Tack attack on Tour de France climb; Pogačar takes third Tour stage win – but can’t shake Vingegaard; New Highway Code going well… Turning driver takes out cyclist at junction; Crypto-badgers: Bernard Hinault joins the NFT game + more on the live blog

hawkinspeter wrote:

The indicator didn't look particularly obvious from the clip and it'd be easy to miss if you weren't looking out  for it.

I've watched it three times and still can't see any indicator flash.

It is on the wing door mirror. Flashes about 5 times so 3-4 seconds but as others have mentioned, there is s much the cyclist has to look out for and as van driver started moving without signalling , cyclist might have checked first and took it as a straight movement as well. 

Just out of interest, what else do you think the cyclist should be looking out for? With the green light and proceeding traffic, they don't need to worry about emerging traffic. With the van alongside (and the assumption is traveling straight on) they don't need to worry about oncoming traffic turning across their path. The only thing I would be looking at is an occasional glance at the lights but otherwise my eyes would be glued on the white van. There are two ways I would expect a hazard to develop: 1. The van slows down to give way to oncoming turning traffic, or 2. The van turns across my path.

What else should I be looking out for?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Just out of interest, what else do you think the cyclist should be looking out for? With the green light and proceeding traffic, they don't need to worry about emerging traffic. With the van alongside (and the assumption is traveling straight on) they don't need to worry about oncoming traffic turning across their path. The only thing I would be looking at is an occasional glance at the lights but otherwise my eyes would be glued on the white van. There are two ways I would expect a hazard to develop: 1. The van slows down to give way to oncoming turning traffic, or 2. The van turns across my path.

What else should I should the van driver be looking out for?

Of course you can always preach defensive riding, make allowance for other road users' mistakes, let them get away with it, concede the road - I mean, it's just self preservation, so get off and walk?

To be fair, I'd like to think I'd have seen this coming, even without thinking I'd have conceded to the van driver pre-emptively and slowed to hold position behind the van but within the view of the following driver, covering the brakes etc.

But I see that much like telling your daughter not to go out "dressed like that", so as to make allowance for the perpetrators.

Look, my point is that if that person went to their driving theory test and displayed that level of attention to emerging and developing hazards, they wouldn't even make it to the practical. The road is a hazardous place. One should take some responsibility for one's own safety.

Also I was wondering how long it would take sometime to make the rape analogy. The issue with that false equivalence is that it is not possible to rape someone without meaning to, but it is perfectly possible to collide with someone without meaning to.

You only have to watch a few episodes of dash cam uk (often mentioned on a monday here) to see how people react to hazards. A lot of them seem to speed towards the hazard or do nothing. Often the comments on the episode are how poor the dashcam submitter is !

Whereas with good roadcraft you will take control of the situation - it's not passive or submissive to reduce the risk of a developing hazard.

None of this is mitigation for the driver who should get 3 points. But I won't hold my breath.

Of course you should be using good defensive roadcraft whatever mode of transport you are using - even shank's pony.

No point having a nmotd if no one asks 'what could I have done better?'

I think it was mungecrundle who said something along the lines "Collisions: if you are moving, there is almost certainly something you could have done. If you are stationary there is something you might have done."

But you'd tell them to avoid certain areas or troublespots.

Green lights don't just mean go, proceed with caution.

Many drivers ignore red lights.

Please don't call this an accident. 

Did I call it an accident?

Edit: yes I did, in my very first post (facepalm). Corrected.

Yes. 

I realise this will come across as victim blaming, and of course the van driver was predominantly at fault in that clip, but did the cyclist have their eyes shut or something? Reacting to the indicator on and slowing down a bit would have prevented that accident. We can't go around expecting other humans to be infallible superheroes and must all take responsibility for our own safety.

My apologies. I have edited my original post. In my other posts I'm sure you will see that I try to stick to the word 'collision' as is right and proper. Thank you for pulling me up on my language.

Do you suppose the van driver would have acted differently had he been turning right? Or would the expectation still be for other road users to anticipate and make allowance for his turn?

Or if it was a dual carriageway and he was turning left across a lane of cars...

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Or if it was a dual carriageway and he was turning left across a lane of cars...

The one that springs to my mind: what if it was a bus lane, rather than a bike lane, on the left? I'm fairly sure the van driver wouldn't have crossed a bus lane without checking

Seen plenty where they turn right across a bus lane to get to a minor road. They may have been more likely to check is all I'd say.

My commute involves about 500m of bus lane with regular tee-junctions on the left. I get cut off on it all the time. I used to do the same commute by motorbike and it was just as bad. I think many drivers are just terrible.

If the van driver was turning right and turned into the path of an overtaking cyclist (with the overtaking cyclist continuing to overtake despite the van driver indicating), would we even be having this conversion? I don't think so. Was that the point you were trying to make?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

If the van driver was turning right and turned into the path of an overtaking cyclist (with the overtaking cyclist continuing to overtake despite the van driver indicating), would we even be having this conversion? I don't think so. Was that the point you were trying to make?

Not that one. That's what we call a strawman argument - put up a situation I never suggested in order to refute it as if it were the point I was making.

