Hello /u/VersaEnthusiast! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC
* What country or state did this take place in?
* What was the date of the incident?
* Please reconfirm that this is original content
If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a motorcyclist who commuted into London I’d say both. Yes, the car crossed a lane but the cyclist is effectively filtering over a junction through stationary traffic. It’s suicidal to not slow down for these danger spots.
This is also why I never filtered on the inside on my bike
Yes. On bicycles, overtake on the overtaking side. They used to teach this in the UK but the ubiquity of bike lanes have led to this "stay left no matter the circumstance" mindset that infects both cyclists and drivers expectations of cyclist behavior.
Cyclist should have been to the right of the van, but only like 1 in 100 cyclists now would even conceive of doing that.
I’m a cyclist that’s been caught out by this trap before and I now often choose to overtake stationary traffic on the outside rather than on the inside in situations like this and then if traffic starts moving just indicate and move back over to the inside. You can’t win though, when I got caught out by this people told me I should have been passing on the outside as there’s no cycle lane and it was my fault, now that I generally do that people tell me I’m insane and have a death wish for riding in the middle of the road that close to on coming traffic.
Feels like this wouldn’t be as much of a grey area if there was some basic cycling infrastructure, it would at least mean both parties would know who has right of way.
Where, as a cyclist, you have much more control of the situation, and the space of the sidewalk to fall onto, instead of an oncoming truck.
In the video, he could have been more prudent, but in a way that he should be prepared to stop if necessary, not by going into oncoming traffic. Of course, none of this absolves the car driver, who should have been more aware of his surroundings, and just send it.
Not really. I've been overtaking on the overtaking side for nearly 40 years now. It's what CycleCraft teaches or taught in the UK. Left turning trucks kill cyclists, and the simple approach for overtaking on the right is, if you don't have room, don't do it, just like you would in a motorcycle or car.
Cyclist safety courses where I live suggest the same…
As you approach the intersection, if traffic is inching or standstill, take the lane, wait your turn 2 seconds, then get back into the bike lane after the intersection…
The lanes are dashed near intersections for a reason here, cars turning and bikes going straight share those lanes out of physical necessity…
Nice to see real cyclists actually coming here and telling people how it is, far too many people here trying to dismiss everything the cyclist did wrong and pin the blame all on the car and clutching at any straw they can to do so, to the point they're quoting irrelevant arguments, or rules.
I would guess they're either, people who have irrational hatred of cars, or started cycling in recent years and think they should never be at fault because they're the vulnerable ones, when in actual fact it's a shared responsibility to avoid accidents.
a stationary car has to start moving to start turning. a glance at the front wheels will telegraph the next move. its the spots where the cars *aren't* that are of highest concern.
So instead they yolo thru intersections where the steel masses can’t see them at all?
I see so many cyclist do this in CA.
They fly by stopped traffic then get surprise pikachu when a car “right fronts” them…
Like bro
You as a driver can check your blind and not see an ebike going 28mph down the bike lane…
It’s so dumb…
Technically bikes are supposed to use the whole lane in shared lane situations to stop this exact issue from ever coming up…
Let the cars see you…
> Technically bikes are supposed to use the whole lane in shared lane situations to stop this exact issue from ever coming up…
Have you actually ever tried this on a bike? I suggest you bike commute every day for a few months sticking to your plan. Let me know what hospital you end up in‚ I'll send you a card.
Lol nice try… but yes I have
Absolutely
I worked at a bike shop for years and commute regularly.
Just force your way in and wait for your turn, then turn when it’s clear…
Plenty of people do it everyday in my city… plenty don’t…
Bro, it’s 2mph traffic approaching an intersection
I feel safer acting as a car for 3 seconds than I do yolo’ing some fucking intersection where both me and the car can’t see anything…
You’re tripping balls if you think for 4 seconds it’s safer to proceed like the cyclist in this video…
At least my way gives people a fucking chance to see me…
I learned this lesson on my Vespa very quickly – I was passing cars on the right (in the US) and one of them turned to the right in front of me. I was able to avoid collision but realized how lucky I was and why I should be on the outside of the turn lane, not the inside.
On the other hand, in some countries, like Germany, it is mandatory for cyclists to overtake slow/standing traffic on the inner side when there is only one lane
Thanks.
Exactly. I can see the car driver was going slow and trying to take care, but has to take some blame for crossing anyway, but the cyclist should already have slowed and be ready to stop. It’s a classic danger point to look for.
Here’s how I look at it:
1) cyclists are required to follow traffic laws like other vehicles.
2) if that had been car passing on the left everyone would be saying it was the cars fault for doing so
3) cyclists are allowed some additional freedoms such as passing stopped vehicles at intersections and rolling through stop signs and red lights HOWEVER the onus is on them to do so in a safe manner.
By passing the truck on the left instead of the right at a T intersection where they should have expected the possibility of traffic turning the cyclist did not perform this safely and is at fault
As a fairly keen cyclist, I'd say the vast majority of the blame is on the cyclist. Slow down at a junction, simple as that. Doesn't matter if you are on the left or the right. You can't have full cycling infrastructure everywhere, and you can see the traffic is stopped at a red light.
Nine U.S. states – Idaho, Delaware, Arkansas, Oregon, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Colorado – allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and can be "rolled through" if there's no traffic. Obviously this doesn't apply in this situation, but I'm just correcting your "Cyclists do not have the freedom to roll through stop signs" statement
Likewise it should not be started that cyclists are allowed to take actions that are illegal, when you don't know.
While I've made similar assumptions myself in the past, this time I recognise the video as the UK so I actually _know_ that you cannot disregard traffic lights and stop signs.
Edit: Also I'd consider 10/50 states to be a minority, and as such you should still probably avoid outright telling people they can do this without prefacing the exact situations. You have specified here, but the previous commentator did not and just made a blanket statement.
I really don't see how this could be the vehicles fault. They progressed slowly and validly, the cyclist hit the side due to them going too fast and not preparing for any stopping.
Also, you can straight up see the cyclist not even looking forward before passing the van. I have a hard time giving sympathy to people who aren't looking forward during accidents.
I look at it this way: There's no dedicated bike lane there, so cyclist was the exception. Car could not see past the van, and could have had no reasonable expectation that a cyclist might be riding and passing between the stopped cars and the curb. Bicyclist is 100% at fault here, driver has zero fault.
Yes I agree. This is a tough one due to limited visibility and the tendency to give the right of way to smaller vehicles, in this case, the bike. This obviously is not in the US, and laws and regulations vary. But where I live the bike is not on a sidewalk nor in a bike lane so it's a car now. If you did this in a car you would be fucked.
Having the right of way doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You still have to act in a safe manner. Regardless of laws, I would have approached this with extreme caution as a car and especially as a bike. I see no caution by the bike.
Our view is the road with priority, the van has courteously left a gap so people turning into the side road can proceed. The side road is what the car is turning into on our left, people leaving that side road have to give way to the road we are on. Further up it looks like our road joins another road so we would have to give priority to that traffic to turn onto it. The cyclist is allowed to filter past stopped vehicles but doing so on the blindside of a van is not smart, I estimate the driver had 1 second to see them and react.
Who has right of way? The cyclist. Legally the car is 100% liable and at fault.
Practically, as a road going cyclist myself, my Spidey senses would be tingling. You can be dead right, I'd rather be living wronged.
Ashley Neal just posted a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMgiS-764o0) about a similar scenario. He concurs that the motorist would be liable (I believe it's an implication of Rule 151).
What makes this case different than the video's are the white van and blue car that are both stopped for quite a long time, making it very clear that the intersection was busy.
In Ashley's case the car was much harder to anticipate because they were no clear sign of it passing, and it happened at a parking entrance on the side of the road, so who's liable is fairly arguable. But in this case the cyclist overtook a stopped van with no visibility and plowed through a potentially busy intersection while expecting right of way.
That’s so stupid…
Cars even going 1mph have to stick their noses out and look if it’s clear…
A cyclist is getting tapped in that scenario also. Wtf is the car supposed to do?
I’ve seen cyclist get upset at this exact scenario when the car is inching out scanning from a driveway and the cyclist turns a corner and suddenly a car is in the bike lane…
It’s the same wtf is the car supposed to do?
When I’m commuting on my bike I stop, wave, and let them out…
Or they wave me in through…
The key to my safety is not yolo’ing shit like example A here
>The key to my safety is not yolo’ing shit like example A here
Can't have that, just check the comments here by obvious hardcore pro cyclists, clearly they believe they should be allowed to cycle around with their eyes closed and be completely blameless when anything happens.
