Nasty accident

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear some as
> she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop within the
> distance she could see to be clear" - with a truck obscuring most of the
> road ahead it's crazy not to take extreme care, and you should bever
> rely on having ROW.
>

She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
you or turned right across you.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[iarocu]

On 22 Sep, 01:51, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,

> She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
> into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
> responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
> you or turned right across you.

Yes. It was the jeep drivers fault. Bt the collision was avoidable if
the cyclist had decided to slow down because her visibilty was
obstructed.
There is no satisfaction in being in the right and in hospital.

Iain

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > I agree the truck driver has no blame, but the cyclist must bear some as
> > she was not "proceeding at such a speed that she could stop within the
> > distance she could see to be clear" - with a truck obscuring most of the
> > road ahead it's crazy not to take extreme care, and you should bever
> > rely on having ROW.
> >
>
> She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
> into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
> responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
> you or turned right across you.
>
You would bear some responsibility if you were going too fast in
circumstances that severely impaired your view of the road ahead (the
whole road, not just enough for you to squeeze through) which is what
apparently happened in this case.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> [email protected]lid says...
> >
> > She could see it to be clear, just not that a car was going to pull
> > into her right of way without checking. Otherwise you would bear
> > responsibility every time a car pulled out of a side turning in front of
> > you or turned right across you.
> >
> You would bear some responsibility if you were going too fast in
> circumstances that severely impaired your view of the road ahead (the
> whole road, not just enough for you to squeeze through) which is what
> apparently happened in this case.
>

Given the OP was following her and described himself as "bumbling
along" it would appear that is not what happened in this case.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Noel]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:27:01 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

>> You would bear some responsibility if you were going too fast in
>> circumstances that severely impaired your view of the road ahead (the
>> whole road, not just enough for you to squeeze through) which is what
>> apparently happened in this case.
>>
>
> Given the OP was following her and described himself as "bumbling
> along" it would appear that is not what happened in this case.
>

As the OP I can tell you Rob is correct here. She could not see anything
to her right at all except a high sided removals lorry.

I don't know why she didn't slow down - maybe she was a new cyclist who did
not see the danger or maybe she was day dreaming - but I would imagine (and
hope!) that every one of us would have slowed to almost a stop and peeked
around the front of the removals lorry before proceeding.

Noel

 

[Noel]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:44:07 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:

> I conject that she couldn't see the full width of the road, so should
> have been proceeding more cautiously - it's not enough simply to see
> that the way ahead is clear, as will have been noted by anyone who has
> had oncoming vehicles suddenly perform an unexpected (but not altogether
> unlikely) right turn or overtaking manoeuvre.

You conjecture is correct.

Noel

 

[Coyoteboy]

Rob Morley wrote:
>>It may be wise to check
>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way

Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
inside of traffic is effectively)

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Coyoteboy
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>It may be wise to check
>>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>
> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
> inside of traffic is effectively)

While I agree passing large vehicles on the inside is unwise, she
undoubtedly had right of way.

Lots of people get killed when they have right of way.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Coyoteboy
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>It may be wise to check
> >> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>
> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
> inside of traffic is effectively)
>
I didn't write that.

 

[7@m3 G33k]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Coyoteboy
> [email protected] says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>> It may be wise to check
>>>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
>> inside of traffic is effectively)
>>
> I didn't write that.

It's all a bit academic really: since when did any sensible cyclist
assume that other road users (including novice/casual cyclists) will
obey the Highway Code and the relevant right of way? Especially when
riding in traffic I assume the opposite. So I get through brake pads a
little more frequently and I arrive a bit later than I might but that's
the good end of the deal when the other is head-butting
windscreen/bonnet/tarmac.

Do any of you lot from the big smoke know how she is? Sounds like it
might have been serious enough to make the local media. Oh and I suppose
this is not a good time to ponder if she was wearing a helmet or not? I
suspect not - but no doubt someone here will prove to 7 decimal places
that if she was wearing a helmet she would have had a broken neck
instead of a gash to her temple and concussion ~

Ian

 

[Coyoteboy]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Coyoteboy
> [email protected] says...
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>> It may be wise to check
>>>> as a cyclist but as it appears she had right of way
>> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
>> inside of traffic is effectively)
>>
> I didn't write that.

No, you didn't.

 

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-09-23, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not if she was undertaking at the time (which is what sneaking up the
> inside of traffic is effectively)

As time goes on, I'm more and more convinced that undertaking other
vehicles by filtering between the kerb and a stopped vehicle is asking
for a Darwin award.

I think your probability of survival vastly increases if you always
follow the principle of least surprise, and it seems to me that
squeezing by the kerb and stopped traffic is following the principle of
most surprise. Other road users aren't expecting to be overtaken
by vehicles in the two or three feet of road between their nearside
and the kerb. Other road users aren't expecting
vehicles to emerge from that area, either (such as the 4x4 driver under
discussion). If you're a vulnerable two wheeled road user, you don't
want to suddenly appear in areas where other road users aren't expecting
vehicles to be. You might have the right of way, but there's such a
thing as being "dead right".

There are so many hazards in squeezing between traffic and the kerb that
I just will not doing. A passenger in a car won't be expecting a vehicle
there, and may be just deciding to leave the car and walk the rest of
the way - and you get a door opened in your face. The car passenger may
be wrong not to check that two foot of road between the car and the kerb
is clear, but it's the undertaking cyclist who ends up in hospital.

