Humour me in a hypothetial situation.

Simonb256

You are cycling down a dual carriageway. Doing around 30mph (limit is 40).

Car is waiting in side road to pull out. Driver doesnt see you and pulls out infront of you.

You go into the side of car.

Who is the responsible party?

The cyclist for 'going too fast?
The driver for pulling out?

How would it be different if it was a motorcyclist doing 40? would it still be percieved that its the motorcyclists fault for not slowing down 'just in case'. If so what dont cars do so?

Do people genuinly think that cyclists have to give right of way to everone else 'just in case'?

In places on my commute Im doing over 40mph (long hills, though not that steep), where the limit is 60mps. I have had one near accident with a left hand drive 4X4 pulling out a side road. I managed to stop in time, she drove off. I now just assume they havent seen me until I get eye contact (even though that doesnt mean that much).

I overtake cars on my commute (within the speed limit) and I have never had a problem with this at all either. With the exception of one or two drivers not letting me pull back in when i need to (ie i start to overtake, they speed up as i am by front wing and I have to slow to nip in behind).

always_tyred

The situation is independent of the vehicles involved.

However, this doesn't help you if you hit the side of a car at 30 mph. Unfortunately, there are many places where you cannot safely go as fast as you are able to, because people might make mistakes.

simple_salmon

I would think you were in the right.

Not much good if you're dead though so I'd still be careful on some of those long downhills and ride so that you can stop if the worst happens.

I'm pretty risk averse though...

Simonb256

Always Tyred wrote:

The situation is independent of the vehicles involved.

However, this doesn't help you if you hit the side of a car at 30 mph. Unfortunately, there are many places where you cannot safely go as fast as you are able to, because people might make mistakes.

From peoples response to this occurring to other it appears its not independant at all. Some people infer that as cyclists because we are vulnerable we need to slow for cars at junctions. Which i dont 100% agree with.

I concur that we cant always go as fast as we wish and have to ride to the contitions, but having to go out of our way because what might happen is silly I mean will I have use a ceramic umbrella everytime I go out incase it rains meterorites?

Jay dubbleU

Actually a ceramic umbrella would

a) Be too heavy to keep up for any length of time
b) Be prone to chip around the edges
c) Would shatter at the first meteorite impact

Pedantry rules KO 8)

Clever Pun

The car pulling out is at fault as they have not paid due care and attention.

biondino

You balance out your attitude to risk and go with that. Clearly a car who pulls out in front of a cyclist and causes an accident is in the wrong but is that really going to make you feel better when you're in a hospital bed in full body plaster?

Simply knowing what's right and wrong doesn't make you a competent road user because it's a hugely imperfect system. You need to figure out what compromises and changes you need to make for YOUR ideal balance of safety and efficiency, but there's no reason this balance will be the same as anyone else's. I give up on countless scalping opportunities because my prey is that much more confident/reckless/insane in traffic than I am. And I don't have a problem with that.

In this -particular situation, my main rule comes into play: if I do get into an accident, is it possible I could be killed or seriously injured? If the answer is yes, I back off - in this instance probably slowing to say 20mph when I see a car 100-200 yards ahead on a side road.

always_tyred

Simonb256 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

The situation is independent of the vehicles involved.

However, this doesn't help you if you hit the side of a car at 30 mph. Unfortunately, there are many places where you cannot safely go as fast as you are able to, because people might make mistakes.

From peoples response to this occurring to other it appears its not independant at all. Some people infer that as cyclists because we are vulnerable we need to slow for cars at junctions. Which i dont 100% agree with.

I concur that we cant always go as fast as we wish and have to ride to the contitions, but having to go out of our way because what might happen is silly I mean will I have use a ceramic umbrella everytime I go out incase it rains meterorites?

You haven't said anything which contradicts my statement. You are right that you don't HAVE to slow down, but you ARE more vunerable and therefore you may want to consider slowing down. You have to evaluate risks yourself on a case by case basis. The salient point, which you can either learn by taking advice or by the hard experience of peeling yourself off the road, is that being in the right doesn't help in any way other than claiming the cost of the damage to your bike or yourself.

