CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Cycling accident and discussion

(48 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by paolobr
  • Latest reply from LaidBack

  1. paolobr
    Member

    Not sure where to put this so put it up for debate/interest. From another forum I follow, describing an accident and ensuing discussion, various points raised etc.

    http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=520713

    I've certainly taken out separate insurance recently, as I increase my time out on the roads. I also generally think the worst of any hazards when mixing with other traffic, and whether other road users don't pay attention to cycle lanes etc, I guess built up after years of commuting (though I don't commute these days). Similar experiences for anyone here? How is your hazard awareness?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  2. gembo
    Member

    I struggled to follow exactly. The car in front of the cyclist stopped to let a car turn right and the cyclist went up the inside of the car in front and hit the car turning right? Ouch.

    I have been thinking about joining CTC for the insurance as I get older and more aware of my mortality etc

    Posted 12 years ago #
  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I have the associate CTC membership for cheap, through Edinburgh Road Club, purely for the insurance. Worth it for £14 a year.

    I've had a couple of close calls where I've been in a cycle lane and car to my right has flashed someone across me who hasn't bothered to look beyond the signal.

    HWC Rule 110 states:
    Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

    Rule 111:
    Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

    The practice of flashing headlights across or waving someone across really annoys me - most of the time the turning car is aware you are there, but the car making the signal is not and is in no position to be suggesting it is clear for another user to go across your path.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  4. Instography
    Member

    Regardless of formal blame (and the turning car has all the responsibility) going up the inside of a car that might otherwise be expected to be continuing and not slowing to a crawl and checking that it's safe is just asking for trouble. To hit the car turning, rather than being hit by it, suggests the car is well into the turn before the cyclist reaches it and he probably was, indeed, going too fast, perhaps not in terms of the speed limit but in terms of being able to stop within a distance he could see was clear.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  5. SRD
    Moderator

    Surely by that same logic, car 1 which has a head on collision with car 2 because car 2 was overtaking and failed to return to its side of the road in time is also at fault?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  6. Greenroofer
    Member

    @SRD I'm with Instography on this. I think the analogy that might be more relevant in the situation is one of being squashed by a left-turning LGV. It's definitely the LGV's fault if they turn over you (they should have looked), but a cautious cyclist should not put themselves in that position.

    In the overtaking situation, there's nothing you could reasonably do as a motorist on your side of the road to avoid being hit by your car 2. In the incident here, there is something the cyclist could reasonably have done to avoid the collision.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  7. Instography
    Member

    I didn't say they were at fault (in fact, I said that the turning car has all the responsibility). I said moving up the inside and not slowing to a crawl and checking it's clear is asking for trouble.

    I once crashed my little Ford Escort into a van that turned right onto the Western Approach Road from the Morrison Street link road (before there were lights) in front of me. Technically, they were at fault but I think I could have anticipated it, certainly braked earlier, more efficiently and should probably have been driving at less than 40 on a rainy night. Technically, I wasn't at fault but driving at 40mph on that road, at that time on that night and not being in the left hand lane (it was empty, I wasn't turning right until the road off to Murrayfield) was asking for trouble and I got it.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  8. Smudge
    Member

    (Caveat) I've not read the original linked thread.

    My personal view is that when undertaking(or overtaking) a vehicle, presumably in a location where it is legal to do so, the fact that the vehicle you're passing is stopped is a clear sign that either there is a hazard or they are about to undertake a manoeuvre, also approaching a junction is a further reason to use caution. To be over/undertaking the stationary vehicle at a speed where you are unable to avoid a collision with the vehicle pulling out? Sorry, guilty by reason of careless/reckless or dangerous cycling (depending on other circumstances) I would say you are at least 50% to blame and certainly have little cause for complaint.

    Defensive riding saves lives, the scenario described in the posts above is (imho) entirely avoidable. Were it two cars on the main road and you were joining it on your bicycle would you feel the car hitting your side was in any way responsible?

