Death by cycle.

[lancon]

I'm sure the law(in the uk at least) would take the side of the bike not the car, your supposed to look for the bikes coming up the inside and give way even though in most sane places the car would have right of way, at the end of the day even if the bike has right of way they should have anticipated the car not seeing them etc etc...assuming everybody's an idiot can't drive does know the rules and is out to kill you is a good start


What does TMIDL mean? Had a Google but nothing popped up?

SMIDSY sorry mate I didn't see you
TMIDL tough mate I didn't look

 

[lancon]

Again i will repeat my earlier post -

If you change direction (even to avoid a pothole) without looking and cause an accident then you are at fault. Indicating shows an intention not a right?

 

[Stu]

If you change direction (even to avoid a pothole) without looking and cause an accident then you are at fault. Indicating shows an intention not a right?

You can wrap it up in glitter. The car wasn't moving.

A moving vehicle hitting a stationary one will almost always be at fault.
If you're riding/driving and you're approaching a junction, you slow down. It's the law!

In addition, even with a green light, you should always have a look around before turning. Blue lights can appear from anywhere.

 

[Rodcx500z]

It's why i survised 40 odd years on motor cycles, avoiding fecking cagers like that idiot driver

 

[jeremy Hall]

I did have a similar accident. Car stopped on a green light on a hill because the intersection was blocked. I couldn't see why it stopped. I didn't anticipate it stopping. Cars can stop faster than bikes in the wet. I hit the back of the car and wrote off my bike. No damage to the car. It was my fault pure and simple. I put my hand up for that one. It was a while ago and they built cars a bit more solid back then.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Rule #1 on the road - drive like the other cars will do the stupidest thing possible at any given moment.

 

[lancon]

I did have a similar accident. Car stopped on a green light on a hill because the intersection was blocked. I couldn't see why it stopped. I didn't anticipate it stopping. Cars can stop faster than bikes in the wet. I hit the back of the car and wrote off my bike. No damage to the car. It was my fault pure and simple. I put my hand up for that one. It was a while ago and they built cars a bit more solid back then.

Car in this case was turning right, it had stopped either because it saw the bike on its inside or it was just dithering. I suspect the cyclist accepted the car was going to turn across him and so didn't slow down. The car was more at fault as it should have looked first rather than whilst starting to turn.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Car in this case was turning right, it had stopped either because it saw the bike on its inside or it was just dithering. I suspect the cyclist accepted the car was going to turn across him and so didn't slow down. The car was more at fault as it should have looked first rather than whilst starting to turn.

Wrong, i assume the car stopped because the driver saw the cyclist bearing down on them at speed the cyclist was riding too fast and couldnt stop the cyclist is at fault.

If you run into the back of a car because it didn't indicate automatically, it is generally considered your fault as the driver behind is responsible for maintaining a safe distance and anticipating potential changes in traffic, even if the car in front didn't signal properly; however, depending on the specific circumstances, there may be some mitigating factors that could affect fault determination.

 

[hoppyscotty]

Turning right when you drive on the right is the same as turning left in the UK, you have right of way. In the UK when you're returning left into a junction you don't have to give way to traffic coming up from behind you. You cannot undertake someone turning right (or left in the UK) at a junction wether you're on a bike or anything else. The cyclist made an assumption that the car was going straight on...and hooned straight through instead of hanging back in between two cars, or moving out into the outside lane and crossing the junction. Instead he came racing through, the car did something unexpected..perfectly normal and possible at any time, and he got caught out. 100% cyclist fault...and I'm saying that as a cyclist. You'd never do it in a car and shouldn't do it on a bike.

Just basic fundamental rules of the road and back in the day when you did cycling proficiency at school this is one of the first things you learn precisely because it's easy to get caught out. You cannot rely on a vehicle seeing you as you're coming up from behind...

The fact the car stopped is irrelevant..cars do stop from time to time. If a car is behaving erratically the last thing you do is to hoon up the inside...totally rash move.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Turning right when you drive on the right is the same as turning left in the UK, you have right of way. In the UK when you're returning right into a junction you don't have to give way to traffic coming up from behind you. You cannot undertake someone turning right (or left in the UK) at a junction whether you're on a bike or anything else.

Well said that man, i really don't get how some members don't see these basic highway code rules are being broken by the cyclist, this is why so many are killed and injured at junctions by wagons turning left (UK) every year.

 

[The Baron]

Well I have watched this loads of times and I still can not see any brakes on the bike and maybe that is why he hit the car at the same speed as he was approaching never saw any braking at all.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Well I have watched this loads of times and I still can not see any brakes on the bike and maybe that is why he hit the car at the same speed as he was approaching never saw any braking at all.

I looked when you mentioned it earlier in the thread and i agree it doesn't look like it has brakes.

 

[hoppyscotty]

Well I have watched this loads of times and I still can not see any brakes on the bike and maybe that is why he hit the car at the same speed as he was approaching never saw any braking at all.

Exactly. It looks like a track bike with a fixed hub... trendy amongst some of the more 'aggressive' city cyclist types. They insist they can stop as quickly as you can with brakes, but yet seem to keep causing accidents in cities, a few years ago one killed a pregnant woman crossing the road in London and that kicked off a load of anti or pro cyclist arguments on the inter web at the time. I've ridden track bikes on track and there is no way I could stop as quickly as I could with a bike with decent brakes...and have my knees intact at least.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Managed to get some screen shots -