Similarly, when traffic starts to move again, drivers won't be expecting
a vehicle to be undertaking them, and will probably not see the cyclist
pulling this foolish manoevre - which may be fatal to the cyclist if
that traffic is turning left.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> As time goes on, I'm more and more convinced that undertaking other
> vehicles by filtering between the kerb and a stopped vehicle is asking
> for a Darwin award.
>

On the way back from Sunday's Freewheel we cycled on a one way street
(Drury Lane) to a cross roads with no right turn for traffic and a minor
road ahead. Most of the cars were indicating left and we were on the
right of them but all the other cyclists were squeezing up the inside
where they all got thoroughly caught up in the left turning traffic when
the lights changed. Not only dumb but unobservant of both the roads and
signs indicating what was likely to happen and the car indicator lights.

At another point I told my daughters to hang back because a car had its
left indicator going and we wanted to go straight on but other cyclists
pulled up alongside the inside of the vehicle and again caused problems
when everyone moved off. Sometimes I despair of some cyclists' common
sense and observational skills.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Noel]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:09:58 +0000, 7@m3 G33k wrote:

> Do any of you lot from the big smoke know how she is? Sounds like it
> might have been serious enough to make the local media. Oh and I suppose
> this is not a good time to ponder if she was wearing a helmet or not? I
> suspect not - but no doubt someone here will prove to 7 decimal places
> that if she was wearing a helmet she would have had a broken neck
> instead of a gash to her temple and concussion ~
>
> Ian

I did search the local BBC site but I didn't find anything. Hopefully she
is on the mend now.

She was wearing a helmet. It might have helped her as her head went
through the window but it had also been pushed up and so exposing her
temple etc so I don't think it afforded much protection in the end. Once
she was on the deck the helmet was still in this position and the strap
was a little tight around her neck but I was loathe to loosen it for fear
of lolling her neck about and her breathing was happening.

Noel

 

[Ekul Namsob]

marc <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, POHB
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >> Those situations are really hard to watch out for, with a big vehicle
> >> like that you often really can't tell they've left a gap for someone
> >> to pull across and the visibility is so poor you have to virtually
> >> stop to peer in front.
> >>
> > So stop before someone stops you - then you have a better chance of
> > starting again. This sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, but who gets
> > hurt?
>
>
> More like
>
> 10% bike
> 50% 4x4 for not checking
> 40% Lorry for ceding right of way and allowing the situation to occur.

If drivers never ceded right of way, I would have to leave half an hour
earlier to get out of my street each morning. I live near the Preston
bypass, AKA the M6, and the traffic is free-flowing but constant as
people travel to and from work.

Drivers who cede right of way do so out of courtesy and in order to keep
traffic flowing. [1] Cyclists, and others, should only overtake on the
inside with /extreme/ caution.

Cheers,
Luke

[1] I did feel obliged to wave at the first friendly individual this
morning to suggest they assert their right of way: the police car behind
them looked to be in a hurry.

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[calum]

On 27 Sep, 17:56, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> marc <[email protected]> wrote:>>Drivers who cede right of way do so out of courtesy..<<

No, mostly they do it out of stupidity and with total disregard to
others.

My daily 7-mile commute into Glasgow takes me along several roads of
four lanes, two in either direction. I ride in the primary position
in lane 1. All motorised traffic prefers to use lane 2 exclusively
and as it ebbs and flows its way along, I carry on as normal, passing
freely on their left as permitted in the Highway Code.

The danger comes when some numpty in lane 2, either to let an oncoming
car turn right or cross from a side road across his path (and mine)
slows further and flashes or otherwise invites the other driver to
cross. The other driver takes for granted that it's safe, waves a
thank you and breezes through, almost colliding with me. Neither
driver has considered other traffic (me) or the effect of their
'courtesy' (read stupidity).

Drivers should neither give nor accept instructions to proceed from
each other. Drivers, and others, crossing another line of traffic
should do so with caution once they've satisfied *themselves* that the
way is clear.

Calum

 

[Ekul Namsob]

calum <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 27 Sep, 17:56, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> >Drivers who cede right of way do so out of courtesy..<<
>
> No, mostly they do it out of stupidity and with total disregard to
> others.

Sorry, I disagree, for the reasons that I give below.

> The danger comes when some numpty in lane 2, either to let an oncoming
> car turn right or cross from a side road across his path (and mine)
> slows further and flashes or otherwise invites the other driver to
> cross. The other driver takes for granted that it's safe, waves a
> thank you and breezes through, almost colliding with me. Neither
> driver has considered other traffic (me) or the effect of their
> 'courtesy' (read stupidity).
>
> Drivers should neither give nor accept instructions to proceed from
> each other.

A driver who cedes right of way is not giving an instruction to anyone.
Let me, however, invite you to try to leave my street in Preston at
anytime between 7.45 and 8.30 am on a weekday in a car without accepting
the assistance of a driver who cedes right of way.

> Drivers, and others, crossing another line of traffic
> should do so with caution once they've satisfied *themselves* that the
> way is clear.

Absolutely.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, calum
[email protected] says...

> Drivers should neither give nor accept instructions to proceed from
> each other. Drivers, and others, crossing another line of traffic
> should do so with caution once they've satisfied *themselves* that the
> way is clear.
>
Obviously you'd be stupid to take the word of another driver that you're
safe to proceed - ceding ROW is just an invitation which may be accepted
or declined, so if in doubt decline it, but it's ridiculous to say that
such invitations should never be accepted. Around here, letting other
people out is an essential part of maintaining traffic flow on a road
system parts of which at certain times would otherwise soon grind to a
halt.