    Other caveat- no offence meant to anyone, internet posts are often unclear as to the originators exact meaning! ('Tis why I am not a wealthy lawyer..)

    Posted 12 years ago #
  9. Darkerside
    Member

    And does this change when we slap some green paint on the ground in exactly the same position?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  10. gembo
    Member

    I think in the original post the cyclist was in a cycle lane.

    To widen the discussion - I often find myself in juniper green and it is a place where drivers will occasionally stop in flowing traffic to allow other cars to turn right into oncoming traffic. None of this is ever happening at high speed. Often I stop too and indicate to the oncoming. Motorist that I too am giving them the road. Sometimes it might be dangerous for me so I don't .

    the drivers seem grateful. I have been in a situation once where I did this but the cyclist behind me overtook me and squeezed inside the stopped car and on thus stopping the other car turning right.,but that is jut one of those things

    Posted 12 years ago #
  11. SRD
    Moderator

    Yes cyclists ought to watch out for dangers, especially people doing stupid things, but I still think there's a difference between 'being able to stop in a distance that can be seen t be clear' and being able to stop when someone appears whether oughten't to be in the first place. presuming a cyclist must have been 'going too fast ' strikesme as blaming the victim.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  12. Min
    Member

    If you want to drive across two lanes, it is your responsibility to make sure that both lanes are clear before you do so and no-one elses. I don't see how it can be any other way really. The person going straight on has priority, not the person turning.

    I saw a motorist pulling just such a stunt this morning at North Bridge/High Street junction. They were turning right up the High Street from North Bridge and there was a double decker in the right hand lane from South Bridge. There was no way this right turning driver could see that the oncoming left lane was clear but they just turned anyway, causing the van driver who was in it to slam the brakes on to avoid the collision. Was that the van drivers fault?

    Of course we have to compensate and avoid bad driving all the time but it still doesn't make it our fault when someone drives badly.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  13. Smudge
    Member

    @Darkerside, nope, because although a car driver pulling out in front of a cyclist and causing them to deviate from the course/speed is automatically at fault, a cyclist approaching should be aware that a junction is a hazard, a junction with a car approachin/awaiting to pull out is a serious hazard and a junction where a car has stopped in the outside lane should have every mental alarm bell you have ringing like crazy.
    Were I in a car or a truck in an equivalent situation, I would expect to be slowing significantly, and preparing to stop if need be, to avoid the risk of a collision/damage/death. Why would I behave differently on a bicycle?

    @SRD, the car driver carries the legal responsibility, however in the situation outlined above (subject to my original caveats) the cyclist could appear to be contributing to his own demise in a manner which were he driving a car I would condemn as at best careless driving, depending on the speeds involved potentially reckless of dangerous. Yes, he may have been slow/slowing and had a low speed impact (as I say I have not read the linked thread and am talking in general terms) but an impact is an impact.

    Going a bit OT, the International Rules for Prevention of Collision at Sea state (paraphrasing) that if you are involved in a collision and it could have been avoided by any normal seamanlike precaution then you are at fault regardless of any "right of way". I do wish this was applied and enforced on the roads in the same way! Too many users (more obviously in cars) seem to assume that having "right of way" absolves them of any responsibility to avoid other users.

    All the above of course imo and with due courtesies!

    Posted 12 years ago #
  14. Bhachgen
    Member

    He was in a cycle lane. Therefore there are 2 lanes and the turning driver should not have assumed that just because the driver in the RH lane had flashed that this meant there was no oncoming traffic in the LH lane (in this case the cycle lane).

    Definitely the driver's fault and not the cyclist's. He doesn't specify, but it sounds like he was probably travelling much faster in the cycle lane than a line of slow-moving vehicles in the lane to his right. He does say that he was going too fast to stop in time when he saw what was happening, but that wouldn't be surprising in that situation.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  15. Min
    Member

    Too many users (more obviously in cars) seem to assume that having "right of way" absolves them of any responsibility to avoid other users.

