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).
