Who was in the wrong? Furious row erupts after a cyclist and taxi collide when the car driver makes right turn without indicating | Daily Mail Online
I'd say both to a degree, the car driver should have indicated and may have checked his mirror but if the cyclist was in his blind spot he wouldn't have seen him. But I would say primarily the cyclist - what kind oif idiot be it car, motorbike or pushbike overtakes at a junction where cars are likely to be turning? It was also fairly obvious the car was thinking about turning. There could also have been a car pulling out from the road on the right not expecting a cyclist to be on the wrong side of the road many drivers at that kind of junction look right when pulling out but not necessarily left as well.
Who is in the wrong?
Who is in the wrong?
So the guy is rolling on the opposing lane. He sees the car start to turn, and does nothing to change his speed until too late. It was he who had the last opportunity to avoid the collision. If you are on a bike you need to be conscious of everything going on, and cannot assume anyone sees you coming. Simple fact of survival.
The Car driver, probably should have signaled, but since there was no expectation of traffic approaching from the rear in that lane, it probably did not occur to him. Still, isn't there a law requiring a signal when turning? Would his signal have been enough to avoid the accident? I doubt it. the Biker seems to have assumed the car driver should have seen him coming and given him the courtesy of waiting for him to pass.
Aren't there also laws governing driving in the correct lane?
Were I the police, the Biker gets the ticket, here.
The Car driver, probably should have signaled, but since there was no expectation of traffic approaching from the rear in that lane, it probably did not occur to him. Still, isn't there a law requiring a signal when turning? Would his signal have been enough to avoid the accident? I doubt it. the Biker seems to have assumed the car driver should have seen him coming and given him the courtesy of waiting for him to pass.
Aren't there also laws governing driving in the correct lane?
Were I the police, the Biker gets the ticket, here.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Who is in the wrong?
As a cyclist I know that we are invisible to most drivers, so I never rely on them having seen me, I never creep between them and the kerb, never make a move until they have either passed or acknowledged me with a nod or a smile.
I would never try to overtake a car that was straddling the middle of the road, particularly on the outside. In this case the car whether it had indicated or not looked liable to be turning and the cyclist should realistically have had time to brake before the car turned.
So the cyclist is at fault, probably one of those green lovelies that think a halo is protecting them........it's not obviously.
I would never try to overtake a car that was straddling the middle of the road, particularly on the outside. In this case the car whether it had indicated or not looked liable to be turning and the cyclist should realistically have had time to brake before the car turned.
So the cyclist is at fault, probably one of those green lovelies that think a halo is protecting them........it's not obviously.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Who is in the wrong?
Somehow, I missed that this is a Bicycle. So, I guess that changes it a little bit, but still the biker owns this, I think.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Who is in the wrong?
Interesting how selective even the actual witnesses are - accusing him of overtaking on the inside. How could anyone possibly interpret that as being on the inside?
As for the taxi - the basic 3 stage MSM rule applies here. Mirrors, Signal, Manoeuvre. Clearly he hadn't done the 1st 2. Of course, you don't expect there to be someone overtaking in such a position, but on the road, nothing should be taken for granted.
The cyclist on the wrong side of the road? Of course he was - he was overtaking. It was slow moving traffic. The Prius had traffic in front of it, so the fact that it was moving slowly was not an indication that it was intending to turn.
When I was doing my motorbike training we were told that we only need to indicate when their's anyone around who needs to know, but that it never does any harm to indicate anyway. Personally I always indicate, out of habit (fair enough, there are times I've sometimes forgotten to turn them off, but that's another matter). In this instance, there was other traffic that would have needed to know, and the Prius did not indicate - nor did it seem to make any degree of hesitation while it checked to see if the way was clear - just straight out.
If the cyclist was guilty of anything, I reckon it lack of forethought by assuming other road users would be acting as they should. It can be scary enough on a motorbike, where cars don't see you. You have to be constantly aware of this & EXPECT them not to see you. Pushbikes, of course, are even smaller things to see, or hear coming. He should have been aware of this fact.
As for the taxi - the basic 3 stage MSM rule applies here. Mirrors, Signal, Manoeuvre. Clearly he hadn't done the 1st 2. Of course, you don't expect there to be someone overtaking in such a position, but on the road, nothing should be taken for granted.
The cyclist on the wrong side of the road? Of course he was - he was overtaking. It was slow moving traffic. The Prius had traffic in front of it, so the fact that it was moving slowly was not an indication that it was intending to turn.