    It seems to me to be more like the other way round, I think that some people use that fact that others MUST avoid them if they want to live to do what they want. Especially if they know the other person will get the blame. If you are on a bike you don't even need stationary cars on your right for people to try and drive over you to make a turn. We have to watch out for this at all times but it still doesn't make it our fault when someone does it.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  16. Min
    Member

    Edit- I meant to say PARTIALLY our fault - you never said it was entirely the cyclists fault, sorry Smudge.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  17. kaputnik
    Moderator

    A bike moving at, say, 20mph does not stop on a dime. If the car to your right and slightly ahead slows and flashes someone across your path, there's often not much you can do about it. It's also quite possible that the car that has flashed the other across isn't even going the same direction as you, for instance a car may be right turning across your path and has been indicated to proceed by a car going the opposite direction.

    Yes you should be aware whenever you are cycling through a junction and proceed accordingly - but if the lines are with you and the car waiting to make its turn is stopped and waiting then if you ever want to get anywhere without stopping and conducting a risk assessment at each junction, you have to make some sort of split-second assumption that the car is going to make its move when it is clear and safe to do so - not when another vehicle has "instructed" that it is safe to do so without checking. There are hundreds of pieces of information every second processiong through your brain about potential hazards - are the lights going to change, am I about to get left hooked, is there glass or a pothole ahead, is that child about to step out infront of me, are those roadworks ahead... "Is that car waiting to turn going to pull out into me because someone flashes them across" is just another one.

    In slower or static traffic, the bike lane is more often than not the "fast lane". It's very vehicularly minded to consider it "undertaking" - you're proceeding at your normal (and ultimately not that great a speed), but everyone around you is moving at a crawl. I think this mindset arises partly from our Motorway / dual carriageway regulations that mean you are only meant to pass on the right and if you pass on the left you are undertaking and committing an infraction. This distinction doesn't exist in many other countries and perhaps it means that drivers aren't so aware of the probability that someone is (quite legally) coming up their inside at a higher speed than they are. You're not undertaking in the sense that you are moving out of your lane to pass slower moving vehicles on the right, you are simply moving faster than other vehicles in a lane in which you are allowed to do so. To class it as "undertaking" suggest some sort of carelesness or illegitemacy in the act of cycling in a cycle lane faster than the queue of cars going nowhere to your right.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  18. Min
    Member

    You're not undertaking in the sense that you are moving out of your lane to pass slower moving vehicles on the right, you are simply moving faster than other vehicles in a lane in which you are allowed to do so.

    Yes indeed. If you couldn't do this then both cycle and bus lanes would be completely pointless.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  19. cb
    Member

    Anyway, undertaking is legal in queuing traffic.

    I'm not sure at what point "queuing" becomes "not-queuing" though. It's probably got more to do with traffic volumes than traffic speeds.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  20. Instography
    Member

    My reading of the linked thread is that the cyclist went into the side of the turning car, although he changes between him hitting the car and the car hitting him in the first sentence, it becomes clearer down the thread that he seems to have run into the car. I read that as the turning car being well into its maneouvre by the time the cyclist comes down the inside. He was going too fast to stop.

    I read the whole scenario as a car stopping and indicating to the car waiting to turn that he is going to wait while he turns. I don't think it's necessarily true that the car ought not to have been there. Cars are allowed to turn across queues of stationary traffic but they have a responsibility to do so when it is safe. We know that the cyclist was going too fast to stop because he says so.

    The turning car has all the responsibility but the cyclist could maybe have avoided that collision by observing what the cars were doing, being more alert to the possibilities and slowing down until he knew it was safe to carry on, if only for the sake of avoiding getting hurt. It doesn't make him at fault but I'm not convinced of the value of having right of way. I'd rather cede right of way and not get hurt than to hang onto it with the reassurance of being right.