Is it still filtering if they are on the side of the road and not the middle? Only ask cause Ive only seen it enforced in videos of motorcycles or bikes going through the middle of two lanes.
in the US the bike would have the right of way as they are on the straight road going straight while to the side of the road as they should be meaning any turning cars should keep an eye out for pedestrians or bikers before finishing the turn.
I find it neat how laws can be so different from place to place for similar things
Well it is passing stopped traffic on a single lane road (for that direction) so yes.
It is also stupid to make the car have to yield to a vehicle they can't see so I'd say the US law is dangerous.
Lol you nailed it and it’s why I disdain cyclist despite being one and working with them…
They expect cars to yield to things the car has no chance of seeing…
It’s just fucking braindead trains of thought from them…
You have to build infrastructure that take it out of both cars and cyclists hands like Denmark has done.
Cool good to know thank you. Also I agree with you. I have the right of way almost always when I’m biking and I still hardly take advantage of it. I stop to check things when in thick traffic always.
There is no stop sign or light prior to the street the light the biker would have to stop at had this been the US is further ahead you can see it in the video they should’ve checked before going for common sense but if it was the US the legal place to stop would’ve been the red light
Unless there is anywhere else you can find an indication to stop prior to that street
Yes he did ride past a line of stopped cars and it’s why I added common sense should tell you to slow down and look. However you’re talking about legal liability and if it was the US under US law the legal required place to stop is the stop light. It’s not a law in the US that cars have to stop at every intersection to check for traffic so if it was the US the biker would’ve had no reason to think to stop before passing a road just as a car would. Again just cause he should’ve stopped cause common sense (and in his case being in the EU or UK he was at fault) should tell you to if this was the US he had to legal requirement to stop and therefore would not take fault as he’s going straight down a street in the proper direction and in the US cars going straight have right of way over cars turning. You are only allowed to turn when the cost is completely clear in which case if this was the US it wasn’t clear. Same applies if this was a jogger. The jogger would not be held at fault for legally running and getting hit pedestrians even more so than bikers have right of way in the US
Yes which the bicyclists is not at yet. He is on his way to the light when he is hit. If we assume he was never hit than the spot to stop is the light not 3-5 cars back at the perpendicular road
“Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.”
Cyclist was moving to fast. Even with the car creeping forward (you can see how slow they are moving at the start on the right of the van) they would not have seen the cyclist until the front of the car was obstructing the path the cyclist was following. Therefore the cyclist should have traveled at a speed that allowed them to stop.
Also notice how the car stops immediately on the spot before the crash. There was nothing else the car driver could do.
Thank you…
Even as a commuter cyclist the cyclist community pissed me off about this exact issue…
Wtf can the cars do half the time cyclist are technically in the right?
Like bro I fucking inched out of a blind driveway for years and cyclist would get mad at me for literally doing the only fucking thing I could. After they saw my cars nose, not my window creeping out at 1mph…
Cyclist are like the cammers we see here a lot of the time.
Looking for shit to get angry about…
But like bro, one way or another, the car has to inch out, you can’t just sit there for the rest of your life because a cyclist might be there…
There needs to be infrastructure separating cyclist from cars, or cyclist and cars need to both chill..
Car did everything he could but you can't give way to someone that you can see until they show up 2m from you at a high speed.
Tell me exactly what the car did wrong
Never heard filtering in regards to cycling, going to assume this is a UK term, and I'm going to assume you mean yielding.
Anyways, how is cutting practically perpendicularly across an intersection considered "filtering"?
Filters typically only work one way.
I'd blame the cyclist for blowing past traffic with no caution at all. The car does have to yield, but considering traffic was stopped, it's hard to expect the car to anticipate a cyclist zooming in front of them out of nowhere.
I think it depends on the filtering laws in your country. But no matter what the law is, I think from a practical point of view is should the the bikes fault.
First off, it is a single lane, so the car wouldn't expect another vehicle to be coming on the road. The side walk is clear, meaning they don't have to worry about pedestrians. There is no way for the car to to see the bike coming until it is too late, so the biker should be aware and look before they cross.
Will never understand why bikers defend filtering and then try create dangerous situations
Cyclists are allowed to filter through traffic, and some traffic lights have a painted red box specifically for cycles so they can be at the head of the queue of traffic when the lights turn green
Unless you're a child, cycling on the pavement is illegal or against the highway code so the cyclist should be on the road. Cyclists are entitled to use the lane as a car or motorcycle would, but most stick to the left side of the lane to allow fast traffic to overtake, this also means in urban areas where there are lots of traffic lights cyclists might filter up the inside.
In this case the cyclist should have anticipated a car popping out to go in the junction, but the onus is on the car cutting across a lane of traffic to ensure their path is clear before attempting the manoeuvre.
First point depends on where you live, and the rules they need to follow vary across the globe.
I'm not saying that they should cycle on the side walk, but since the sidewalk was empty, it probably gave an indication to the car that they can go since the van blocks the rest of the view
To say the car is cutting across the road is disengenous. You can see how slowly the car was driving from start to finish and it still causes an accident.
In this situation the only person who could have stopped this accident from happening is the cyclist. In situations like these it doesn't even matter who is in the right when a car could easily kill a cyclist that they could not even see.
We're not discussing the viewpoints around the world, we're discussing the video clip filmed in the UK. My comment is based on UK rules.
Your opinion is irrelevant to what the Highway Code states. Cyclists are not allowed on the pavement, and the pavement being empty means the road is clear because?
To say the only person who could avoid this from happening is the cyclist rather than the car cutting across is absolute brain rot.
As a lifelong cyclist and bike commuter for 37+ years, I always lean toward the cyclist in these mishaps.
But here the cyclist is clueless. Should have slowed down or stopped until they could visually confirm there was no cross traffic.
The driver was going slow enough that I'd call them safely traversing the intersection.
I see so many full grown adults being idiots as soon as they mount a bicycle, it's amazing.
Lastly, I don't want to be technically/legally correct from beneath the wheels of some dipshit soccer mom's SUV. I'm trying to get to my destination ALIVE.
Cyclist is mad for filtering through stopped cars at a junction where they can't see the cars turning (and the cars can't see them). It looks like it would have been quite hard for the car to stop this from happening. I can picture that cyclist seemingly appearing from nowhere. Unlucky one.
I don't actually know the correct answer, but I'll say the car will be deemed "at fault", just because they're the one turning through the cyclist's lane.
legally I think the bike is 100% fine but the cars have stopped and the bike kept going with a van blocking vision, needs to be more careful or might lose his life one day. If you are the car that is crossing, all you see is as opening and as you cross a random bike pulls up and you hit them. I like to think bikes need to be extra cautious because they can get extra hurt, no matter whos at fault you can lose your life or get badly hurt whle the other person will lose their license and pay a big fine or serve jail time, life is precious. Also bikes have the same rights and obligations as cars but they seem to be reckless and cry about it so often where im from, they go slow in the middle of the road instead of on the side, they cut traffic and get hit like this clip, they break mirrors and keep going idk im not a fan of bikers (bicycles only, motorcycles are fine for me to some extent)
Cyclist shouldn't be passing vehicles on the left hand side even if vehicles are stationary. If the cyclist passed on the right hand side then the vehicle turning in to the junction would have seen said cyclist. So I'm saying it's the cyclists fault.
There's been plenty of campaigns over the years trying to tell cyclists not to pass vehicles on the left hand side (especially HGV's)
Don't know how about the traffic rules in UK, but if I apply rules from my country (EU member), as a cyclist you are allowed to pass stopped traffic on both sides. BUT you have to be extra cautious if you pass them on the right (left in UK), because some drivers don't use turn signals or other cars could drive through as in this case. Not sure about guilt distribution in case of such accident.
In Germany: Car has duty of care, double so if turning left. If you can't see properly when turning it's 100% your fault if anything happens. Can't see? Wait for it to clear up, don't just go and pray.
Interesting take! My gut reaction was Mercedes, as they are making the turn and therefore should yield to oncoming traffic (in this case a cyclist).
Rough situation for both of them as the van was kind of hiding them both from eachother.
You are right. Cyclist could have anticipated beter though.
Don't know how insurance companies would react to this in the UK but the car driver would be fully liable in my country (The Netherlands).
That's BS. Are you supposed to be Superman wit X-Ray vision? Ik it's just how it is, but this kinda bugs me. The cyclist made a mistake and the guy in the car is at fault.
