Why you should always assume the driver has not seen you

^ That's not the point. The cyclist did nothing wrong except give himself no options when the driver proved to be an idiot. That makes him a not-smart cyclist.

• Anyone apportioning ANY blame to the cyclist in this example should shut the make love up.*
  
  

+1

The cyclist can go as fast or as slow as he likes, he has the right of way there.

Fact is, this could have been so easily avoid by the driver having the most basic observation of the oncoming traffic. If you try to anticipate all types of driver incompetence, including the absolutely moronic you'd get nowhere.

Of course you can't argue you're right when you're dead, or you're mouth is full of blood and teeth.

The cyclist can go as fast or as slow as he likes, he has the right of way there.

You are missing the point. Yes he has right of way and yes he can go at 100mph if he was able, but if you take this attitude, you have to expect to end up on the floor at least once or twice a year. This is a sad fact of cycling due to the general idiocy of car drivers

Why do we always discuss these incidents as if we are in court? As soon as we start talking about 'blame' and 'fault' we end up taking a position and then defending or prosecuting it. There are things to be learned from that video; not many things, maybe, but some. My semi-numpty view is that the rider probably, possibly, could have avoided the collision. The driver obviously could have avoided it. Saying the rider might have been able to ride slightly differently can be called blaming him if you like but I don't see where that gets us. We all have to ride on the roads, and along side other road users, as they are, not as they ought to be. That's why we give way to pedestrians who are wandering across the road when they shouldn't be; who is in the right or wrong isn't the important thing. And it doesn't matter a jot to me if it is unfair; that is what campaigning is for, it's not a guide to how we should ride. I just want myself, and other cyclists, to get from A to B and back alive and uninjured and with as much enjoyment as possible.
So, I think we can look at that video and decide if there is anything in it from which we can learn; apart, that is, from learning about what the law says.

You blame-the-cyclist lot are fucking mental. He wasn't going very fast, and he was already past the start of exit 1 as the car reached the give way line at that junction. An outright assumption that the driver was not going to stop would've meant crawling round the roundabout at 5mph. How many of you ride every rdbt/junction/potential crossing of paths with a car in that manner? I'd guess none of you. The rider's suffered bad injuries due to a total brainmelt on the part of another road user, and you have the gall to start picking holes in his line/approach speed.

You fucking pious bunch of cunts.

And some of you are hypocrites too.

Well, that's two ways of looking at it for you all :)

Does it mean that we can't go to the cyclist' home and finish him off?

He'd probably just coming running up to the door to let us in and, without looking properly, and not anticipating that we intend to kill him, smack us in our faces with his head.

I'm up for it. Let's start a list.

This thread contains lots of good advice, most of which wouldn't have done the bloke in the video much good in those actual circumstances.

As i see it there are two failures; the driver totally fails in his responsibility to look for the cyclist, and the cyclist is a little slow to notice the car. Some level of human error is inevitable so 'spot the car earlier' advice is useless.

The cyclist should have entered the roundabout slower? Given the angle of the roundabout, the clearness of the route he wanted, and the fact that he wasn't aware of the car at that point i think that's a harsh criticism. To make the case you practically end up arguing for slowing down for every (apparently) empty side-street you pass. Also, i've read advice to accelerate through roundabouts to better match the speeds of other vehicles. Maybe the cyclist is going quickly to avoid conflict with the other car coming up to the roundabout on the right hand road?

Should he have established eye contact? When? I think the cyclist first notices the driver at about the moment he's cycling onto the roundabout. An immediate dramatic swerve left might just have saved him, but at that point there's still a chance the car will give way. You'd be arguing for making a potentially dangerous evasive manoeuvre in response to a mere possibility - even if the costs and benefits add up in this case, are you really expecting him to consider all the ways it could play out and reach an optimum decision in that instant?

Eye contact takes time, there is a lot of glare coming off the car window, the driver has his sun-visor down (helping him see, but making it harder to see him), and because of the crap angle of the junction the window post isn't helping. A moment later the cyclist starts braking hard, not because of failure to achieve eye contact but from the much quicker-to-see observation that the car is moving into conflict with him. Eye contact is irrelevant to this particular incident.

So we end up arguing for continually allowing for hypothetical threats. Great if you can do it, but how many of us would have thought ahead far enough to deduce that any hypothetical cars that might come along that road would have the sun in their eyes and their windscreen pillar concealing us?

60% car driver's fault, 30% highway engineer's fault, 10% accident, imho.

I dunno, you could also say that if he hadn't taken his new shiny camera out to film himself riding fast, he might have been riding a little more defensively.

Yep.

Completely agree cyclist was faultless. But if I failed to slow down for twat drivers who are hell bent on ploughing on through roundabouts, I probably wouldn't be here now - I do slow to 5mph, as if I didnt I would be taken out almost daily - slowing down and riding cautiously can help avoid accidents - ffs going over Southwark Bridge this morning, luckily I was paying attention/not steaming along & saw a construction worker holding a ladder in my peripheral vision walking towards a gap in the fence, in time to duck as the frikken ladder would have smashed my head! But I did appreciate the comedic element..

The cyclist can go as fast or as slow as he likes, he has the right of way there.

Having a right of way and speed for the circumstances are two different things.

Just the same for a car driver approaching the same situation, they should not drive straight across a roundabout at full speed either.

Another numpty.

Or, you could leave the personal attacks, and debate what I said, if you don't agree with it.

I'm not blaming the cyclist (or anyone) in this case, as we don't know the full facts, I'm just saying that being right in the eyes of the law really doesn't help me when I'm splatted across the road, hence it's good to assume other road users won't always stick to the law.

