Re: cyclist nearly kills himself

[Paul Boyd]

Abo said the following on 18/12/2006 10:23:
> Marvin wrote:
>> A couple of weeks ago I was driving along, approaching a roundabout in
>> the left hand lane. I'd just passed a cyclist about 15 metres before
>> the roundabout, stop at the roundabout, then when there's a gap i
>> start to go only to suddenly see that the cyclist has planted himself
>> at the corner of my nearside front bumper

I don't know where this started, but is this a motorist admitting that
he wasn't looking before he moved off? What a moron!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Brimstone]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Abo said the following on 18/12/2006 10:23:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> A couple of weeks ago I was driving along, approaching a roundabout
>>> in the left hand lane. I'd just passed a cyclist about 15 metres
>>> before the roundabout, stop at the roundabout, then when there's a
>>> gap i start to go only to suddenly see that the cyclist has planted
>>> himself at the corner of my nearside front bumper
>
> I don't know where this started,

uk.rec.driving

> but is this a motorist admitting that
> he wasn't looking before he moved off?

Yup, and expecting sympathy. ROFL

> What a moron!

That's being unkind to morons.

 

[Abo]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Abo said the following on 18/12/2006 10:23:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> A couple of weeks ago I was driving along, approaching a roundabout
>>> in the left hand lane. I'd just passed a cyclist about 15 metres
>>> before the roundabout, stop at the roundabout, then when there's a
>>> gap i start to go only to suddenly see that the cyclist has planted
>>> himself at the corner of my nearside front bumper
>
> I don't know where this started, but is this a motorist admitting that
> he wasn't looking before he moved off? What a moron!
>

uk.rec.driving

He's not a motorist, he's a 'car operator'...

Yeah, he basically admits this, refuses to take on board advice from
several motorists on how to avoid the situation, learns nothing and goes
on to admit he would happily do it again!

--
Abo

BATracer: Browser Based Racing Simulation:

http://batracer.com/-1FrontPage.htm?6q0

 

[p.k.]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Abo said the following on 18/12/2006 10:23:
>> Marvin wrote:
>>> A couple of weeks ago I was driving along, approaching a roundabout
>>> in the left hand lane. I'd just passed a cyclist about 15 metres
>>> before the roundabout, stop at the roundabout, then when there's a
>>> gap i start to go only to suddenly see that the cyclist has planted
>>> himself at the corner of my nearside front bumper
>
> I don't know where this started, but is this a motorist admitting that
> he wasn't looking before he moved off? What a moron!

As Dave Hansen pointed out in a concurrent thread:

"To cycle other than in the Primary Position on a roundabout means
the cyclist is exposing themselves to extra danger for the
convenience of others. "

Cycle craft recommends taking the primary position at least 20m in advance
at a single lane round about and for multi lane roundabouts "as soon as you
pass the advance 'Roundabout Ahead' sign , but on high speed roads where
signing distances are greater wait until you are about 100m from the
junction"

The primary error was by the cyclist in not adopting the Primary Position,
the second error was by the motorist passing the cyclist too close to the
roundabout
the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a stationary
vehicle and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the roundabout,
the fourth error was by the motorist failing to observe fully.

The Key initiating error was by the cyclist & a contributing factor was
wearing dark clothing.

pk

 

[p.k.]

Señor Chris wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>>
>> a contributing factor was
>> wearing dark clothing.
>>
>
> Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by
> being painted a dark colour ?

No the clothing advised in the highway code, if the motorist is being
criticised for not following the HC, so should be the cyclist.

45: Clothing. You should wear

a.. a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
b.. appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled
in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
c.. light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to
see you in daylight and poor light
d.. reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in
the dark.
If as a cyclist, I wear inappropriate clothing in poor light and position
myself incorrectly then any accident is partly my fault.

pk

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1or_Chris?=]

p.k. wrote:
>
> a contributing factor was
> wearing dark clothing.
>

Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by being
painted a dark colour ?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1or_Chris?=]

p.k. wrote:
> Señor Chris wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>> a contributing factor was
>>> wearing dark clothing.
>>>
>> Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by
>> being painted a dark colour ?
>
> No the clothing advised in the highway code, if the motorist is being
> criticised for not following the HC, so should be the cyclist.
>

I think the motorist is being criticised for a bit more than that. In
this case, given that he was unable to see a fully grown person on a
bike positioned at his front bumper (6 feet away ?), it's difficult to
see how the colour of his clothing would make even the slightest difference.