Simonb256

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Actually a ceramic umbrella would

a) Be too heavy to keep up for any lenght of time
b) Be prone to chip around the edges
c) Would shatter at the first meteorite impact

Pedantry rules KO 8)

Actually if you wanted to be pedantic it is dependant on the type of ceramic. I am talking of the non clay technical ceramics rahter than your pottery form of ceramics.

simple_salmon

As with many situations you assess the probabilities of actions occuring, decide on your acceptable level of risk and act accordingly.

So long as the behaviour is lawful the choice is yours to take. PERSONALLY with two young children and a fear of pain I act to reduce risks more than you might - I'm a dreadful descender for example - but that's just me.

always_tyred

simple_salmon wrote:

As with many situations you assess the probabilities of actions occuring, decide on your acceptable level of risk and act accordingly.

So long as the behaviour is lawful the choice is yours to take. PERSONALLY with two young children and a fear of pain I act to reduce risks more than you might - I'm a dreadful descender for example - but that's just me.

Thinking you are a bad descender probably makes you a better descender than many good descenders.

I'm confused, dot com.

Simonb256

I can just about hit 30 on the flat but that irelevant.

I am well aware that it is a matter of choice whether to slow or not, and we agree on who is right and/or wrong. However I honestly dont see the increased vulnerability a reason to behave that submissivly(sp) to other road users.

I take risks and thats how I choose to live, but I can clearly tell the difference between an acceptable risk and a stupid risk. Doing 50mph down a dual carriageway probably isnt that wise (esp when your front time goes at that time).

(if anyone knows Wolverhampton this was heading toward the city centre by waitrose etc).

However I deemed it aceptable at the time under those specific circumstances. Alot of the time with things like this you cant say what was the right thing to do unless you were there. So I tend to stay out of these arguments about who is responible, but it annoys me that people instantly say it was the cyclists fault for not giving way or for not doing something no other road users are expected to do.

redvee

I had this happen years ago but all I ended up doing was sitting with one thigh on her wing and her mouthing of an apology through the windscreen. No damage or injuries but the drugs were flowing freely. Saw her 1/2 mile later in a petrol station and did consider a few words but left the matter alone.

always_tyred

Simon, what's the issue here? You are right, it sucks and if someone says you are going "too fast" ask them if the law or their insurance policy would reflect this.

Tell you what though, when I am driving on a dual carriageway and I see someone poking the nose of their car out of a side road, I tend not buzz past them in the inside lane at 70mph, just in case they pull out.

Clever Pun

I assumed this was an insurance question rather than a cyclecraft question

lost_in_thought

I think (note THINK) that the cyclist would be in the right here, from a legal point. I'm sure the lawyer types on here will correct me if I'm wrong!

However, I agree with the people above who maintained that in reality it would be a cunning plan for the cyclist to sling out the anchors sharpish!

cougie

Is this any different to the scenario before xmas when a ped stepped off into the path of a cyclist ? I thought the opinion was that the cyclist 'SHOULD' have been riding carefully enough to predict a move like this - but if it came to court it woudl have been the fault of the ped.

To be honest - its far far better not to get into the accident in the first place.

biondino

I'd rather hit a ped at 20 than a car at 30 so I will personally cycle differently in the two situations - but hang on, the ped wasn't visible until he stepped out whereas the car is visible a few seconds before the rider reaches it, so that makes it even more obvious that much more care is needed in the car example.

chuckcork

Can I suggest that the approach of "right or wrong, you lose" should be applied?

I've had too many times to count where drivers come up to an intersection at speed, brake at the last moment, and then and only then look to see if anything is coming...and the really scary thing is that a lot of the time they stop a good metre into the road I'm on, right in my path, and some of the time they'll just look through me and continue to pull out!

Having had this I now automatically move over when i see a car coming up to an intersection in this manner. While there is of course the worry than in automatically moving over I'll get taken out by a car coming from behind who won't see that I've "swerved suddenly", I've avoided enough collisions by doing this maneouvre that so far the balance is in my favour.

Can I suggest similar defensive cycling practice be used, or just simply ride far enough out from the kerb the risk of collision is reduced? It will have as an added benefit that the line of sight to/from the vehicle concerned is also increased.

cee

at that sort of speed, I would be taking up the entire lane anyway, regardless of an upcoming junction or not.

Some might consider that a little road greedy, but i think i remember you saying it was a 2laner, so the cars still have plenty of overtake space...