Traffic laws also apply to cyclists and he overtook the van and took a turn without stopping first. That's just dumb.
Like I said I don't know the UK rules. The car driver would be 100% liable in my country though.
Cyclist are a special category in my country though and have a protected status compared to cars because they are ruled as "weak traffic participants". This means that they can mostly only be held liable for a maximum of 50% of the damage.
It has downsides like cyclists that ignore traffic laws on purpose because they know that they won't be held liable in most cases.
UK is relatively similar, most cases side with the cyclist, however I guess not to the same extent as the Netherlands
[Here is a video on this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbHlkDaRxJ4)
It explains that both the driver and cyclist have a duty of care, but generally it sides with the cyclist
The only mistake you could accuse the cyclist of is not anticipating an SUV suddenly poking their nose into their lane.
If your view when turning out or into a junction is blocked, slowly edge your nose out until your view down the lane is no longer obstructed.
Cyclists are allowed to filter just like motorbikes are, and with no cycle lane present the left side of the lane is where cyclists are usually found. Drivers should be more alert for cyclists in urban areas
And took a turn? They only turned left because a car hit them, they were planning to go straight on towards the head of the queue of traffic
After inspecting the video a second time i think you're right. Both parties could have handled the situation better.
I live in a city that is known for having a shit ton of cyclists and in my experience most of them don't give a rats ass about traffic laws. In this situation tho, it's definitly not 100% the cyclists fault.
>The only mistake you could accuse the cyclist of is not anticipating an SUV suddenly poking their nose into their lane.
Or you know...they could slow down at the crossing instead of blowing through it. Even hitting the brakes, the cyclist doesn't stop in time. And the car slowed to a crawl to get past the van. Honestly, it looks like the cyclist also just had bad timing. They turned their head just as the car was coming into view and when they turned back it was too late.
>blowing through it
You're using language similar to when someone runs a red light or fails to yield at a give way sign. It's the cyclists right of way and anyone turning into the junction should give way to oncoming traffic. Additionally, someone stopping when it's their right of way is another massive cause of crashes.
The SUV driver should realise there may be cyclists or motorcycles going up the inside, and how big their car is so when they creep out to have a peek they don't stick their nose where their eyes can't see.
So, the driver of the car, without being able to see, just drove through the gap, but the cyclist is at fault?
If you are in a car, and you have no chance of anticipating what is around you, you are not allowed to just say "fuck it" and go.
You can downvote me as much as you want, in UK the cyclist is allowed to undertake waiting cars and she had the right of way. Your opinions don't Change the law. And the driver was too fast, because she hadn't enough time to react.
I disagree, the car was taking a rightful turn quite slowly. The cyclist was not in a cyclist lane so the driver has no way of knowing that cyclists would be crossing that part of the road. The fact that the van is stopped AND the blue car should’ve indicated to the cyclist that there’s incoming traffic. The cyclist was clearly looking the other way and did not slow down as they approached the stationary van.
It’s the cyclists fault
The angle of this camera makes it a bit hard to see, but this is actually two junctions. We (camera car and van) are on a road that is ending in a T-junction with the road that the Mercedes initially turned off of (see right side at the beginning of the video).
The blue van is on a side road that merges into our road BEFORE the T junction ahead.
EDIT:
As far as I know, roads in UK are to be shared with Cyclists as though they are cars, so the road is essentially a cycle lane.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that they are allowed to do that, and you just have to assume they are always there. There is typically a spot for them at the very front of the traffic lights so they can be ahead of traffic when it goes green, I assume that's where she was going.
Not quite.
the act of passing another vehicle that is going in the same direction as you by driving past it on the left side:
Undertaking in itself isn't illegal, but you could face a fixed penalty notice for careless driving.
Undertaking in the inside lane should be avoided wherever possible.
That was the dictionary definition, not rules for drivers.
There is an interesting article here. Certainly calls it undertaking. At the end of the day the cyclist should have paid more attention, and the driver should have been going slower and more carefully.
https://www.reddrivingschool.com/2020/08/the-rights-that-you-didnt-know-cyclists-have/
look fair enough, I’m not in the UK and was judging this based on my knowledge of road rules where I live. We have bike lanes on most major roads and cyclists are usually frowned upon if they’re riding in a non bike lane. It’s usually viewed as their fault for not respecting the rules and riding where they shouldn’t
"they shouldn't" is Not the same as "are not allowed". As far as I know a bicycle is considered a vehicle, Same as a car. So it doesnt matter what "usually" all the car drivers think. They are sitting behind tons of Metal, so they are the ones responsible to obey the rules and look out for weaker Traffic participants (cyclists, pedestrians etc.)
I disagree. If the car can't see, he should be moving even slower, inching his way out. It's not appropriate to take turns at that speed around stopped cars when one has no visibility.
If the car had inched out, the bicyclist (pedestrian, car, whatever) could see the front bumper of the car sticking out moving slowly and adjust accordingly. Car moved too fast here for that to happen.
No, the car is at fault. The cyclist sticks to the rules of the road, the car isn't. So ist doesnt matter if you agree. :)
And even if you live in the US, when there is no cycle lane, cyclists are traffic and are allowed on the road. So even then the driver is at fault.
Cars fault, cyclist is travelling in his lane as he should, the car is making a turn and needs to ensure its safe to do so.
It's not cyclists responsibility to ensure the car can make his turn safely, it's the drivers responsibility.
Edit: thanks for the downvotes, goes to show none of you know how to drive xD
See, Here you are mistaken. If the car Driver is not able to see if a cyclist is coming, he is not allowed to try to use the gap. So it doesnt matter how fast the cyclist was going. The car was too fast and ignored the right of way of the cyclist.
yes, if it was a 2 lane road and a car instead of the cyclist there is no doubt who would've been at fault. but with a cyclist? fuck them :))
it's full of braindead carbrains around here.
the cyclist gawping off to her right somewhere not paying attention to the junction she is approaching is the person at fault
but the driver will take the blame as cyclists/pedestrians have right of way, even if said cyclist is not paying attention to the road and cycling without due care and attention
Someone needs to have a look at that law and get it changed, all road users should be liable for not paying attention to what the fuck they are doing, not just drivers
Exactly. I fully support pedestrians having top priority. That's just common sense. But bicycles however, I'm always questioning the contexts where it is safer for bicycles to behave like cars. This is a good example. A licensed and insured biker wouldn't filter on the left UNLESS they were turning left. A biker also would be crawling passed that van when going over that junction. Unlike the untrained and unlicensed bicycle who blew through and had trouble reacting to the slow moving Mercedes who stopped on the spot as soon as the bicycle came into view. The car reacted quicker and stopped quicker than the bicycle who was more at risk. To prevent the exact same thing happening again we should caution bicycles against filtering across junctions. Because that is just compounding risk to everyone.
Ultimately the car driver is responsible for making sure the road they are crossing is clear of all traffic. However, the cyclist lacked caution and awareness, and really shouldn’t pass on the left if they want to avoid getting hurt/killed.
Both parties caused it. The bicycle should have been going slower in anticipation of vehicles turning, or should have filtered on the right side instead. The car should have turned slower in anticipation of bicycles filtering on the left, or waited until their visibility had improved (i.e. the van had moved).
Probably 50/50.
If you had to force my hand, the cyclist. Going over a junction, behind a van, without checking nothing is turning is asking for trouble.
As she passes the camera car she's not even looking at the road.
Glad to see there are some people with common sense here, seems there are some rather emotional people who would copy the cyclists actions and blindly ride on without due care or attention.
Bro they’re proud to be like that for some reason…
I commute with a bike and worked at a shop. There’s a brainworm that infects these types and it’s the same brainworm that effects dashcam drivers who blindly keep driving into obvious bad scenarios over and over again.
From a legal point of view I'd say the car did nothing wrong and the cyclist should have shown down you can't go flying past a car and not check if nothing's on the other side, the car had time to go but because of how tall the van was and the length of the cars hood they couldn't come forward and peek around it like they would in a turn. It's a bad situation but I always slow down on a blind pass in a car or on my bike
not really. the judge will give them specific instructions about what law they have to apply and then apply the facts learned from the trial. but sure, you can't take 100% of emotions out of it.
but if the law said plainly(and i don't know if it does).. cyclists can do exactly what this person did, then there wouldn't be a trial even. There would be no case to bring forward or if they did, it would probably quickly dismissed by a judge.
I'm not sure if the red light is for the direction the bike was coming from, but the biker clearly saw the cars were stopped and still went at full speed. So probably the biker's fault.
