit late for that guy.



I actually took the same turning tonight & I think there was possibly a mixture of things going on with this.

Now unlike has been painted by some others, I was looking constantly to my right and saw nothing. No movement. Only once the guy was mostly across my front end.
The design of my car is actually poor. The A pillar design is quite obstructed & I haven't driven it all that much. This isn't me making an excuse. I should've looked better I suppose. It's just saying how it is - the view is poor. 

That was then made worse by someone who seemed to be wanting to camouflage themselves rather than make themselves seen. 
Could've both done better at what we were doing I suppose.

I still maintain though - I'd have got in trouble but I'd have been alive. The other guy could've ended up dead (for arguments sake. Probably not with the speed involved), so if I was putting my body against 1.50ton I'd be making myself as bright & visible as possible.

Highway Code only states “should” wear light clothing.

However it does state 

Rule 68

You MUST NOT

• carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
• hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
• ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner. ( my bold)
• ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.

Sea_Shell

MattMattMattUK said:

Sea_Shell said:

GrumpyDil said:

born_again said:

HedgehogRulez said:

Sounds like pretty poor attempt at victim blaming a vulnerable road user to excuse shoddy driving behaviour by the OP.

It is time that regulation was updated that in case like this. That should a cyclist etc be injured that what they were wearing or their style of riding is taken into consideration, as part of the cause of their demise.
Maybe will/might just make them realise that you have to take responsibility for your personal safety. 

So that the likes of Little Jimmy Who is a angel & never does anything wrong. Yet is spotted many times riding in black clothing, no lights in the dark on one wheel, on wrong side of the road taunting drivers to hit them. Means that should a driver hit them, that driver walks away Scott free & little Jimmy gets just what they deserved.

As mentioned above there was recently a crash scene investigation program on the BBC where a user on a scooter was killed by a car driver. The eventful outcome was that because of the lighting/clothing etc the car driver had no liability as on re-creating the incident, the scooter rider only became visible around a second or so before the impact.

Slightly different scenario as this was on a high speed road but certainly lighting and clothing were taken into account in that situation.

Did you also see the episode in which a car turned right across the path of a scooter rider.  IIRC it was found that the scooter rider was almost invisible, from the drivers perspective?!?

Was it also one of those illegal electric scooters being driven on the road?

Yes, it was.

Baldytyke88

sheramber said:

Highway Code only states “should” wear light clothing.

Cyclists can share culpability for their injuries if they do not wear a helmet, even if the accident was primarily caused by another party. While wearing a helmet is not legally mandatory, failing to wear one can lead to a finding of contributory negligence in civil cases, potentially reducing compensation for injuries. 

TJ666

Reflective clothing on the cyclist may not have helped much in this scenario, it requires light to be reflected, and if they were coming from your right at a T junction, your headlights still wouldn't have picked them up.  It sounds like you were rat running, these are the drivers I dread the most on a bike, as they are intent on optimising their journey (...sometimes at the expense of care).  I have nearly done similar with a motorcyclist (in the dark and rain), it is easily done, but classic SMIDSY.  Learning experience for both you and the cyclist IMO. 

leosayer

The link below has a really good description of why the SMIDSY phenomenon occurs and how to avoid it:

https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

saajan_12

born_again said:

leosayer said:

I'm not the world's greatest driver but blaming the cyclist's clothing isn't something I would do.

The first question I would ask myself is how could I have avoided that mistake - the kind of mistake that could permanently change someone's life.

If you didn't see them then what could you do differently in future to see them next time?

..
When you are a vulnerable road user, it is your responsibility to make sure you do all YOU can to be seen & stay safe.

How is this any different to telling women they should be wearing more appropriate clothing to avoid being harrassed and stay safe? Good practice or the lack thereof does not deminish the other party's responsibility at all. 

MEM62 said:

B0bbyEwing said:

Dash cams are also frustrating because the amount of times I've watched something back on camera & it's been more obvious than in real time, looks not as close as in real time etc etc. 

When you play back dashcam footage you see a field of view.  In real time your eyes do not take in that whole field of view - they are constantly in motion and scanning so what you are taking in watching the replay is not what you were taking in at the time.  You see far more on the replay as you (a) have the time (and probably watch it more than once) and (b) your brain is not also having to focus on the other aspects of driving.       

That's true, and in the context of a hazard while moving, it may be less obvious in the time you have to react in real life than it appears on a dash cam. However here OP was starting from a stationary position, and so in low light, they may just need to look for even longer. It can take several seconds for the eyes to make sense of the shapes in front of them. 

So if it was visible at all on the dash cam, given the OP had time while stationary, this isn't really an excuse. 

B0bbyEwing said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

And yet they were clearly visible on the dashcam footage.

I'm a cyclist & I think safety gear should meet a standard like with cars. You shouldn't be allowed to just slap a cheap waste of time light on your bike & because that's the box ticked then you're A-ok. A cyclist should be required to have lighting to a standard & reflective clothing in the dark should be a requirement & anyone found cycling without wearing that should be penalised. 

There are standards that cyclists should have a front and back light, which this cyclist met. Perhaps too dim, but equally I'm blinded daily by some car / bike lights, not sure which is worse. There's no requirement for clothing but nor do cars have any other colouring or visibility requirements. 

Ultimately enforcement likely has the the same rate of success as any requirements on unregistered road users eg cyclists, pedestrians, etc.. ie if they can't stop the volumes of cyclists I see running red lights then I wouldn't hold out hope when there's no threat of a licence being revoked etc. 

GDB2222

leosayer said:

The link below has a really good description of why the SMIDSY phenomenon occurs and how to avoid it:

https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

That is a great article. It explains why drivers don’t see cyclists, and more importantly what both drivers and cyclists can do about it.