    But I don't really know enough about this scenario so I'll illustrate the distinction I see with an example I know all about because I was the cyclist. Riding along Portobello High Street between a queue of slow-moving traffic and the parked cars that were nose in to the kerb, a car in the queue spotted a parking space and quickly turned into it. In doing so, he scooped me up with his left front wing. He stopped immediately but I still fell to the ground and was partly pushed, partly slid under one of the parked cars. I wasn't badly hurt. A bit bruised. Technically, the driver was all to blame but I reckon I could have avoided most of the hurt and maybe avoided the collision if I had been going up the queue more slowly. I wasn't rattling along but the GPS trace from my Garmin is showing my speed between 10mph and 15mph just before I stopped. I wasn't to "blame" because the driver should have been checking his mirrors and he would have seen me but if I had been going more slowly when I saw the guy's partner point to the space (which I did) I might have been able to slow down enough to not get hit.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  21. SRD
    Moderator

    So, what's the difference between what you described and you tootling down the road, with row of parked cars to your left, when you get doored? Yes, you should have been looking for that, and you probably were, but that time you got hit. Do you blame yourself for going too fast to stop/swerve?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  22. Roibeard
    Member

    Probably my worst "off" was in exactly this situation.

    I'm now more likely to join the queue, or to overtake on the right, rather than use a cycle lane on the left.

    Of course the driver was at fault, but I'm not going to give another driver the opportunity to make the same mistake.

    Drivers see a gap in stationary traffic and ignore the fact that there's another lane of potentially moving traffic. Mind you, they also don't recognise that they're crossing a lane of traffic when changing lanes across the cycle lane either.

    I think we need to draw on the wisdom of my French teacher and declare all unsegregated (advisory?) cycle lanes to be faux amis.

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  23. Instography
    Member

    I'm not sure there's anything different. In pretty much any situation (and not just cycling) the question to ask is "was there anything in my behaviour that had it been different might have changed the outcome?" It's a question to ask after the fact as way of learning. If you only ascribe blame to someone else then you don't learn about yourself.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  24. Morningsider
    Member

    Very interesting thread, with good comments all round. I see this as a clash between the "cycle sense" that experienced cyclists develop - i.e. a knowledge of traffic movement and how to protect yourself from bad/unexpected manouvers, and the actual law and highway code.

    My view tends to fall on the side that an experienced cyclist should have been able to anticipate this happening, although clearly the drivers involved did not comply with the law/highway code.

    This is really the sort of thing that puts people off cycling. If the cycle lane was segregated and continued across the junction then this sort of thing would be very unlikely to happen. The existence of such junctions would also make drivers more aware of possible cyclists at junctions which did not have such features.

    Until the roads are safe for everyone and not just expereinced cyclists exercising a kind of sixth sense then I doubt we will see any real groth in the number of people cycling.

    I know this raises the question of how we currently have "experienced cyclists" - I'm assuming such people are something of a special breed who are willing to take more risks (whether percieved or real) than the average person, as they gain experience.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  25. cb
    Member

    When you're the driver who is being flashed across into a side road it helps if you are also a cyclist sometimes - I am always really cautious before making that right hand turn in the car and have an "expect a bike" mindset.

    When on the bike if I see a car has been flashed across then I pretty much always stop too and wave the car across with my hand.

    I don't think it paints a great picture when cyclists go barrelling down the inside of traffic.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  26. Smudge
    Member

    @SRD, I'd blame myself for riding in the door zone.

    Undertaking is probably an unfortunately pejorative term, however as described many people do not anticipate vehicles passing on their left so we ought to be exercising extra caution when passing vehicles on our right, especially if it is a solitary vehicle and doubly so where there are other hazards (as with the junction described above).
    It's one of the reasons why I will always pass on the right if it is at all possible, even though it may be legal to go up the left.

    Agreed, the bike/car/whatever crossing a carriageway has ultimate responsibility to ensure it is safe to complete the maneouvre, however as someone pointed out above, that's little consolation in an ambulance and regardless of the outcome it's surely commonsense and good manners to do everything in our power to avoid forseeable collisions. Even the most careful people WILL make mistakes.