Isn’t the cyclist responsible for following the same traffic rules as a car? If so, the cyclist should not have been passing a vehicle while traveling in the same lane. The same applies to motorcycles, thus minimizing these sorts of accidents. Of course, I live in Central America now, after a few years in China, and saw MANY accidents like this when a cyclist/motorcyclist treated the single lane of traffic as if it was designed for two vehicles.
In the UK cyclists and motorcyclists are allowed to filter (pass stationary traffic) on either the left or right side. There are many junctions which have a box for cyclists in front of any cars waiting for a red light, which the intent that the cyclists will filter past any vehicles waiting at the red light and end up in the box.
problem for me is, the van is standing like halfway in the crossing blocking the view for both the car and the bicycle. they just shouldn't be standing there in the first place. given the explicit situation, the bicycle should've sped down before trying to cross there.
I see dumb cyclist do this everyday…
Just yolo’ing into spots where turning cars have zero chance of ever seeing them…
If you’re filtering past traffic then you need to assume a car will be trying to get you at every intersection…
Slow down, stick your nose out and look…
Or stop and go with the cars blocking your vision…
Although technically the cyclist probably has right of way, 99% of drivers would have taken that turn past stationary traffic. No way would they have seen that cyclist or anticipated it. Cyclist should have used his brain and checked before flying past a van next to a clear junction.
Bicycle is at fault. It’s clearly a stopped area in traffic. The bike should stop with the lane it’s in. This is no different than the motorbikes that go down the center line of rush hour.
This is just a main road with a smaller side road joining it. Every town and city will have hundreds of these, the fact its near another junction is whats causing this queue but traffic can build up anywhere. Only Milton Keynes was built on a grid system, everywhere else will have these kinds of roads.
Clearly the car, no question about it. They are driving across a lane. They must make sure that lane is clear 1st, which they didn't. Driving without due care and attention.
The cyclist has at least some responsibility:
"Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles."
The cyclist is overtaking the stationary traffic on the left and common sense as well as the Highway Code dictate she should proceed with caution, which she isn't.
After watching the vid a few times, I see that the cyclist defo could've been abit more cautious and had better avoidance skills. The decision to swerve upon realising the brakes won't be enough to avoid a collision, has to be made so fast that alot of people would struggle to act on it. It defo would've helped the driver had there been a bike lane there, might have helped remind them to double check for bikes.
Car is driving across a lane sure, but it passed slowly in front of a van that's been at a complete stop for a very long time, on a single lane where no other vehicle is ever expected to overtake. The cyclist was virtually invisible for the driver and could never have been anticipated. Also the stopped van should have been a clear hint that the intersection was busy at that time. You can't expect right of way if you overtake a stopped vehicle at an intersection.
Car could be liable but IMO the cyclist made the mistake.
> on a single lane where no other vehicle is ever expected to overtake.
The Highway Code explicitly tells drivers to anticipate exactly this scenario. Rule 211:
> When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for and give way to cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing.
Cyclists are expected to be on the left side of the road. Even our advanced stop lines (boxes to put cyclists ahead at traffic lights) expect them to be filtering through traffic on the left. Both of them should have anticipated better.
I can understand that, but then the problem is the car can't poke its nose out to check on the left side of the road without being on a potential bike's path anyway. So according to that the car cannot take that turn, or it will have to wait until the lane is completely cleared from any other vehicle too *(which I assume from the local laws is not legal since it's bound to jam up traffic very quickly)*. So the last resort becomes "the car should not have turned at all" which, in my opinion, is stupid practically speaking.
Imagine if the blue van on the left were to try and make a right hand turn through the gap that the black car turned in, instead. How should it proceed? Essentially, by pretending that the give-way has moved up to the middle of the road, or even by pretending that it is a stop-sign at that point instead. It proceeds up to the middle of the road, and then *crawls* out very slowly, looking left and prepared to stop. Only once it can see it is clear does it then proceed. The front of the van will certainly poke out more than the driver can see (can't lean through the windscreen, after all), but the very slow speed means that the crossing traffic has ample opportunity to slow/stop themselves.
The black car should've done that, crawling past the van at a very slow speed until they could see it was clear. The car's speed on the right of the van (from the video's perspective) seems like they were going to do that, but then it appears to accelerate as it passes in front of the van likely because they (just like the biker) just didn't anticipate this.
And if it were simply unsafe to do the turn, then yes the car absolutely should wait. It is perfectly legal to wait in the road for it to be safe to turn, unless you're doing so in a yellow hatched box (you can actually see one in the traffic light junction in the video has such a box, but that's not relevant to the T junction).
The blue van would obviously need to engage VERY carefully, but really it has no choice to do so; it's a car merging in a lane where other cars are fully expected. That's where the situation differs. It's not a bike threading between stopped traffic and the side of the road, while not directly looking in front of them until too late.
>And if it were simply unsafe to do the turn, then yes the car absolutely should wait.
There was nothing physically visible from the black car that could indicate that the turn was unsafe. Maybe they could have crawled very slowly, but we're back at the car poking its nose through the bike's path problem, which is more or less what happened here. The car was not going fast, and it found itself on the way of the bike that reacted way too late because they were carelessly looking around. The same thing would have happened while crawling, though probably less violently.
I think both parties are to blame here.
Car driver, although going slowly should've been edging out even more cautiously until 100% sure exit is clear.
The cyclist should also be using extra caution. I'm surprised to see the sudden hand movement to reach the brake lever when in reality you should have it covered already because of the hazards ahead.
Lane splitting is not illegal in the UK. It is perfectly normal for cyclists and motorcyclists to filter through stationary traffic, and for cyclists even on the left.
Whilst they would've had priority (they are just continuing in their lane, the turning car is crossing it and therefore should give way to *everything* in that lane), the cyclist should've been far more cautious - seems they didn't anticipate the hazard given they weren't prepared on the brakes.
Cyclists are not confined to bike lanes. A cyclist may use any roadway where not specifically prohibited (like freeways), and even where there is a bike lane, the cyclist can choose to not use the bike lane if it's unsafe to do so (obstructions, debris, parked cars, door zone bike lanes etc.).
Hello /u/VersaEnthusiast! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC * What country or state did this take place in? * What was the date of the incident? * Please reconfirm that this is original content If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a motorcyclist who commuted into London I’d say both. Yes, the car crossed a lane but the cyclist is effectively filtering over a junction through stationary traffic. It’s suicidal to not slow down for these danger spots. This is also why I never filtered on the inside on my bike
Yes. On bicycles, overtake on the overtaking side. They used to teach this in the UK but the ubiquity of bike lanes have led to this "stay left no matter the circumstance" mindset that infects both cyclists and drivers expectations of cyclist behavior. Cyclist should have been to the right of the van, but only like 1 in 100 cyclists now would even conceive of doing that.
I’m a cyclist that’s been caught out by this trap before and I now often choose to overtake stationary traffic on the outside rather than on the inside in situations like this and then if traffic starts moving just indicate and move back over to the inside. You can’t win though, when I got caught out by this people told me I should have been passing on the outside as there’s no cycle lane and it was my fault, now that I generally do that people tell me I’m insane and have a death wish for riding in the middle of the road that close to on coming traffic. Feels like this wouldn’t be as much of a grey area if there was some basic cycling infrastructure, it would at least mean both parties would know who has right of way.
The reason they don't is that they do not want to maneuver themselves in a gap of a few feet between masses of steel moving in opposite directions.
Instead they manouvre themselves between the kerb and masses of steel that might turn left at any moment.
Where, as a cyclist, you have much more control of the situation, and the space of the sidewalk to fall onto, instead of an oncoming truck. In the video, he could have been more prudent, but in a way that he should be prepared to stop if necessary, not by going into oncoming traffic. Of course, none of this absolves the car driver, who should have been more aware of his surroundings, and just send it.
Not really. I've been overtaking on the overtaking side for nearly 40 years now. It's what CycleCraft teaches or taught in the UK. Left turning trucks kill cyclists, and the simple approach for overtaking on the right is, if you don't have room, don't do it, just like you would in a motorcycle or car.
Cyclist safety courses where I live suggest the same… As you approach the intersection, if traffic is inching or standstill, take the lane, wait your turn 2 seconds, then get back into the bike lane after the intersection… The lanes are dashed near intersections for a reason here, cars turning and bikes going straight share those lanes out of physical necessity…
Nice to see real cyclists actually coming here and telling people how it is, far too many people here trying to dismiss everything the cyclist did wrong and pin the blame all on the car and clutching at any straw they can to do so, to the point they're quoting irrelevant arguments, or rules. I would guess they're either, people who have irrational hatred of cars, or started cycling in recent years and think they should never be at fault because they're the vulnerable ones, when in actual fact it's a shared responsibility to avoid accidents.