 

[p.k.]

Señor Chris wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>> Señor Chris wrote:
>>> p.k. wrote:
>>>> a contributing factor was
>>>> wearing dark clothing.
>>>>
>>> Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by
>>> being painted a dark colour ?
>>
>> No the clothing advised in the highway code, if the motorist is being
>> criticised for not following the HC, so should be the cyclist.
>>
>
> I think the motorist is being criticised for a bit more than that. In
> this case, given that he was unable to see a fully grown person on a
> bike positioned at his front bumper (6 feet away ?), it's difficult to
> see how the colour of his clothing would make even the slightest
> difference.

I was referring to the post which said:

Probably already been pointed out but:
143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
users. For example

* approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
* ...
* ...
* ...
* ...
* when you would force another vehicle to swerve or slow down.

It seems reasonable to argue that both parties should abide by the HC? yes?

pk

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1or_Chris?=]

p.k. wrote:
> Señor Chris wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>> Señor Chris wrote:
>>>> p.k. wrote:
>>>>> a contributing factor was
>>>>> wearing dark clothing.
>>>>>
>>>> Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by
>>>> being painted a dark colour ?
>>> No the clothing advised in the highway code, if the motorist is being
>>> criticised for not following the HC, so should be the cyclist.
>>>
>> I think the motorist is being criticised for a bit more than that. In
>> this case, given that he was unable to see a fully grown person on a
>> bike positioned at his front bumper (6 feet away ?), it's difficult to
>> see how the colour of his clothing would make even the slightest
>> difference.
>
> I was referring to the post which said:
>
> Probably already been pointed out but:
> 143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
> users.
>

And you then went on to claim that in this specific case, clothing was a
factor. I disagree for the reasons already stated.

The HC is rendered completely irrelevant when someone is unable to see
what is right in front of their eyes (or was he looking elsewhere ?).
Everything else is just a smoke-screen for the driver's glaring
incompetence.

 

[p.k.]

Señor Chris wrote:
> The HC is rendered completely irrelevant when someone is unable to see
> what is right in front of their eyes (or was he looking elsewhere ?).
> Everything else is just a smoke-screen for the driver's glaring
> incompetence.

The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk, was
further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside of
a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.

The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.

Who was the more incompetent?

If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.


pk

 

[Clive George]

"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Señor Chris wrote:
>> The HC is rendered completely irrelevant when someone is unable to see
>> what is right in front of their eyes (or was he looking elsewhere ?).
>> Everything else is just a smoke-screen for the driver's glaring
>> incompetence.
>
> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk, was
> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned
> in the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the
> inside of a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>
> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.

They did nothing else wrong?

In your desire to 'provide balance' you've gone far too far the other way.

The primary position is a defensive thing - if motorists drove sensibly,
there would be no need for it. As such, attempting to blame cyclists for not
using it is incorrect. In this case, the driver shouldn't have overtaken
just before the roundabout - regardless of the cyclist's position in the
road. Why have you ignored this, the significant initial error?

clive

 

[Paul Boyd]

p.k. said the following on 18/12/2006 16:01:

> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.

....and also for overtaking on the approach to the roundabout:- "just
passed a cyclist about 15 metres before the roundabout"

> If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.

Entirely possible.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:19:59 +0000,
Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
> p.k. said the following on 18/12/2006 16:01:
>
>> If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.
>
> Entirely possible.

Although one would hope the cyclist wouldn't fail for wearing darkish
clothing.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk

While bright clothing is a Cunning Plan, it is not a *fault* not to wear
it. As it is also not a fault to drive a dark coloured car.

> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
> the Primary position

Again, not an actual fault, and exact positioning is not a "you will
always do such and such" job but something dictated by an awful lot of
minor circumstances, including, but certainly not limited to, experience
and gut feeling.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk
>
> While bright clothing is a Cunning Plan, it is not a *fault* not to
> wear it. As it is also not a fault to drive a dark coloured car.


Not strictly true:

HC 45 gives clear guidance:
You should wear Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other
road users to see you in daylight and poor light

It is good practice for vulnerable road users to make themselves more
visible

pk

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1or_Chris?=]

p.k. wrote:
>
> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk, was
> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
> the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside of
> a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>
> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>
> Who was the more incompetent?
>

IMHO, the driver. Entering a roundabout while looking to the right
without checking what's in front is one of the most basic driving errors
(I'm guessing that's what happened). And yes, I have done it myself.
And no, I didn't blame it on the colour of the car I went into the back of.

 

[p.k.]

Señor Chris wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>>
>> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk,
>> was further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly
>> positioned in the Primary position, was further at fault for
>> undretaking on the inside of a stationary vehicle waithing to enter
>> the roundabout. The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>>
>> Who was the more incompetent?
>>
>
> IMHO, the driver. Entering a roundabout while looking to the right
> without checking what's in front is one of the most basic driving
> errors (I'm guessing that's what happened). And yes, I have done it
> myself. And no, I didn't blame it on the colour of the car I went into the
> back of.


But if the cyclist had followed the guidance of Franklin in Cyclecraft (oft
lauded here on URC as the bible of good cycling) none of the events we are
discussing would have happened.

I in fact ended up in a similar position just the other day. I cycled up the
inside of a line of cars just recently stopped at a lights controlled X-road
and into the "cycle box" alongside a guy on a motorbike (to my right).
Lights changed, I set off, he set off too and turned across my nose. Was he
at fault for being in the cycle box? - quite possibly not if he was caught
in the flow as the lights changed. Was I at fault? Yes, I assumed he was
travelling straight across and did not look to check his indictor.
Fortunately I was slower than usual on take off or he would have had my
front wheel. My fault or his fault? A mixture of both, but my error in not
being properly observant was the initiating error.

Similarly in the case we are discussing, the initiating error was by the
cyclist.

pk

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, p.k. says...

> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk,

Nope

> was
> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
> the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside of
> a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>
> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>
> Who was the more incompetent?

The car driver. A cyclist may not have a car licence so may not
actually know. As a car driver, like 99% of other car drivres, he would
have experienced cyclists doing this before and should be aware of it.


--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart

 

[TripleS]

p.k. wrote:
> Señor Chris wrote:
>> The HC is rendered completely irrelevant when someone is unable to see
>> what is right in front of their eyes (or was he looking elsewhere ?).
>> Everything else is just a smoke-screen for the driver's glaring
>> incompetence.
>
> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk, was
> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
> the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside of
> a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>
> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>
> Who was the more incompetent?
>
> If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.
>

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
discourage) a driver from overtaking you? If this is the case
presumably the thinking is that the cyclist will be able to dominate the
proceedings and protect his own safety (though I have my doubts about
that) and drivers will have to follow until he has negotiated the hazard
and got out of their way. In theory I can see some merit in that, but
at the same time it also sounds like a recipe for cyclists to be
bloodyminded and promote added conflict with drivers - so it's not
totally good news.

With regard to my initial question it would be appreciated if we could
avoid getting sidetracked onto Kama Sutra type considerations etc. We
don't want young Silk getting over excited!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

[TripleS]

p.k. wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>
>>> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk
>> While bright clothing is a Cunning Plan, it is not a *fault* not to
>> wear it. As it is also not a fault to drive a dark coloured car.
>
>
> Not strictly true:
>
> HC 45 gives clear guidance:
> You should wear Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other
> road users to see you in daylight and poor light
>
> It is good practice for vulnerable road users to make themselves more
> visible
>

Of course that makes sense, but I would say it is also prudent for
vulnerable road users to have the wit to try and keep away from large
heavy vehicles within reason - just in case there is some kind of
slip-up by drivers of such vehicles.

Best wishes all,
Dave.