It's it a strawman argument though? You said "Do you suppose the van driver would have acted differently had he been turning right?". If he was turning right and was turning into the path of an overtaking cyclist (as opposed to an undertaking one as in this clip), I don't think there would be the same reaction to the video somehow

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

It's it a strawman argument though? You said "Do you suppose the van driver would have acted differently had he been turning right?". If he was turning right and was turning into the path of an overtaking cyclist (as opposed to an undertaking one as in this clip), I don't think there would be the same reaction to the video somehow

Overtaking is definitely a maneouvre, so the person doing it has to ensure it is safe to do so - that would put the onus of responsibility onto the cyclist overtaking (and it would not be advisable to overtake a vehicle that's indicating right). However, that's a different scenario to the one here where the cyclist isn't 'undertaking' but is continuing straight in their lane which usually means that they have priority over traffic turning left. If there wasn't a lane and they were filtering, then that would likely shift the blame 50-50 as filtering/undertaking carries the same risks as overtaking, but similarly, a driver must check their inside before turning left.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

...having approached a vehicle at a junction from behind, where there's little chance they would be aware of my existence...

There is every chance they might be aware - if they choose to anticipate the possibility of cyclists in the cycle lane, and to take the effective observation required of them. Notwithstanding that I agree with actions a cyclist could take to improve their chances, let's not make any allowance for somebody who fails to meet their overriding duty in the situation.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

 We should expect other road users to do things like this and we should act accordingly.

It is clearly in our interests to do so, and I would coach somebody to anticipate. But "should" here is not a Highway Code "should", that implies liability.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

 The cyclists inaction didn't cause the collision, but their action could have - and I'm my opinion should have - prevented it.

Nevertheless, while I would teach my kids not to assume safe passage and to anticipate poor driving, the overwhelming liability sits with the van driver.

Sriracha wrote:

Do you suppose the van driver would have acted differently had he been turning right? Or would the expectation still be for other road users to anticipate and make allowance for his turn?

It depends what you mean by "expectation". If I am passing a car to the left - in a car or on a bike, overtaking or passing in a separate lane - I am anticipating the possibility that the driver I'm passing is a dolt.

This is a situation where the van driver was purely at fault. Even the action of signalling before setting off wouldn't make it OK to turn as he did.
However, there is more the cyclist could have done to anticipate selfish stupidity and to make himself safe.

No indeed, when I say 'should' I do not mean to imply that the cyclist in any way caused the accident and I hope that my previous posts were clear enough in that regard.

I'm confident I would have avoided that accident - is the cyclist a new cyclist?. There were 3 major errors that I've learned to avoid through experience.

1. Being alongside a vehicle while going through a junction, especially when approaching from behind. Slot in behind!

2. Maintaining speed with the van while in their blind spot. The driver could have checked their mirrors twice within 2 seconds and not seen the cyclist at all.

3. Continuing alongside the van while their indicators are on, and you're travelling at similar speed. This appears to be a lapse in observation - you should be hyper aware for any indication that a vehicle alongside you intends to turn left when approaching a junction. The highway code is only a piece of paper (or worse, digital copy!) and gives you no physical protection.

-- Of course drivers should adjust their position in the seat forwards to scan a wider angle through the mirror and eliminate the blind spot, but you cannot expect it. --

The cyclist was never in the van driver's blind spot, not unless the nearside mirror was out of position. The nearside mirror should give a view down the nearside flank of the van. The blind spot would be behind the van's rear doors

The nearside mirror does give a view down the nearside flank, but not further out than that. There are blind spots to either side of the vehicle, not just behind the rear doors.

Due to the lateral separation because of the kerb, the cyclist is in the blind spot for some time. If they had been closer to the van (not possible due to infra) they may not have been.

Watch again and have a close look at what you can see in the mirror. For a decent duration you can see mostly the view out of the driver's window, and not see the head of the driver. This means you have moved in front of the view from the driver through the mirror (a driver should lean forward to scan this area, but they didn't). If you can't see the driver's head in their mirror, you are in their blind spot.

Try it in your car next time you get a chance, have a friend walk around the vehicle a width of 1m away, and see how much of the perimeter you can't see. 

Out of interest, have you taken a cycling proficiency test or done any sort of training? If you have I would like to know what it was because I would very much like to do the same. It sounds like I would learn a thing or two!

I'm afraid I haven't - I cycled to work every day for 10 years through zones 1-2 in London. I must admit I was terrible when I started, I made a lot of mistakes such as those in the video. It's a shame it has to be learned but you do develop a 'spidey sense' for this sort of thing.

There is an interesting side-effect of that separated lane, the cyclist is just doing the speed he is doing, he is the one doing the steady speed, while the traffic speed is varying. At the start of the clip, he is riding into an empty lane and passes one queuing car and nearly passes the white van that is accelerating as the lights change.

Now, we can say it is for the cyclist to synchronise with the van, but the cyclist has a clear track, is riding steadily, not racing, while the van's maximum pace is governed by the traffic ahead. At what point does the cyclist know that they are going to be retaken by the van? The point being that if you drop back too soon, you then might get repassed by the car, which also might be turning left. 

So although I agree that riding alongside a vehicle into a junction is unwise, the solution is actually a difficult one, because drop back too soon, you just create another problem, and without a crystal ball, we don't know whether the main traffic flow is about to stall and then we've dropped back and stayed in conflict rather than getting ahead.