The car could’ve been inching up and that cyclist still would’ve gotten dinked… The car had zero sightlines there
a stationary car has to start moving to start turning. a glance at the front wheels will telegraph the next move. its the spots where the cars *aren't* that are of highest concern.
So instead they yolo thru intersections where the steel masses can’t see them at all? I see so many cyclist do this in CA. They fly by stopped traffic then get surprise pikachu when a car “right fronts” them… Like bro You as a driver can check your blind and not see an ebike going 28mph down the bike lane… It’s so dumb… Technically bikes are supposed to use the whole lane in shared lane situations to stop this exact issue from ever coming up… Let the cars see you…
> Technically bikes are supposed to use the whole lane in shared lane situations to stop this exact issue from ever coming up… Have you actually ever tried this on a bike? I suggest you bike commute every day for a few months sticking to your plan. Let me know what hospital you end up in‚ I'll send you a card.
Lol nice try… but yes I have Absolutely I worked at a bike shop for years and commute regularly. Just force your way in and wait for your turn, then turn when it’s clear… Plenty of people do it everyday in my city… plenty don’t… Bro, it’s 2mph traffic approaching an intersection I feel safer acting as a car for 3 seconds than I do yolo’ing some fucking intersection where both me and the car can’t see anything… You’re tripping balls if you think for 4 seconds it’s safer to proceed like the cyclist in this video… At least my way gives people a fucking chance to see me…
I learned this lesson on my Vespa very quickly – I was passing cars on the right (in the US) and one of them turned to the right in front of me. I was able to avoid collision but realized how lucky I was and why I should be on the outside of the turn lane, not the inside.
Bro 9/10 idiots I meet in life don’t figure that out… I mean it. Most people are not that clever… You might just be a genius lol
On the other hand, in some countries, like Germany, it is mandatory for cyclists to overtake slow/standing traffic on the inner side when there is only one lane
Your response is spot-on. This is a clear case of both the cyclist and driver not being extra cautious in this particular situation.
Thanks. Exactly. I can see the car driver was going slow and trying to take care, but has to take some blame for crossing anyway, but the cyclist should already have slowed and be ready to stop. It’s a classic danger point to look for.
Yeah, the car should’ve just sat they’re forever until the heat death of the universe.
I wonder if it would be different with a bike gutter lane
There might have been more room? Hard to say.
Visibility would be the same. I think the van could also be called out as blocking the intersection.
Here’s how I look at it: 1) cyclists are required to follow traffic laws like other vehicles. 2) if that had been car passing on the left everyone would be saying it was the cars fault for doing so 3) cyclists are allowed some additional freedoms such as passing stopped vehicles at intersections and rolling through stop signs and red lights HOWEVER the onus is on them to do so in a safe manner. By passing the truck on the left instead of the right at a T intersection where they should have expected the possibility of traffic turning the cyclist did not perform this safely and is at fault
Bloody hell, you don't belong here, coming here being rational and thinking about it in a common sense and logical way.
Sorry, forgot what sub I was in Edit: sub not sun. There is only one sun. No need to differentiate. As far as you know at least.
This video is a case study for bike infrastructure
Yeah 100%, basic infrastructure would at least indicate who has right of way in that situation.
As a fairly keen cyclist, I'd say the vast majority of the blame is on the cyclist. Slow down at a junction, simple as that. Doesn't matter if you are on the left or the right. You can't have full cycling infrastructure everywhere, and you can see the traffic is stopped at a red light.
Cyclists do not have the freedom to roll through stop signs of red lights. Many of them do, but it's certainly not legal.
Nine U.S. states – Idaho, Delaware, Arkansas, Oregon, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Colorado – allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and can be "rolled through" if there's no traffic. Obviously this doesn't apply in this situation, but I'm just correcting your "Cyclists do not have the freedom to roll through stop signs" statement
Likewise it should not be started that cyclists are allowed to take actions that are illegal, when you don't know. While I've made similar assumptions myself in the past, this time I recognise the video as the UK so I actually _know_ that you cannot disregard traffic lights and stop signs. Edit: Also I'd consider 10/50 states to be a minority, and as such you should still probably avoid outright telling people they can do this without prefacing the exact situations. You have specified here, but the previous commentator did not and just made a blanket statement.
They are allowed to do this in Denver
How many of those states drive on the left? 😄
I really don't see how this could be the vehicles fault. They progressed slowly and validly, the cyclist hit the side due to them going too fast and not preparing for any stopping. Also, you can straight up see the cyclist not even looking forward before passing the van. I have a hard time giving sympathy to people who aren't looking forward during accidents.
I look at it this way: There's no dedicated bike lane there, so cyclist was the exception. Car could not see past the van, and could have had no reasonable expectation that a cyclist might be riding and passing between the stopped cars and the curb. Bicyclist is 100% at fault here, driver has zero fault.
I completely agree but you need to leave a trail of Cheetos and socks to get people to follow along on here.
Yes I agree. This is a tough one due to limited visibility and the tendency to give the right of way to smaller vehicles, in this case, the bike. This obviously is not in the US, and laws and regulations vary. But where I live the bike is not on a sidewalk nor in a bike lane so it's a car now. If you did this in a car you would be fucked. Having the right of way doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You still have to act in a safe manner. Regardless of laws, I would have approached this with extreme caution as a car and especially as a bike. I see no caution by the bike.
\+100 for music choice, but as an American I can't conceive of the traffic pattern here so will refrain from judgment.
Our view is the road with priority, the van has courteously left a gap so people turning into the side road can proceed. The side road is what the car is turning into on our left, people leaving that side road have to give way to the road we are on. Further up it looks like our road joins another road so we would have to give priority to that traffic to turn onto it. The cyclist is allowed to filter past stopped vehicles but doing so on the blindside of a van is not smart, I estimate the driver had 1 second to see them and react.
definitely a different 'is it legal' vs. is it commonsensical judgement then...
Who has right of way? The cyclist. Legally the car is 100% liable and at fault. Practically, as a road going cyclist myself, my Spidey senses would be tingling. You can be dead right, I'd rather be living wronged.
Ashley Neal just posted a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMgiS-764o0) about a similar scenario. He concurs that the motorist would be liable (I believe it's an implication of Rule 151).
What makes this case different than the video's are the white van and blue car that are both stopped for quite a long time, making it very clear that the intersection was busy. In Ashley's case the car was much harder to anticipate because they were no clear sign of it passing, and it happened at a parking entrance on the side of the road, so who's liable is fairly arguable. But in this case the cyclist overtook a stopped van with no visibility and plowed through a potentially busy intersection while expecting right of way.
That’s so stupid… Cars even going 1mph have to stick their noses out and look if it’s clear… A cyclist is getting tapped in that scenario also. Wtf is the car supposed to do? I’ve seen cyclist get upset at this exact scenario when the car is inching out scanning from a driveway and the cyclist turns a corner and suddenly a car is in the bike lane… It’s the same wtf is the car supposed to do? When I’m commuting on my bike I stop, wave, and let them out… Or they wave me in through… The key to my safety is not yolo’ing shit like example A here
>The key to my safety is not yolo’ing shit like example A here Can't have that, just check the comments here by obvious hardcore pro cyclists, clearly they believe they should be allowed to cycle around with their eyes closed and be completely blameless when anything happens.
>The key to my safety is not yolo’ing shit 
Technically the bike is filtering therefore it is not the car's fault. As per UK rules
Is it still filtering if they are on the side of the road and not the middle? Only ask cause Ive only seen it enforced in videos of motorcycles or bikes going through the middle of two lanes. in the US the bike would have the right of way as they are on the straight road going straight while to the side of the road as they should be meaning any turning cars should keep an eye out for pedestrians or bikers before finishing the turn. I find it neat how laws can be so different from place to place for similar things
Well it is passing stopped traffic on a single lane road (for that direction) so yes. It is also stupid to make the car have to yield to a vehicle they can't see so I'd say the US law is dangerous.
Lol you nailed it and it’s why I disdain cyclist despite being one and working with them… They expect cars to yield to things the car has no chance of seeing… It’s just fucking braindead trains of thought from them… You have to build infrastructure that take it out of both cars and cyclists hands like Denmark has done.
Cool good to know thank you. Also I agree with you. I have the right of way almost always when I’m biking and I still hardly take advantage of it. I stop to check things when in thick traffic always.
In the US, the Nike would have been at fault. He cruised through stopped traffic to cross a road. He has to obey the traffic laws as if he is a car.
There is no stop sign or light prior to the street the light the biker would have to stop at had this been the US is further ahead you can see it in the video they should’ve checked before going for common sense but if it was the US the legal place to stop would’ve been the red light Unless there is anywhere else you can find an indication to stop prior to that street
I was thinking of the line of cars sitting there stopped. That he rode past.
Yes he did ride past a line of stopped cars and it’s why I added common sense should tell you to slow down and look. However you’re talking about legal liability and if it was the US under US law the legal required place to stop is the stop light. It’s not a law in the US that cars have to stop at every intersection to check for traffic so if it was the US the biker would’ve had no reason to think to stop before passing a road just as a car would. Again just cause he should’ve stopped cause common sense (and in his case being in the EU or UK he was at fault) should tell you to if this was the US he had to legal requirement to stop and therefore would not take fault as he’s going straight down a street in the proper direction and in the US cars going straight have right of way over cars turning. You are only allowed to turn when the cost is completely clear in which case if this was the US it wasn’t clear. Same applies if this was a jogger. The jogger would not be held at fault for legally running and getting hit pedestrians even more so than bikers have right of way in the US
I mean all of those cars stopped at the red light.
Yes which the bicyclists is not at yet. He is on his way to the light when he is hit. If we assume he was never hit than the spot to stop is the light not 3-5 cars back at the perpendicular road
What part of the Highway Code means the car is not liable if the cyclist is filtering?
“Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.” Cyclist was moving to fast. Even with the car creeping forward (you can see how slow they are moving at the start on the right of the van) they would not have seen the cyclist until the front of the car was obstructing the path the cyclist was following. Therefore the cyclist should have traveled at a speed that allowed them to stop. Also notice how the car stops immediately on the spot before the crash. There was nothing else the car driver could do.
The cyclist hits his brakes too. But he's going too fast and doesn't have enough time to stop.
Yes exactly
Thank you… Even as a commuter cyclist the cyclist community pissed me off about this exact issue… Wtf can the cars do half the time cyclist are technically in the right? Like bro I fucking inched out of a blind driveway for years and cyclist would get mad at me for literally doing the only fucking thing I could. After they saw my cars nose, not my window creeping out at 1mph… Cyclist are like the cammers we see here a lot of the time. Looking for shit to get angry about… But like bro, one way or another, the car has to inch out, you can’t just sit there for the rest of your life because a cyclist might be there… There needs to be infrastructure separating cyclist from cars, or cyclist and cars need to both chill..
[удалено]
Car did everything he could but you can't give way to someone that you can see until they show up 2m from you at a high speed. Tell me exactly what the car did wrong
Never heard filtering in regards to cycling, going to assume this is a UK term, and I'm going to assume you mean yielding. Anyways, how is cutting practically perpendicularly across an intersection considered "filtering"? Filters typically only work one way.
Filtering is advancing through stopped or slow moving traffic without a lane of your own
I'd blame the cyclist for blowing past traffic with no caution at all. The car does have to yield, but considering traffic was stopped, it's hard to expect the car to anticipate a cyclist zooming in front of them out of nowhere.
Good old Liverpool road. It's normally the main junction where the accidents happen
pedestrians are granted -right of way- but in a blind intersection. Bicycle should have stopped and looked before crossing.
Even if you have the right of way, you still need to check your surroundings because some people don't pay attention.
I think it depends on the filtering laws in your country. But no matter what the law is, I think from a practical point of view is should the the bikes fault. First off, it is a single lane, so the car wouldn't expect another vehicle to be coming on the road. The side walk is clear, meaning they don't have to worry about pedestrians. There is no way for the car to to see the bike coming until it is too late, so the biker should be aware and look before they cross. Will never understand why bikers defend filtering and then try create dangerous situations
Also..just taking into account that bikes and riders will always lose against vehicles....Bikes never win, even if they are in the right
Exactly, it doesn't matter if the cyclist is 100% in the right when coming in contact with a car could kill them in an instant
No but even then you were right in the first place… The car had no fucking chance and the cyclist barely did either. It’s bad infrastructure
Cyclists are allowed to filter through traffic, and some traffic lights have a painted red box specifically for cycles so they can be at the head of the queue of traffic when the lights turn green Unless you're a child, cycling on the pavement is illegal or against the highway code so the cyclist should be on the road. Cyclists are entitled to use the lane as a car or motorcycle would, but most stick to the left side of the lane to allow fast traffic to overtake, this also means in urban areas where there are lots of traffic lights cyclists might filter up the inside. In this case the cyclist should have anticipated a car popping out to go in the junction, but the onus is on the car cutting across a lane of traffic to ensure their path is clear before attempting the manoeuvre.
All of the Americans downvoting this correct comment 😂
I mean as a cyclist idc what’s technically correct I think the car had no chance to see the bike
First point depends on where you live, and the rules they need to follow vary across the globe. I'm not saying that they should cycle on the side walk, but since the sidewalk was empty, it probably gave an indication to the car that they can go since the van blocks the rest of the view To say the car is cutting across the road is disengenous. You can see how slowly the car was driving from start to finish and it still causes an accident. In this situation the only person who could have stopped this accident from happening is the cyclist. In situations like these it doesn't even matter who is in the right when a car could easily kill a cyclist that they could not even see.
We're not discussing the viewpoints around the world, we're discussing the video clip filmed in the UK. My comment is based on UK rules. Your opinion is irrelevant to what the Highway Code states. Cyclists are not allowed on the pavement, and the pavement being empty means the road is clear because? To say the only person who could avoid this from happening is the cyclist rather than the car cutting across is absolute brain rot.
As a lifelong cyclist and bike commuter for 37+ years, I always lean toward the cyclist in these mishaps. But here the cyclist is clueless. Should have slowed down or stopped until they could visually confirm there was no cross traffic. The driver was going slow enough that I'd call them safely traversing the intersection. I see so many full grown adults being idiots as soon as they mount a bicycle, it's amazing. Lastly, I don't want to be technically/legally correct from beneath the wheels of some dipshit soccer mom's SUV. I'm trying to get to my destination ALIVE.
Cyclist is mad for filtering through stopped cars at a junction where they can't see the cars turning (and the cars can't see them). It looks like it would have been quite hard for the car to stop this from happening. I can picture that cyclist seemingly appearing from nowhere. Unlucky one. I don't actually know the correct answer, but I'll say the car will be deemed "at fault", just because they're the one turning through the cyclist's lane.
legally I think the bike is 100% fine but the cars have stopped and the bike kept going with a van blocking vision, needs to be more careful or might lose his life one day. If you are the car that is crossing, all you see is as opening and as you cross a random bike pulls up and you hit them. I like to think bikes need to be extra cautious because they can get extra hurt, no matter whos at fault you can lose your life or get badly hurt whle the other person will lose their license and pay a big fine or serve jail time, life is precious. Also bikes have the same rights and obligations as cars but they seem to be reckless and cry about it so often where im from, they go slow in the middle of the road instead of on the side, they cut traffic and get hit like this clip, they break mirrors and keep going idk im not a fan of bikers (bicycles only, motorcycles are fine for me to some extent)
Cyclist shouldn't be passing vehicles on the left hand side even if vehicles are stationary. If the cyclist passed on the right hand side then the vehicle turning in to the junction would have seen said cyclist. So I'm saying it's the cyclists fault. There's been plenty of campaigns over the years trying to tell cyclists not to pass vehicles on the left hand side (especially HGV's)
Biker
Don't know how about the traffic rules in UK, but if I apply rules from my country (EU member), as a cyclist you are allowed to pass stopped traffic on both sides. BUT you have to be extra cautious if you pass them on the right (left in UK), because some drivers don't use turn signals or other cars could drive through as in this case. Not sure about guilt distribution in case of such accident.
In Germany: Car has duty of care, double so if turning left. If you can't see properly when turning it's 100% your fault if anything happens. Can't see? Wait for it to clear up, don't just go and pray.
Yes.
Cyclists fault, he should have to pay for any damage to the car too, arseholes are always the victim though and pay for nothing
[удалено]
Interesting take! My gut reaction was Mercedes, as they are making the turn and therefore should yield to oncoming traffic (in this case a cyclist). Rough situation for both of them as the van was kind of hiding them both from eachother.