    As many will know, I don't hang around in traffic, but passing a vehicle on the left at a junction is a very clear danger point and anyone who has had good training should be pretty much expecting a crossing vehicle. Add that to watching the front wheels/bonnet for the first movement, moderating your speed and position to allow for the risk, making eye contact with the driver etc etc, fundamentally, regardless of legal liability, it's a 90% avoidable collision.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  27. sallyhinch
    Member

    I think this illustrates the point that - while cyclists who cycle NOW obviously have to be hyper alert in order to keep themselves safe - there's something deeply wrong here. On the road, on a bike, you have to be in overdrive looking out for hazards. That car turning right might not have noticed me. That car at the side road waiting to pull out might misjudge my speed. That parked car might suddenly sprout a door. Are my lights bright enough, is my jacket yellow enough, better not listen to music, better not ride alongside someone else having a nice chat, better not even think about anything other than the road ahead in case I get wiped out...

    It's no way to travel, is it? I mean, there's a certain thrill to be had from surviving a close encounter with a driver whose mind was elsewhere but constant levels of adrenaline get you down after a while. And that's for an adult, alert, sober, rational, experienced cyclist. What if you're 15, what if you're deaf, what if you can no longer look over your shoulder, what if the old legs don't accelerate to 20mph in seconds any more, what if you're just a bit zonked that morning after a hard night? What if you're just back on the bike after not riding for 15 years? How on earth do we expect anyone but the absolutely committed to cycle at all?

    / end rant

    (edited to add: that wasn't aimed at any of the above posters btw, it's just something that bubbles up periodically in my brain and has to be said...)

    Posted 12 years ago #
  28. Roibeard
    Member

    @Morningsider I know this raises the question of how we currently have "experienced cyclists" - I'm assuming such people are something of a special breed who are willing to take more risks (whether percieved or real) than the average person, as they gain experience.

    I think rather that experienced cyclists didn't recognise the risks they were taking, had a shock/near miss, then kept cycling but moderated their approach to accommodate that new awareness of risk - e.g. my choice often not to use cycle lanes!

    The difference isn't then between those prepared to take risks and those more risk adverse, but rather between the innocent-of-risk, the now-aware-of-risk-but-still-cycling and the scared-off-my-bike.

    @Sally - don't forget the "what if you've loaded up with 75kg of washingmachine".

    I'm getting round to the idea of not just getting councillors to cycle but getting them to cycle with my youngest, or a heavy cargo. Often the everyday cyclist underestimates the hazardous nature of the road because they are hyper-alert and can accelerate like Franklin/Forrester - give them a 6 year old or 75 kg and see how the infrastructure looks like when travelling at 10mph rather than 18mph+...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  29. Min
    Member

    Agree with Sally, Morningsider and Roibeard. I think it is sad that we (as a society) can only shake our heads at people who didn't know that someone would drive over them while they were in the bike lane or who don't have the nerve to ride right out in traffic rather than hugging parked cars.

    I have become an "experienced" cyclist by loving cycling and by being bloody minded and refusing to be bullied off the road. I would definitely cycle a lot more if I wasn't scared and I AM scared. I just do it anyway.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  30. Smudge
    Member

    @Sallyhinch, if I change your first line slightly to
    "road users have to be alert in order to keep everyone safe" and "On the road, on/in a vehicle, you have to be in overdrive looking out for hazards. That car turning right might not have noticed me. That car at the side road waiting to pull out might misjudge my speed. That parked car might suddenly sprout a door. Are my lights bright enough"

    Then yes, it's the level of attention I would hope for/expect from truck drivers, car drivers, motorcyclists, and indeed cyclists. That doesn't preclude a nice chat alongside someone on the quieter roads, and it's why imho in town the speed limits should be 20mph across the board, but it's the level we expect from other users so why not from ourselves?

    Of course if all other road users drove/rode to that standard then we could relax a little, but until then we need to teach/preach/practice defensive riding and once people do it for a few months/years it becomes so automatic that you don't even think about it. It's just like balancing or changing gears.
    (Not said as a rant, just in a sad, resigned voice :-/ )

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin