Why you should always assume the driver has not seen you

http://vholdr.com/video/head-crash-car-warning-has-blood
(not for squeamish)

An argument for riding 'defensivley' if ever there was one... wouldnt have liked to be helmetless with this one either. please take care kids, ride safe and assume all drivers are dopey eejits.
thankfully the guys seems OK- see comments section

Saw this the other day, horrible.

socks and sandals...nuff said.

That was quite buttock-clenching. My main thought watching it was about how fast he seemed to be going, but then I am very slow.

Glad to see the cyclist wasn't injured, but after watching it a few times I think if he had been more aware he would have been able to swerve.

IMO, he was too fast going into the roundabout...But to be fair, it's also a really badly designed bit of road.

He posts a link to a map of that junction in the comments and says it's 'more like a T-junction' in some ways. He has a point, and that would probably explain why he takes it so fast, feeling like he's going straight on.

the old man pulled straight out. wtf!

I always ride defensively... I live in south London tho'...

In fact... There are times I ride like an old woman*...

• Brakless, rush hour...
  

note the other car already on the roundabout, bad driving for sure, but then the cyclist should have slowed never trust anyone on the road

if he never hit the cyclist he would have probably hit the othr car
did anyone else notice the big dent in the passenger side of the car?...what a dick!

not the best bit of riding I've ever seen to be fair.

you can just catch the guy's front wheel from the ground shot also, proper taco'ed.

helpful that the driver's first reaction is to assist someone with possible multiple injuries by attempting to pull them up off the road by the arm.....

Well, I don't have any desire to see the video, but as a matter of fact, you should not always assume that the driver hasn't seen you.

(@OP: I know that you don't mean it this literally, but it is still worth pointing out that there are much better ways of going about.)

Obviously, it is still better to assume that a driver hasn't seen you than to assume that they have seen you when they haven't, but making any kind of assumption in traffic is the mother off all mess-ups.

You don't have to rely on assumptions at all. Communication is key--the reason why I jump on this is because people often use it as a way of avoiding communication in traffic, which is the last thing that anyone should do.

Instead, try to make eye contact with the driver in negotiating space at junctions (in particular). This will enable the two of you to understand each other's intentions--not 100% perfectly, but 99 times out of 100. If you don't manage to make eye contact, still don't make the assumption that the driver hasn't seen you--just don't move ahead and wait a little. Sorted. :)

Well, I don't have any desire to see the video, but as a matter of fact, you should not always assume that the driver hasn't seen you.

that complete bollocks Oliver. Seriously, if your trying to be contrary for attention i don't know but that comment remains ridiculous no matter which way you look at it.

I did supply the explanation, and it is of course not complete bollocks. Needless to say, I am not trying to be contrary for attention, either.

but how can you be sure you've made eye contact??
what if you think you have but the driver is eyeing up some totty a short distance away from you?

the vids not that bad by the way....

not the best bit of riding I've ever seen to be fair.

+1.

rider could've swerved/slowed down on the approach IMO. still technically the driver's fault obviously, just sayin'.

but how can you be sure you've made eye contact??
what if you think you have but the driver is eyeing up some totty a short distance away from you?

Eye contact generally works. As I said, not 100% infallibly, but we just tend to know when we've 'locked eyes' with someone, even at a distance. Quite often, your attempt at making eye contact will of course show that the other person isn't looking your way, in which case again there is no need to assume that they haven't seen you--you can pretty much know it.

Cycle training of course covers this. It's always a good thing even for very experienced riders and under the instruction of a good trainer you can best learn how to put this into practice.

watching it again, that roundabout does look quite bad! hard to judge whether a vehicle was going left or straight on.

maybe the road where that mondeo came from needs a chicane or something, to force cars to slow down.

Well, I don't have any desire to see the video, but as a matter of fact, you should not always assume that the driver hasn't seen you.

(@OP: I know that you don't mean it this literally, but it is still worth pointing out that there are much better ways of going about.)

Obviously, it is still better to assume that a driver hasn't seen you than to assume that they have seen you when they haven't, but making any kind of assumption in traffic is the mother off all mess-ups.

You don't have to rely on assumptions at all. Communication is key--the reason why I jump on this is because people often use it as a way of avoiding communication in traffic, which is the last thing that anyone should do.

Instead, try to make eye contact with the driver in negotiating space at junctions (in particular). This will enable the two of you to understand each other's intentions--not 100% perfectly, but 99 times out of 100. If you don't manage to make eye contact, still don't make the assumption that the driver hasn't seen you--just don't move ahead and wait a little. Sorted. :)

"fuck ups"

I was trying to avoid being vulgar there, Mr Balki. :)

It's hard to judge from a 2 dimensional video but looking at it a few times it seems as clear as day that the driver was never going to stop. I'd like to think I would have avoided that one from (too many) years of experience on the mean street of London.

that complete bollocks Oliver. Seriously, if your trying to be contrary for attention i don't know but that comment remains ridiculous no matter which way you look at it.

Well, just so Oliver knows, I think you are wrong. First to think that Oliver is one of the people on here who seeks attention for its own sake - now that is ridiculous. And second I think Oliver is right; you shouldn't assume a driver hasn't seen you because you should not be working on assumptions. His point about eye contact is entirely valid; make it and you know you have been seen. If you can't make it then you do not know either way so you have base your riding on that. It's not an assumption really; it's deducing how to ride from the information you have gathered.