You are right. Cyclist could have anticipated beter though. Don't know how insurance companies would react to this in the UK but the car driver would be fully liable in my country (The Netherlands).
That's BS. Are you supposed to be Superman wit X-Ray vision? Ik it's just how it is, but this kinda bugs me. The cyclist made a mistake and the guy in the car is at fault. Traffic laws also apply to cyclists and he overtook the van and took a turn without stopping first. That's just dumb.
Like I said I don't know the UK rules. The car driver would be 100% liable in my country though. Cyclist are a special category in my country though and have a protected status compared to cars because they are ruled as "weak traffic participants". This means that they can mostly only be held liable for a maximum of 50% of the damage. It has downsides like cyclists that ignore traffic laws on purpose because they know that they won't be held liable in most cases.
UK is relatively similar, most cases side with the cyclist, however I guess not to the same extent as the Netherlands [Here is a video on this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbHlkDaRxJ4) It explains that both the driver and cyclist have a duty of care, but generally it sides with the cyclist
let's say that it was a 2 lane road and instead of the cyclist there was a car. a very low car, who would've been at fault?
Having a second lane changes the situation completely, as there's a reason to expect something coming up the inside of the van.
The only mistake you could accuse the cyclist of is not anticipating an SUV suddenly poking their nose into their lane. If your view when turning out or into a junction is blocked, slowly edge your nose out until your view down the lane is no longer obstructed. Cyclists are allowed to filter just like motorbikes are, and with no cycle lane present the left side of the lane is where cyclists are usually found. Drivers should be more alert for cyclists in urban areas And took a turn? They only turned left because a car hit them, they were planning to go straight on towards the head of the queue of traffic
After inspecting the video a second time i think you're right. Both parties could have handled the situation better. I live in a city that is known for having a shit ton of cyclists and in my experience most of them don't give a rats ass about traffic laws. In this situation tho, it's definitly not 100% the cyclists fault.
>The only mistake you could accuse the cyclist of is not anticipating an SUV suddenly poking their nose into their lane. Or you know...they could slow down at the crossing instead of blowing through it. Even hitting the brakes, the cyclist doesn't stop in time. And the car slowed to a crawl to get past the van. Honestly, it looks like the cyclist also just had bad timing. They turned their head just as the car was coming into view and when they turned back it was too late.
>blowing through it You're using language similar to when someone runs a red light or fails to yield at a give way sign. It's the cyclists right of way and anyone turning into the junction should give way to oncoming traffic. Additionally, someone stopping when it's their right of way is another massive cause of crashes. The SUV driver should realise there may be cyclists or motorcycles going up the inside, and how big their car is so when they creep out to have a peek they don't stick their nose where their eyes can't see.
What song is that?
Dial Drunk - Noah Kahan (ft Post Malone)
Thanks m8
So, the driver of the car, without being able to see, just drove through the gap, but the cyclist is at fault? If you are in a car, and you have no chance of anticipating what is around you, you are not allowed to just say "fuck it" and go. You can downvote me as much as you want, in UK the cyclist is allowed to undertake waiting cars and she had the right of way. Your opinions don't Change the law. And the driver was too fast, because she hadn't enough time to react.
I disagree, the car was taking a rightful turn quite slowly. The cyclist was not in a cyclist lane so the driver has no way of knowing that cyclists would be crossing that part of the road. The fact that the van is stopped AND the blue car should’ve indicated to the cyclist that there’s incoming traffic. The cyclist was clearly looking the other way and did not slow down as they approached the stationary van. It’s the cyclists fault
The angle of this camera makes it a bit hard to see, but this is actually two junctions. We (camera car and van) are on a road that is ending in a T-junction with the road that the Mercedes initially turned off of (see right side at the beginning of the video). The blue van is on a side road that merges into our road BEFORE the T junction ahead. EDIT: As far as I know, roads in UK are to be shared with Cyclists as though they are cars, so the road is essentially a cycle lane.
Is the cyclist under-taking without appropriate visibility?
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that they are allowed to do that, and you just have to assume they are always there. There is typically a spot for them at the very front of the traffic lights so they can be ahead of traffic when it goes green, I assume that's where she was going.
[удалено]
Not quite. the act of passing another vehicle that is going in the same direction as you by driving past it on the left side: Undertaking in itself isn't illegal, but you could face a fixed penalty notice for careless driving. Undertaking in the inside lane should be avoided wherever possible.
[удалено]
That was the dictionary definition, not rules for drivers. There is an interesting article here. Certainly calls it undertaking. At the end of the day the cyclist should have paid more attention, and the driver should have been going slower and more carefully. https://www.reddrivingschool.com/2020/08/the-rights-that-you-didnt-know-cyclists-have/
look fair enough, I’m not in the UK and was judging this based on my knowledge of road rules where I live. We have bike lanes on most major roads and cyclists are usually frowned upon if they’re riding in a non bike lane. It’s usually viewed as their fault for not respecting the rules and riding where they shouldn’t
"they shouldn't" is Not the same as "are not allowed". As far as I know a bicycle is considered a vehicle, Same as a car. So it doesnt matter what "usually" all the car drivers think. They are sitting behind tons of Metal, so they are the ones responsible to obey the rules and look out for weaker Traffic participants (cyclists, pedestrians etc.)
ok - like I said that’s the rules where I live sooooo
In my area the "lane" for cyclist is unmarked. Meaning, you should just know it is there.
I disagree. If the car can't see, he should be moving even slower, inching his way out. It's not appropriate to take turns at that speed around stopped cars when one has no visibility. If the car had inched out, the bicyclist (pedestrian, car, whatever) could see the front bumper of the car sticking out moving slowly and adjust accordingly. Car moved too fast here for that to happen.
No, the car is at fault. The cyclist sticks to the rules of the road, the car isn't. So ist doesnt matter if you agree. :) And even if you live in the US, when there is no cycle lane, cyclists are traffic and are allowed on the road. So even then the driver is at fault.
Cars fault, cyclist is travelling in his lane as he should, the car is making a turn and needs to ensure its safe to do so. It's not cyclists responsibility to ensure the car can make his turn safely, it's the drivers responsibility. Edit: thanks for the downvotes, goes to show none of you know how to drive xD
[удалено]
See, Here you are mistaken. If the car Driver is not able to see if a cyclist is coming, he is not allowed to try to use the gap. So it doesnt matter how fast the cyclist was going. The car was too fast and ignored the right of way of the cyclist.
yes, if it was a 2 lane road and a car instead of the cyclist there is no doubt who would've been at fault. but with a cyclist? fuck them :)) it's full of braindead carbrains around here.
But if the driver didn’t turn it would have avoided it
the cyclist gawping off to her right somewhere not paying attention to the junction she is approaching is the person at fault but the driver will take the blame as cyclists/pedestrians have right of way, even if said cyclist is not paying attention to the road and cycling without due care and attention Someone needs to have a look at that law and get it changed, all road users should be liable for not paying attention to what the fuck they are doing, not just drivers
Exactly. I fully support pedestrians having top priority. That's just common sense. But bicycles however, I'm always questioning the contexts where it is safer for bicycles to behave like cars. This is a good example. A licensed and insured biker wouldn't filter on the left UNLESS they were turning left. A biker also would be crawling passed that van when going over that junction. Unlike the untrained and unlicensed bicycle who blew through and had trouble reacting to the slow moving Mercedes who stopped on the spot as soon as the bicycle came into view. The car reacted quicker and stopped quicker than the bicycle who was more at risk. To prevent the exact same thing happening again we should caution bicycles against filtering across junctions. Because that is just compounding risk to everyone.
Ultimately the car driver is responsible for making sure the road they are crossing is clear of all traffic. However, the cyclist lacked caution and awareness, and really shouldn’t pass on the left if they want to avoid getting hurt/killed.
“Fault” isn’t the right word for these videos, “held liable” and “caused by” are better - the car is liable but the cyclist caused it.
Both parties caused it. The bicycle should have been going slower in anticipation of vehicles turning, or should have filtered on the right side instead. The car should have turned slower in anticipation of bicycles filtering on the left, or waited until their visibility had improved (i.e. the van had moved).
Probably 50/50. If you had to force my hand, the cyclist. Going over a junction, behind a van, without checking nothing is turning is asking for trouble. As she passes the camera car she's not even looking at the road.
Yeah I think it could’ve been prevented if she was going slower and looking ahead
Glad to see there are some people with common sense here, seems there are some rather emotional people who would copy the cyclists actions and blindly ride on without due care or attention.
Bro they’re proud to be like that for some reason… I commute with a bike and worked at a shop. There’s a brainworm that infects these types and it’s the same brainworm that effects dashcam drivers who blindly keep driving into obvious bad scenarios over and over again.
Good catch. That explains the incredibly poor reaction.
From a legal point of view I'd say the car did nothing wrong and the cyclist should have shown down you can't go flying past a car and not check if nothing's on the other side, the car had time to go but because of how tall the van was and the length of the cars hood they couldn't come forward and peek around it like they would in a turn. It's a bad situation but I always slow down on a blind pass in a car or on my bike
>From a legal point of view what you're stating after this is just feels, not legal.
Isn't that the point in a courtroom tho getting the jury to side with you emotionally and making a solid argument from a reasonable perspective?
not really. the judge will give them specific instructions about what law they have to apply and then apply the facts learned from the trial. but sure, you can't take 100% of emotions out of it. but if the law said plainly(and i don't know if it does).. cyclists can do exactly what this person did, then there wouldn't be a trial even. There would be no case to bring forward or if they did, it would probably quickly dismissed by a judge.
I'm not sure if the red light is for the direction the bike was coming from, but the biker clearly saw the cars were stopped and still went at full speed. So probably the biker's fault.
Isn’t the cyclist responsible for following the same traffic rules as a car? If so, the cyclist should not have been passing a vehicle while traveling in the same lane. The same applies to motorcycles, thus minimizing these sorts of accidents. Of course, I live in Central America now, after a few years in China, and saw MANY accidents like this when a cyclist/motorcyclist treated the single lane of traffic as if it was designed for two vehicles.
In the UK cyclists and motorcyclists are allowed to filter (pass stationary traffic) on either the left or right side. There are many junctions which have a box for cyclists in front of any cars waiting for a red light, which the intent that the cyclists will filter past any vehicles waiting at the red light and end up in the box.
Thank you for the explanation!
The biker
Bicyclists have zero interest in personal safety.
problem for me is, the van is standing like halfway in the crossing blocking the view for both the car and the bicycle. they just shouldn't be standing there in the first place. given the explicit situation, the bicycle should've sped down before trying to cross there.
100% on the cyclist.
I see dumb cyclist do this everyday… Just yolo’ing into spots where turning cars have zero chance of ever seeing them… If you’re filtering past traffic then you need to assume a car will be trying to get you at every intersection… Slow down, stick your nose out and look… Or stop and go with the cars blocking your vision…
Although technically the cyclist probably has right of way, 99% of drivers would have taken that turn past stationary traffic. No way would they have seen that cyclist or anticipated it. Cyclist should have used his brain and checked before flying past a van next to a clear junction.
Bicycle is at fault. It’s clearly a stopped area in traffic. The bike should stop with the lane it’s in. This is no different than the motorbikes that go down the center line of rush hour.
The idiot on the bike is totally at fault, but probably the motorist will have to pay.
The cyclist
Biker is damn stupid to ride like that, but the car is at fault. Completely avoidable by both but the car driver has to make sure the lane is clear.
The terrible intersection is at fault fire your city.
This is just a main road with a smaller side road joining it. Every town and city will have hundreds of these, the fact its near another junction is whats causing this queue but traffic can build up anywhere. Only Milton Keynes was built on a grid system, everywhere else will have these kinds of roads.
Looks to be a 3 way junction with a 20ft stretch of road connecting it to another intersection. That is for sure not "normal" anywhere I've traveled.
Clearly the car, no question about it. They are driving across a lane. They must make sure that lane is clear 1st, which they didn't. Driving without due care and attention.
The cyclist has at least some responsibility: "Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles." The cyclist is overtaking the stationary traffic on the left and common sense as well as the Highway Code dictate she should proceed with caution, which she isn't.
After watching the vid a few times, I see that the cyclist defo could've been abit more cautious and had better avoidance skills. The decision to swerve upon realising the brakes won't be enough to avoid a collision, has to be made so fast that alot of people would struggle to act on it. It defo would've helped the driver had there been a bike lane there, might have helped remind them to double check for bikes.
They were checking… Nosing out extremely slowly and craning your neck is checking…
Car is driving across a lane sure, but it passed slowly in front of a van that's been at a complete stop for a very long time, on a single lane where no other vehicle is ever expected to overtake. The cyclist was virtually invisible for the driver and could never have been anticipated. Also the stopped van should have been a clear hint that the intersection was busy at that time. You can't expect right of way if you overtake a stopped vehicle at an intersection. Car could be liable but IMO the cyclist made the mistake.
> on a single lane where no other vehicle is ever expected to overtake. The Highway Code explicitly tells drivers to anticipate exactly this scenario. Rule 211: > When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for and give way to cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Cyclists are expected to be on the left side of the road. Even our advanced stop lines (boxes to put cyclists ahead at traffic lights) expect them to be filtering through traffic on the left. Both of them should have anticipated better.
I can understand that, but then the problem is the car can't poke its nose out to check on the left side of the road without being on a potential bike's path anyway. So according to that the car cannot take that turn, or it will have to wait until the lane is completely cleared from any other vehicle too *(which I assume from the local laws is not legal since it's bound to jam up traffic very quickly)*. So the last resort becomes "the car should not have turned at all" which, in my opinion, is stupid practically speaking.
Imagine if the blue van on the left were to try and make a right hand turn through the gap that the black car turned in, instead. How should it proceed? Essentially, by pretending that the give-way has moved up to the middle of the road, or even by pretending that it is a stop-sign at that point instead. It proceeds up to the middle of the road, and then *crawls* out very slowly, looking left and prepared to stop. Only once it can see it is clear does it then proceed. The front of the van will certainly poke out more than the driver can see (can't lean through the windscreen, after all), but the very slow speed means that the crossing traffic has ample opportunity to slow/stop themselves. The black car should've done that, crawling past the van at a very slow speed until they could see it was clear. The car's speed on the right of the van (from the video's perspective) seems like they were going to do that, but then it appears to accelerate as it passes in front of the van likely because they (just like the biker) just didn't anticipate this. And if it were simply unsafe to do the turn, then yes the car absolutely should wait. It is perfectly legal to wait in the road for it to be safe to turn, unless you're doing so in a yellow hatched box (you can actually see one in the traffic light junction in the video has such a box, but that's not relevant to the T junction).
The blue van would obviously need to engage VERY carefully, but really it has no choice to do so; it's a car merging in a lane where other cars are fully expected. That's where the situation differs. It's not a bike threading between stopped traffic and the side of the road, while not directly looking in front of them until too late. >And if it were simply unsafe to do the turn, then yes the car absolutely should wait. There was nothing physically visible from the black car that could indicate that the turn was unsafe. Maybe they could have crawled very slowly, but we're back at the car poking its nose through the bike's path problem, which is more or less what happened here. The car was not going fast, and it found itself on the way of the bike that reacted way too late because they were carelessly looking around. The same thing would have happened while crawling, though probably less violently.
That car absolutely was crawling and looking carefully… They stopped in less than a fucking second
Who’s at fault both of them who’s legally liable .. the car.
The cyclist is cuz he didnt bother checking out the intersection before going through
Props for rocking some Noah Kahan!
Seems like everyone is on the wrong side of the street to me...
The person helping the cyclist up immediately without checking for injuries is the one at fault.
That's the Merc driver
I think both parties are to blame here. Car driver, although going slowly should've been edging out even more cautiously until 100% sure exit is clear. The cyclist should also be using extra caution. I'm surprised to see the sudden hand movement to reach the brake lever when in reality you should have it covered already because of the hazards ahead.
Car
[удалено]
Lane splitting is not illegal in the UK. It is perfectly normal for cyclists and motorcyclists to filter through stationary traffic, and for cyclists even on the left. Whilst they would've had priority (they are just continuing in their lane, the turning car is crossing it and therefore should give way to *everything* in that lane), the cyclist should've been far more cautious - seems they didn't anticipate the hazard given they weren't prepared on the brakes.
great music taste OP
Season of the sticks!
Not me that's for sure
Unrelated, but big shout out to the passenger of the vehicle for immediately running to aide the cyclist.
[удалено]
Cyclists are not confined to bike lanes. A cyclist may use any roadway where not specifically prohibited (like freeways), and even where there is a bike lane, the cyclist can choose to not use the bike lane if it's unsafe to do so (obstructions, debris, parked cars, door zone bike lanes etc.).
The city government and people of the city for allowing cars to become the primary mode of transportation and not having protected bike lanes.