For example, what if the driver had had a heart attack and was unable to control the vehicle. Or what if it had a Toyota style braking failure? There are many situation where a driver might do something unexpected, but it's not their fault either.

Are you saying that you always stick to your right of way, and I'm a numpty for not doing so? In that case I'd rather be a numpty.

"The vagina-ing make love wits are taking over the asylum"

is what he old dj would have said

However in my new found tolerance for differently gifted people

I respect your right to walk your bike everywhere so as not to be hit by car drivers who don't pay attention

... hence it's good to assume other road users won't always stick to the law.

Can you develop that negative assumption into some positive behaviour change that would have helped that particular cyclist, without demanding perfection of perception or judgement?

FFS, it was an accident. You take a risk getting out of bed in the morning. We all take chances, and even if we don't other road users do. You cycle long enough, you're going to end up on the floor. Shit happens. Hopefully it's not so bad that you can't dust yourself off and do it all again.

I know a lot of this is just internet bravato & IRL you probably wouldn't act like this, but still...

I would happily argue the same view in real life but:
only for a very short time, i can't be bothered to make a big deal out of it.
i can't be dealing with all the posting that leads up to the tête à tête.
i don't see enough of my friends so don't want to waste time talking to randoms off the interent.
it have other stuff i would rather be doing.
i don't care how you ride unless it affects me.

Well put Gary.

Having a right of way and speed for the circumstances are two different things.

Just the same for a car driver approaching the same situation, they should not drive straight across a roundabout at full speed either.

but full speed for cars is a very different thing to full speed for bikes. Roundabouts work best when all vehicles move at similar speeds so it's often safest for bicycles to sprint onto them. Yes, in this particular case we can see he could have avoided the accident by slowing down on approach to the roundabout, but only with hindsight do we know that. The car ahead that took the route he was taking was probably going just as fast.

but full speed for cars is a very different thing to full speed for bikes. Roundabouts work best when all vehicles move at similar speeds so it's often safest for bicycles to sprint onto them. Yes, in this particular case we can see he could have avoided the accident by slowing down on approach to the roundabout, but only with hindsight do we know that. The car ahead that took the route he was taking was probably going just as fast.

Yes full speed for a car is higher than a bike but both need to moderate their speed for the situation. The fact the other car was going just as fast doesn't make it right!

Can you develop that negative assumption into some positive behaviour change that would have helped that particular cyclist, without demanding perfection of perception or judgement?

I would have been a) further right, since the Audi clearly isn't positioned to take a right turn, b) sitting with my fingers tensed on my brake levers anticipating the Mondeo wouldn't stop and c) maintaining my speed or braking slightly until I saw that the Mondeo was stopping and it was clear to accelerate. I'd have done this in a car, and I'd do it on a bike.

DJ, andyp etc are all completely right that the cyclist has not broken the rules of the road. He's positioned correctly, has right of way to enter that roundabout, and yet got knocked off and bloodied. Despite this, others are also right that he's note done the best job of staying on his bike.

The argument that the rules of the road are enough assumes a perfect system: perfectly consistent rules with perfectly rule-abiding peds, drivers, cyclists, bikers and so on. Each of these groups has fallible members, and the rules themselves aren't perfect, so as we ride/drive/cross the road we have to make continuous assessments of the risk associated with our current situation. Your own personal level of risk aversion probably has a strong effect on how right or wrong you view the cyclist here, but it's clear that he either underestimated the risk of the Mondeo failing to stop, or he sensed the risk but took a punt on pulling through, and lost.

The car should have stopped, and had he been a different cyclist with a different set of priorities, he could have avoided the accident. Either way, the poor bastard has my sympathy.

a) i agree, but don't think it would have made much difference
b) & c) i like to hope i'd do as you suggest but i don't think i'd have noticed the Mondeo soon enough to either. I don't think this was a matter of seeing the risk and choosing to chance it, i think the risk zoomed out of the background too fast to be avoided. Also, read what he said about having both brakes ready below:

I take the centre of the lane when going straight, this makes my intentions clear and prevents impatient people from trying to force their way past or overtake in stupid places. This also means I have both brakes and the bike under full control.
This guy came fast and was outside what was then my danger perimeter when I entered the roundabout. The roundabout was clear when I entered. When he arrived, he failed to slow and accelerated across the line I was suddenly in his kill zone. I couldn't accelerate to the speeds necessary to get out from in front of him before he hit me. Nor could I suddenly go into reverse. A left or right turn just puts me closer or further from him and stopping means I give up and wait for the 2 broken legs.
Indicating was not an issue here despite what my new friend above repeats. The driver simply didn't see a cyclist and accelerated ahead of the black Audi.
Apparently my friend above thinks I should have been riding one handed, wobbly indicating a U-turn, then all would have been well!!
I could have been stationary at the point he crossed the give way line. I would still have been hit from the side and likely sustained 2 broken legs.
It's obvious that we have to look out for stuff. But sometimes there are circumstances where you suddenly have no escape route. When a car blindly accelerates out of a side street as you are passing, unless you can do an amazing bunny hop, your options are pretty limited. I guess there is a balance to be struck. You could walk down the street assuming every other person is about to stab or shoot you, but that makes for a pretty scared existence and is an overreaction to the actual level of threat.
The guy made a mistake, the human brain works that way, it sees only what it looks for, the rest is filtered out as background noise.
I was simply in front of him when he drove through the piece of space that I was passing through. He was faster than me and much wider. There was no way to get out of that danger area in front of the moving vehicle before he reached my position.
I don't feel any need to attribute malice or stupidity, he just screwed up. And some car drivers don't like to face up to their responsibilities when handling what is in fact a very powerful weapon in a public place.

You can bang on about cautious riding etc until the cows come home.

In this case, the car pulled out wrongly. end of.