Apologies if this has been done but I couldn't see it on front page.
I'd say half and half.
I'd say half and half.
+1
taxi - looks like a really late signal & manoeuvre from the taxi (without the "mirror" bit to go with them)
Bit of both but mostly the taxi.
The taxi is red.
50/50,
Taxi didn't indicate until far too late to be of any use to anyone.
Cyclist undertook through a junction.
If there had been a bike lane, or if the taxi had indicated earlier then it would shift the blame, but it was just two road users doing something stupid.
Unlike the transit pickup that tried to run me off the road this morning (in my car!), some drivers are just idiots. KN Scafolding in Reading, I'm looking at you, you retard. If you're going to drive like a tool, don't do it in a company van with an easily recognisable plate (KN 0 5CAF).
I'd say bike was 100% at fault - they were both in the same lane, if the bike wanted to overtake, he should have done so on the drivers side, or simply stayed with the flow of of traffic.
taxi
Taxi didn't check mirror and indicated late.
Cyclist should have been more aware of his surroundings - he's in the right, but could possibly have slowed anticipating a move from the taxi at the junction.
But taxi man's fault, no question.
Bit of both but they dealt with it like adults.
And before it starts... it's not victim blaming to suggest that undertaking any vehicle approaching a junction is a stupid thing to do.
Nearly ALL the cyclist/traffic incident videos that get posted up in here are a combination of a [i]common driving error[/i] compounded by a cyclist forgetting the road is full of [i]common driving idiots[/i]. There's really no point being "right" whilst holed up in traction. I despair of cyclists I see around me in London not riding with their heads, but with their egos. In 20yrs of London cycling I've not once had an off or a near miss, but I have often had vehicles pull across me without indicating, pull out without seeing, change lanes without mirrors. And each time I'm ready for it and stay safe.
Undertaking like that at a junction is pretty stupid, especially undertaking a taxi. Looks like he was following the guy in front a bit too blindly.
Neither seemed to be paying much attention to what was going on.
Stoner you are awesome are you Matt?
Oarsum. I think you'll find.
Yeah very late signal from the taxi and should have been looking for cyclists (maybe he was and found one), but rider could have been more aware, and was probably the reason he dealt with it like he did.
probably the reason he dealt with it like he did.
He knew perfectly well, riding up the inside at a junction and you're playing a numbers game, and he lost.
Udertaking = Wrong I just don't understand why so many cyclists do this its gross stupidity.
Taxi clearly didn't check his mirror before signalling.
taxi doesn't look like he started to indicate until the cyclist was at, or just past his bumper. So the assumption the cyclist makes is the taxi continues on so underpass is safe. In 99.9% of the time the cyclist is right to do that, sadly this isn't one of those times. It can be a judgement call when you ride in London traffic. If there was no indication the taxi was going to move forward much or left I would have done the same.
I would not have been where the cyclist was as there was also not much space if the car on the other side moved out and they were putting themselves in a crush zone by a junction
I think its a 50/50 thing as neither should have done what they just did and I am not sure which is the worse but its better to be alive than correct so i wouldn't have been where the cyclist was and they just learned a valuable and pain free lesson
Oarsum. I think you'll find.
😆
Udertaking = Wrong I just don't understand why so many cyclists do this its gross stupidity.
Thing is, "infrastructure" like this sends a pretty clear signal that undertaking is what cyclists should be doing.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Up until very recently it was actually illegal to enter the ASL by any route other than the dashed line next to the kerb!
Signal, manoeuvre, look
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Nearly ALL the cyclist/traffic incident videos that get posted up in here are a combination of a common driving error compounded by a cyclist forgetting the road is full of common driving idiots. There's really no point being "right" whilst holed up in traction. I despair of cyclists I see around me in London not riding with their heads, but with their egos. In 20yrs of London cycling I've not once had an off or a near miss, but I have often had vehicles pull across me without indicating, pull out without seeing, change lanes without mirrors. And each time I'm ready for it and stay safe.
This is absolutely spot on. You've got to be 100% focussed on what's going on around you. Looks like the cyclist was probably in a hurry, and didn't concentrate enough. The taxi driver should have indicated much earlier, so has a very weak argument, but the bottom line is that the taxi is a lot bigger than the bike, and simple common sense dictates that size matters. Might not seem fair, but that's life.
I always work on the assumption that every single driver out there is a homicidal maniac, and an idiot who shouldn't be let near a pair of scissors, let alone a motor vehicle, so will probably kill me if given half the chance. It serves me well.
Are we talking criminal or civil fault? Both are academic, I assume, since there are presumably not prosecutions or claims underway, but here goes anyway.
If criminal:
Overtaking on the nearside ("undertaking" is a rather emotionally loaded term which AFAIK is not used in legal terms) is not at all illegal. It may however be used to help justify a charge of careless driving/cycling. I doubt that a cyclist passing a vehicle on the nearside would ever be considered in and of itself to meet the definition of careless cycling. I would think more significant would be the matter of overtaking at a junction, which in this case is a left hand turn and therefore makes nearside passing more ill-advised than normal. Such passing seems more likely to in and of itself constitute carelessness. Could the cyclist be criminally at fault? Arguably so, but that's a bit of a stretch. It seems vanishingly unlikely that this would be found to constitute careless cycling.
Turning without looking is similarly a potential matter of careless driving in and of itself. Late indication would probably exacerbate it. Could the driver be criminally at fault? Arguably so, and I think there's a higher likelihood of this manoeuvre constituting careless driving, because the clear lack of observation (and it may be worth noting that the driver had already just been passed by one cyclist so should reasonably have been alert to vehicles on the nearside) seems a little more serious, and because it was more likely that the other party would have been injured. Furthermore, the cyclist had already commenced their manoeuvre when the driver commenced theirs, and I think this is important: I would hope it would be argued that it should be expected of a competent and careful driver to account for already-in-progress actions around them when taking action themselves.
Realistically, you'd be quite unlikely to get a prosecution for either party, I think. But if I was forced to pay for a lawyer to chase one or the other I'd fancy the odds would be shorter with the driver.
If civil:
It seems pretty unlikely to be a straight 100:0 claim. In line with the above, I'd put money on roughly 60:40 responsibility for the driver and cyclist respectively. Maybe 70:30 at a push.
IANAL, obvs.
Mirror signal maneuver from the taxi and don't undertake, particularly at junctions from the cyclist. Would have to have word with Mr cyclist thought, why would you do that.? In a congested, busy city why would you just no wait knowing the unpredictability of traffic at junctions.
In a congested, busy city why would you just no wait
Because if you're going to wait all the time in a busy, congested city, you might as well sit in a car with air con and a radio. There's a balance to be struck.
Whether this was the right balance is a subjective matter, and it's also one that we can only discuss with the benefit of hindsight via a replayable neuron-free source from a third party viewpoint. When you're actually riding along with a first-person, real-time view and having to assess multiple things, it's different.
OK, the cab signalled late but otherwise did nothing wrong.
http://www.driving-test-success.com/basic_left_trn/basic_left_turn.html
Because if you're going to wait all the time in a busy, congested city, you might as well sit in a car with air con and a radio. There's a balance to be struck.
As you say in your earlier post, overtaking [i]at a junction[/i] can be daft. There's no reason you cant adjust your risk calculation when just making progress. I ride probably 50:50 "in" traffic, and "through" traffic in London. Every time you try an up that ratio, you're taking greater risks (may still not be "great" risks, but that's a personal judgement call)
From the video I'd say the bike.
If we take the European view of strict liability then as far as I am aware the taxi driver is at fault. But then what do I know
The guy with the helmet cam is at fault obviously.
If an ACCIDENT occurs with no helmet cam around to film it, does the internet go on and on about it 6 months later?
The cyclist basicaly did this:
if the bike wanted to overtake, he should have done so on the drivers side,
I took a taxi home from London one night and when we got around to talking about cyclists the taxi driver said that one of the things that annoyed him were cyclists overtaking on the right!
I pointed out that it was the correct way to overtake, although often not a very safe-feeling thing to do in London.
I have also had similar to the the video above as I was passing a taxi on the right, on my way into a right turning feeder lane by London Bridge, when the taxi decided to suddenly do a U-turn from near-stationary.
I slid up the side of the taxi and he was shocked as I appeared beside him as his right window was open. He apologised...
@iolo he signalled late [i]and then[/i] didn't use his mirror or check his blind spot. That's a major in a driving test, I'm pretty sure. Mirror[i]s[/i] + blind spots before EVERY manoeuvre, EVERY acceleration/deceleration. My instructor drilled this the F in to me.
There is a solution to all of this. Mandatory re-testing every five years, and [i]much[/i] stricter driving examinations that drill deeply into driving defensively. Driving is a [i]privilege[/i] on such a small, insanely overpopulated island as ours.
OK, the cab signalled late but otherwise did nothing wrong.
Hm. Rule 161?
Anyway, having taken a look back through the HC, one of the rules I had in mind actually applies to a different context, and there are a couple which more clearly advise against overtaking or nearside overtaking in certain scenarios.
On which basis:
- I wouldn't be confident the driver is more likely criminally culpable than the cyclist; but I still think neither could be successfully prosecuted given the lack of significant consequences
- I still think a potentially significant factor is that the driver's manoeuvre appeared (AFAICT) to commence with the cyclist already alongside
- I'd guess a civil claim would be 50:50
Personally I consider a lack of observation of others on the road, and then driving into their path, to be a more significant error than riding a pushbike alongside a metal box at a slightly daft location, especially given the entirely unilateral risk, but I'm not the law, obvs 😉
As you say in your earlier post, overtaking at a junction can be daft. There's no reason you cant adjust your risk calculation when just making progress. I ride probably 50:50 "in" traffic, and "through" traffic in London. Every time you try an up that ratio, you're taking greater risks (may still not be "great" risks, but that's a personal judgement call)
Personally I'm pretty cautious and I also tend to have the philosophy that in any passing manoeuvre it should be the person doing the passing who has the greater responsibility, but I do know that when I've regularly ridden in heavy congestion it's natural to adjust one's assessment in favour of making progress. It's one of the reasons I don't ride in London: for the rate of progress I can make on a bike without feeling like I'm at high risk, I might as well walk.
Cyclist was an idiot. But like any crash there is always something that all parties can do to lessen the chances of an impact. Driver should have known that the cyclist was there.
Cyclist needs to learn a bit of life preservation.
Anyway, the point I forgot to mention was this:
Who's at fault? The local highway authority, for their crap infrastructure.
did they shake hands at the end? Am disappointed...
I was hoping for fistycuffs
Taxi didn't indicate until late and I suspect didn't use his mirror before making the move so there is definitely some blame there.
Equally, the cyclist is going up the inside of a car at a junction, this is not good either.
So neither are without blame, though I'd say the cyclist has marginally less blame.
"Signals should be given accurately, in good time and for the benefit of other road users"
Taxi is at fault on the second point. The cyclist didn't help himself, but did not do anything wrong based on the information available. I always hold back assuming they will turn, myself.
[i]www.youtube.com/watch?v=skON4WCqb1w [/i]
Ignore the 'crash', anyone else see the bloke drop all the paper?
That second video is brilliant
"Hello, is that claims direct? Yes, well, I've just been run over by a car..."
I'd say the cyclist bears the brunt of the blame. Don't overtake (or undertake at junctions).
Late indicating from the taxi, but surely you'd expect taxis to make sudden changes of direction.
Late indicating from the taxi, but surely you'd expect taxis to make sudden changes of direction
"Questionable move by the cyclist, but surely you'd expect cyclists to pass on the nearside in slow-moving urban traffic"
Mirrors + blind spots before EVERY manoeuvre, EVERY acceleration/deceleration. My instructor drilled this the F in to me.
Except
1) blind spots aren't the same as your mirror, if you check your wind mirror there's still a 'blind spot' over your shoulder where things that are overtaking have gone through our mirror and are now almost alongside, which is why you check over your shoulder when changing lanes as that bit of road your moving into isn't covered by any mirrors.
2) rear view / mirror check maybe, but I can't see any reason to check blind spots when accelerating, even on a motorbike you're only taught to do lifesavers where necessary. As my instructor drilled into me (after I did the 'wrong' lifesaver/blind spot check), if you did them needlessly then you'd end up in the car in front.
As my instructor drilled into me (after I did the 'wrong' lifesaver/blind spot check), if you did them [s]needlessly[/s][b]too close to the vehicle in front for the speed at which you're travelling[/b] then you'd end up in the car in front.
FTFY*, FTFY**. The implication shouldn't be "don't do a shoulder check because you might crash into what's ahead of you", it should be "don't get so close to what's ahead of you that you can't safely do a shoulder check". Don't make the mistake of thinking that "needlessly" is acceptable shorthand for "riskily as a result of the way I'm driving". The need may still be there; it's the manner of driving that's introduced the difficulty.
* fixed that for you
** fixed that for yourinstructor
The was no 'in good time' with that indication at all - it was indicate and move immediately.
If the taxi had indicated for any length of time, so that the cyclist might have seen the indication, then he could have avoided filtering up the left and therefore the collision.
taxis fault...
"Questionable move by the cyclist, but surely you'd expect cyclists to pass on the nearside in slow-moving urban traffic"
I'd go with that - both could reasonably expect the other (or one the thousand of similar) to do what they did and should take steps to avoid. Only one of them however would be sore the next day and needs to have the self preservation gene ingrained to have a reasonable chance of remaining on the planet.
it's London - people ride up the left and have done for ever - drivers expect it.
same way as black cabs have driven in London for ever and so they behave differently to other traffic and so you can anticipate that if a taxi is stuck in traffic it will do a u-turn or swing a last minute turn like this.
all in all I'd say more the taxis fault than the cyclists - but it doesn't matter as they dealt with it in a reasonable, adult way.
Why does it matter who was at fault?
I think it's social media and our ability to broadcast our opinions to everyone, all the time, which seems to have led to everyone having an opinion about everyone else, for everything they do... at the end of the day none of us were there, no-one got hurt so who cares what we think?
As in most situations when something goes wrong, there's faults made all over the place and there's lessons to be learnt. Personally I think we should focus on lessons to be learnt rather than trying to apportion blame all the time.
ie: I've just come back from a ride and did something similar to the cyclist here. I almost always stay in the traffic or filter on the right, on the basis I'm more visible to the driver. Just this once, I decided to stay in the cycle lane on the left hand side as I passed static traffic sitting at the red light. Lights changed and the woman on my right, who definitely was NOT signalling pulled left across me - no signal, no observation. I braked so I'm ok.
She definitely was at fault - I was in the cycling infrastructure and she didn't signal but at the end of the day, I know better than to use cycling infrastructure which puts me in a dangerous position. Lesson learnt - go back to filtering on the right...
I've not once had an off or a near miss, but I have often had vehicles pull across me without indicating, pull out without seeing, change lanes without mirrors. And each time I'm ready for it and stay safe.
This jumps to mind most times I see videos of this sort of thing (although I haven't actually seen this one yet tbf, I'm at work and can't). I'm all for being self-righteous and indeed [i]being right[/i] but personally I reckon it will be scant consolation to my kids if Daddy isn't coming home, but his last words were "but I had priority! It's the other guy's fault!"
I always assume that if the other person could do something that would endanger me, they will. If they don't, then that's fantastic, but sometimes they do, and when they do, I'm ready for 'em..
Taxi.
It's Mirror. Signal. Manoeuvre. In that order.
The taxi basically made a late decision to turn left. The indicating was probably just muscle memory kicking in, and there certainly wasn't any mirror. Had he checked his mirror first, this wouldn't have happened.
Had this been a T-junction or cross roads, then it is the responsibility of the cyclist not to undertake. But this example is a side street.
There seems to be a general consensus that the blame is equally shared, or at the very least neither party is entirely free from blame. But...
Can we just enjoy the fact that neither party acted like a knob, started f-ing and blinding or posted the video on social media and decried anyone tenuously grouped with either party (all taxi-drivers, all cyclists, all Londoners, etc.) - they just shook hands and went about their days?
It strikes me that with that sort of general attitude, things like this would happen less.
She definitely was at fault - I was in the cycling infrastructure and she didn't signal but at the end of the day, I know better than to use cycling infrastructure which puts me in a dangerous position. Lesson learnt - go back to filtering on the right...
Which then leads to this: https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/669108850193244160
Again, significant fault lies with the people who build (or simply draw on) terrible infrastructure.
Anyway, I'm not convinced you should be so deferent to others' harmful behaviours. I know all analogies are flawed, but consider: [i]"He definitely was at fault - I was in a short skirt and he didn't ask for consent but at the end of the day, I know better than to wear short skirts which put men in a frisky mood. Lesson learnt - go back to wearing trousers..."[/i]
I've not once had an off or a near miss, but I have often had vehicles pull across me without indicating, pull out without seeing, change lanes without mirrors. And each time I'm ready for it and stay safe.
I always assume that if the other person could do something that would endanger me, they will. If they don't, then that's fantastic, but sometimes they do, and when they do, I'm ready for 'em..
That's great, and I'm as prepared as the next man. But you have to accept that although you might have been able to reduce the chances of certain types of incident occurring, you've also had to rely on luck.
An example from experience: I'm cycling along a road, approaching a minor road joining from the left, ie traffic from that road has to give way to traffic on mine. (For what it's worth, it's well streetlit and I have good lights and reflectives.) A driver approaches the junction and slows. As I pass the junction, the driver accelerates and drives straight at me.
Now, I had kept an eye on him. There was no "tell" leading up to his acceleration that gave me reason to think he would fail to give way, but I always assume it's possible. So I had adopted primary.
I swerved to the right, into the oncoming lane, and narrowly avoided being hit. I slapped the car and he was most apologetic. Smidsy, but at least a humble one.
Now, in this situation I did everything I possibly could have done other than come to a complete stop and waved the guy out (or simply not get on a bicycle). But had there been any oncoming traffic I would almost certainly have been hit by at least one vehicle and potentially two.
There is only so much you can do. You can be ready for it each time, but don't assume it always means you're capable of avoiding it.
But you have to accept that although you might have been able to reduce the chances of certain types of incident occurring, you've also had to rely on luck.
Inevitably. But after 20yrs without incident, I can say that I have substantially minimised the probability* of getting wasted to not much more than walking along the pavement.
* alright, statistically, I cant actually say that, but you know what I mean.
That's great, and I'm as prepared as the next man. But you have to accept that although you might have been able to reduce the chances of certain types of incident occurring, you've also had to rely on luck.
That's just life all over though.
I'm sure the pedestrian I was reading about the other day was doing all the 'right' things: watching where he was going, sticking to the safe part of the street (the pavement), maybe anticipating other road users doing dangerous things, such as ignoring zebra crossings or running a just-changed traffic light, but he wouldn't have anticipated the helicopter falling out of the sky that killed him. That doesn't make it "his fault" either though (unless of course he wasn't wearing a helmet and high-viz, then he was at least partially culpable).