Does the video suggest the driver of the van, hitting the cyclist, is within the 20mph limit for the road ?
Last edited:
why is this even up for debate?
- Thread starter passionate off roader
- Start date
The Satnav or GPS indicates he was slowing to below 20mph , what is clear is no one has any idea if anyone is approaching from behind the van parked because line of sight is nil. So any approaching speed can be deemed to fast. Although unfortunate for the driver (wrong place wrong time) the onus is on him to be careful.
Last edited:
One can deem that the white van man who has parked the van there is innocent , but he isn't. He has caused a hazard/dnager where approaching drivers can't see beyond him and also he has block the way for any one using the path to see clearly. He should have parked some where more sensible without being a danger to other users.
It is never cut and dry.
It is never cut and dry.
Of course he isn't innocent the white van is parked on a traffic island partly across the dropped section for wheelchair access.
Agreed. StationaryWhiteVanMan also be the guy in high-vis in the bus stop(?), possibly doing some maintenance there.
That doesn't make the parking OK, but it would explain it.
It's like meeting an Openreach van parked half on / half off the road whilst they're having a digging/cabling session. You need your tools pretty close to be efficient, or you end up crossing/re-crossing the road which is itself a hazard each time.
It's one where both the moving van driver and cyclist may know the junction quite well, but haven't taken into account what's changed - the parked van. Crashes happen when you've switched off because you know an area 'too well', and have assumptions about what going to happen next.
'Human Factors' analysis is pretty advanced and widely used in transport accident investigation and prevention.
One subset of HF is 'biases', two of which are 'expectation bias', which you describe, and 'plan continuation bias', which covers continuing to overtake when backing off is the better choice.
Not used in the training of Joe public drivers, as far as I am aware, but could have major benefits both there and in other education programs such as those alternatives to big fines.
It has been found that knowing that biases exist is very powerful in enabling the pilot/ship's officer/ train driver to recognise them when they occur, and change their immediate actions to nullify the bias. The same would be true of road users.
Last edited:
Life in general would be less hazardous, if awareness of biases formed part of all educational programmes from an early age.
List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Rider is 100% at fault. He's riding the pavement, which is illegal, and the white van is not to blame in any way, shape or form as normal pedestrian traffic isnt going to be coming out from behind it at any more than walking speed.
But say for example it was a cyclepath, which it isnt. On any T junction it would be the responsibility of a rider using it to give way. The rider just came right out into a road, and he also fails because he didnt take into account that his view was blocked.
The rider should have been made to pay the drivers costs for repairs.
Last edited:
Blame for this one can't simply be laid at the feet of the rider though he was a mug for taking the chance, other factors as already mentioned are at play.
If one was an advanced driver all hazards woud be taken in to account and one would not presume it is safe or ok to just enter that turning even at or under the speed limit.
Today with the changes in the HWC the driver is deemed to be at fault as the onus of greater responsibility is on them.
If he was able to see beyond the van he would have seen the cyclist and should have been ready to stop to give way, the same applies with the van blocking his view. He simply can't react to what occurred fast enough, he should have stopped.
In time we may here of the ending, once the accident has been fully investigated.
If one was an advanced driver all hazards woud be taken in to account and one would not presume it is safe or ok to just enter that turning even at or under the speed limit.
Today with the changes in the HWC the driver is deemed to be at fault as the onus of greater responsibility is on them.
If he was able to see beyond the van he would have seen the cyclist and should have been ready to stop to give way, the same applies with the van blocking his view. He simply can't react to what occurred fast enough, he should have stopped.
In time we may here of the ending, once the accident has been fully investigated.
The evidence shows it was 19mph.
What else could/should he have done to avoid the collision? I'm all ears.
Stop the vehicle completely, and then walk over to make sure there isn't a cyclist about to speed straight into the road, from behind the parked van? I mean even with the new legislation, there is a limit to the driver's obligations, beyond which it becomes completely farcical.
He just disagreed with the outcome for perfectly understandable reasons.
That's not having a "poor attitude". It simply means he stuck to his principles and disputed the decision. As is his legal right in a democracy.
Even Mr Loophole aka nick freeman has said the driver was wrong.
His words, [ Ill advised not to take the course offered].
His words, [ Ill advised not to take the course offered].
I thought this thread was about the silly death wish rider popping out from behind a parked van ?.
The link you've given is his opinion on the old chap who overtook far too close.
Excuse me if i've missed it and its further down. Im not on twitter so only get the top story for a few seconds before a blocker sign in pops up.
Keep up Andy, #3 onwards also.
The Audi guy has been mentioned a few times in this thread, so one has to start from the beginning as with many threads the stories get integrated.
Last edited:
Looking at that video... I think it's high time I bought a second camera for the back! In daylight, pretty much any cheapo camera can capture number plates and give drivers passing too close legal problems. They all stink in low light conditions - even the GoPros and Insta360s top out at ISO 6400. Useless!
The new highway code is wrong and misusing it as law is fundamentally wrong for the following reasons:
The Highway Code is and always has been advisory, recommending the ideal while recognising that the ideal is not always possible or even desirable or necessary, according to circumstances.
If a recommendation in the highway code is essential, then it should be removed from the code and made absolute in law, enabling everyone to know exactly what is required at all times.
Instead with our utterly useless UK governments, in lieu of adequate road facilities and sensible laws we get these sort of half cocked compromises:
Want to encourage cycling: Paint a white line on the road near the kerb and call it a cycle lane.
Want to make junctions safer: Paint a circle in the middle and call it a mini roundabout.
Want to make cycling safer: Bully drivers with immense fines for not precisely following a desirable but not mandatory highway code measure, which is in any case often impossible to adhere to.
These sort of measures do not increase cycling safety, all they do is encourage the anti-car cycling brigade to festoon their bikes with cameras with the express purpose of giving their anti-social feelings expression by reporting drivers for often imaginary transgressions.
This won't make cyclists safer, it just increases the level of hatred drivers and cyclists often have for each other and look at where that sort of hate can lead. We've just learnt that two people have been brutally murdered over a simple parking dispute, LINK
It's not enmity we should be encouraging on the roads by enforcing potentially unfair measures, nor being obsessed with speeds. It's courtesy we should be encouraging, a recognition that we are not fighting for road space, we are SHARING it, preferably with understanding, not antipathy.
The whole approach of the authorities needs to change, from bullying about speed and road space usage with unfair penalising, to the right messages of co-operation and courtesy. We all already do this when walking on the pavements, sharing the space when they are busy by making way for each other, showing that this is socially natural to us. Nobody has to have bodycams to ensure this happens, no-one has to be threatened with big fines, because we naturally want to co-operate.
The authorities approach should be entirely about exploiting this natural behavioural tendency by encouraging it continues when using any other means of transport.
.
They don't have to overtake on narrow roads and lanes, do they?
I don't think it's anti-social to "Festoon" my bike with cameras to enable me to hold drivers to account for endangering my life by passing too close. If the Police decide to prosecute as a result, it will be for sound reasons. It's anti-social endangering cyclist lives, who are much more likely to be seriously injured in a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not many people get killed colliding with another person on the pavement.
Last edited:
And how often, when out walking these days, do you need to step out of the way of someone who is looking intently at some electronic device in their hand.
It must be common sense, with no need for a publicity campaign by the authorities, that you look where your going when out walking in public, yet so many people now dont.
So much for 'co-operation'.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