When I was doing my motorbike training we were told that we only need to indicate when their's anyone around who needs to know, but that it never does any harm to indicate anyway. Personally I always indicate, out of habit (fair enough, there are times I've sometimes forgotten to turn them off, but that's another matter). In this instance, there was other traffic that would have needed to know, and the Prius did not indicate - nor did it seem to make any degree of hesitation while it checked to see if the way was clear - just straight out.
If the cyclist was guilty of anything, I reckon it lack of forethought by assuming other road users would be acting as they should. It can be scary enough on a motorbike, where cars don't see you. You have to be constantly aware of this & EXPECT them not to see you. Pushbikes, of course, are even smaller things to see, or hear coming. He should have been aware of this fact.
Who is in the wrong?
From the way the car was manouvering that he was thinking of turning seems fairly obvious and yes he should have indicated but the cyclist had plenty of time to react even if he wa doing 15-20 mph, odds are the bike was in his blind spot but primarily the cyclist was at fault not least because he was passng a line of traffic - which he is allowed to do so - but one of the main things you are taught as a biker, and it's basic common sense, is do not pass cars either on the inside or the outside if they are at a junction unless you are very sure they're not going to turn. More to the point what if a car had pulled out from the right and hit him? Both would have been done perhaps for careless driving but the cyclist mainly at fault IMO.
I had a near miss pulling out of a t junction, nothing coming from my left lorry coming from the right, plenty of time to pull out which i did only to be faced with a car overtaking the lorry and giving it some welly luckily there wasn't a three vehicle accident. I asked the a traffic pliceman who would have been deemed responsible and said both the cars, the car for overtaling in a silly place but also I pulled out when I couldn't be sure the way was actually clear, which seems a bit unfair but as he pointed out of I hadn't pulled out the accident wouldn't have happened either and clearly the way wasn't clear so we both did something wrong.
If the car had been turning left and the cyclist was on the inside who do you think would have been at fault then? I've seen that more than once with the cyclist ending up shouting abuse at the car driver for daring to get in his way.
I was undertaking a line of stationary traffic at traffic lights (two lanes I was on the inside) when I was hit by a van that decided to change lanes
posted by four part
If the cyclist was guilty of anything, I reckon it lack of forethought by assuming other road users would be acting as they should. It can be scary enough on a motorbike, where cars don't see you. You have to be constantly aware of this & EXPECT them not to see you. Pushbikes, of course, are even smaller things to see, or hear coming. He should have been aware of this fact.
Stupidity perhaps? He sees something happening and doesn't seem to think he should do anything to avoid an accident because he is in the "right".
I had a near miss pulling out of a t junction, nothing coming from my left lorry coming from the right, plenty of time to pull out which i did only to be faced with a car overtaking the lorry and giving it some welly luckily there wasn't a three vehicle accident. I asked the a traffic pliceman who would have been deemed responsible and said both the cars, the car for overtaling in a silly place but also I pulled out when I couldn't be sure the way was actually clear, which seems a bit unfair but as he pointed out of I hadn't pulled out the accident wouldn't have happened either and clearly the way wasn't clear so we both did something wrong.
If the car had been turning left and the cyclist was on the inside who do you think would have been at fault then? I've seen that more than once with the cyclist ending up shouting abuse at the car driver for daring to get in his way.
I was undertaking a line of stationary traffic at traffic lights (two lanes I was on the inside) when I was hit by a van that decided to change lanes
posted by four part
If the cyclist was guilty of anything, I reckon it lack of forethought by assuming other road users would be acting as they should. It can be scary enough on a motorbike, where cars don't see you. You have to be constantly aware of this & EXPECT them not to see you. Pushbikes, of course, are even smaller things to see, or hear coming. He should have been aware of this fact.
Stupidity perhaps? He sees something happening and doesn't seem to think he should do anything to avoid an accident because he is in the "right".
Who is in the wrong?
gmc;1499794 wrote: Stupidity perhaps? He sees something happening and doesn't seem to think he should do anything to avoid an accident because he is in the "right".
Regrettably, all too often this is the case. Being in the right is not enough. When pulling out of a junction & the car approaching is indicating to turn off into the road that you are waiting to pull out of, you should still not pull out until the car has definitely committed himself to the turn. He may just have left his indicator on from the previous turn. Expect the unexpected.
Regrettably, all too often this is the case. Being in the right is not enough. When pulling out of a junction & the car approaching is indicating to turn off into the road that you are waiting to pull out of, you should still not pull out until the car has definitely committed himself to the turn. He may just have left his indicator on from the previous turn. Expect the unexpected.
Who is in the wrong?
It has oft been my observation that most accidents occur when two or more people are not paying attention.
If you are watching out, you increase your ability to avoid an accident when the other guy is completely unaware.
If you are watching out, you increase your ability to avoid an accident when the other guy is completely unaware.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Who is in the wrong?
LarsMac;1499927 wrote: It has oft been my observation that most accidents occur when two or more people are not paying attention.
If you are watching out, you increase your ability to avoid an accident when the other guy is completely unaware.
Spot on.
If you are watching out, you increase your ability to avoid an accident when the other guy is completely unaware.
Spot on.
Who is in the wrong?
posted by four part
When I was doing my motorbike training we were told that we only need to indicate when their's anyone around who needs to know, but that it never does any harm to indicate anyway. Personally I always indicate, out of habit (fair enough, there are times I've sometimes forgotten to turn them off, but that's another matter). In this instance, there was other traffic that would have needed to know, and the Prius did not indicate - nor did it seem to make any degree of hesitation while it checked to see if the way was clear - just straight out.
were you not also taught it is a really stupid idea to overtake when approaching a junction on the right? I would say this is 90% the cyclicts fault, OK the car should have indicated and checked his mirror but tbhe cyclist should have anticipated someone might be tuning right and more to the point someone might pull out from the junction. It was fairly obvious the car was thinking of turning right. Cyclists and motor bikes may be allowed to pass stationary traffic on the right doesn't mean they should do so regardless of what's happening.
When I was doing my motorbike training we were told that we only need to indicate when their's anyone around who needs to know, but that it never does any harm to indicate anyway. Personally I always indicate, out of habit (fair enough, there are times I've sometimes forgotten to turn them off, but that's another matter). In this instance, there was other traffic that would have needed to know, and the Prius did not indicate - nor did it seem to make any degree of hesitation while it checked to see if the way was clear - just straight out.
were you not also taught it is a really stupid idea to overtake when approaching a junction on the right? I would say this is 90% the cyclicts fault, OK the car should have indicated and checked his mirror but tbhe cyclist should have anticipated someone might be tuning right and more to the point someone might pull out from the junction. It was fairly obvious the car was thinking of turning right. Cyclists and motor bikes may be allowed to pass stationary traffic on the right doesn't mean they should do so regardless of what's happening.
Who is in the wrong?
gmc;1500157 wrote: posted by four part
were you not also taught it is a really stupid idea to overtake when approaching a junction on the right? I would say this is 90% the cyclicts fault, OK the car should have indicated and checked his mirror but tbhe cyclist should have anticipated someone might be tuning right and more to the point someone might pull out from the junction. It was fairly obvious the car was thinking of turning right. Cyclists and motor bikes may be allowed to pass stationary traffic on the right doesn't mean they should do so regardless of what's happening.
Exactly. And you can see where the car began the turn long before the biker began to react. You cannot assume that they will notice your approach and cease their maneuver because you are coming.
were you not also taught it is a really stupid idea to overtake when approaching a junction on the right? I would say this is 90% the cyclicts fault, OK the car should have indicated and checked his mirror but tbhe cyclist should have anticipated someone might be tuning right and more to the point someone might pull out from the junction. It was fairly obvious the car was thinking of turning right. Cyclists and motor bikes may be allowed to pass stationary traffic on the right doesn't mean they should do so regardless of what's happening.
Exactly. And you can see where the car began the turn long before the biker began to react. You cannot assume that they will notice your approach and cease their maneuver because you are coming.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Who is in the wrong?
Anything which potentially removes cyclists from the roads must be supported and applauded .
They do not pay tax and unlike motorists they use no fuel .
We need fuel tax revenue to build roads and lots of other things .
How dare this minority breed of selfish misers get in the way of wealth producers .
Outrageous .
They do not pay tax and unlike motorists they use no fuel .
We need fuel tax revenue to build roads and lots of other things .
How dare this minority breed of selfish misers get in the way of wealth producers .
Outrageous .
Who is in the wrong?
As a road user, whatever the letter of the law, the more vulnerable you are the more you need to pay attention and protect yourself.
I am a pedestrian, a cyclist, a biker and a car driver and as such I’d say yes, the car driver should have indicated and is probably legally at fault but the cyclist is the idiot.
I am a pedestrian, a cyclist, a biker and a car driver and as such I’d say yes, the car driver should have indicated and is probably legally at fault but the cyclist is the idiot.