Hit by a car last night

jonny_trousers

Headhuunter wrote:

You sound a bit nervous still after the off, that's a shame... Is the confidence coming back bit by bit?

Not been out on a bike yet mate. Firstly my knee has been bothering me and has some healing still to do and secondly, my bikes are in a bit of a state. I either need to make some fairly expensive repairs to the Touche that I had the accident on or have some work done to my Fuji Track. I keep changing my mind as to what I want to do as I was considering selling the Touche prior to the off anyway, and am thinking of just buying a new bike altogether (my crush this week is on a Cotic X Sunday with discs) and fixing up the other two in time.

I'm really not sure how nervy I will be when I get back down to it. I suspect my reticence will be gone in no time, but I will probably be a bit twitchy about potential side sweeps, but perhaps that is no bad thing.

I am going nuts using PT and the car so, weather permitting, I'll be out there again very soon. Apart from anything my jeans seem to have shrunk a size or two since I had to quit cycling. How weird is that?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Hindsight is always wonderful, and it is easily to pontificate from a keyboard; it's very different applying these steps when you're riding, but here goes anyway:

- when I ride in an empty bus lane like that, I look for breaks in the kerb. That's where the side turnings are, and so that's immediate Spidey-sense zone.
- once I spot a break in the kerb, then look for a break in queued traffic opposite it. Has someone left a gap? If so, Spidey sense to max.
- At that point, I'll move to the left of the bus lane to maximise line of sight into the gap in the queue
- If I'm particularly suspicious/nervous (eg because I can see oncoming traffic is queuing behind something, or I can't see through the windows of the gap-creator) I might slow right down to trackstand speeds, lean forward over the bars, look, then go.

Obv factors such as (a) someone waiting to exit the minor road who has half his bonnet in the road (as was in Gaz's video); (b) nighttime; (c) rain (+plus puddle filled holes and slippery ironwork) all provide ample scope for distraction. And as Gaz says, it only takes a second's distraction (cjcp will remember when I almost stacked into the back of a bus trying to talk to him and ride at the same time) for a problem to appear.

As I say, all well and good in the abstract.

In fact, as I've been writing this, it's occurred to me that the car waiting to exit the minor road from the left was a tell-tale sign: he had a gap, was pushing out, but holding back. Why? Maybe because the car Gaz hit was blocking his path. Wouldn't have twigged that at the time though.

Headhuunter

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

You sound a bit nervous still after the off, that's a shame... Is the confidence coming back bit by bit?

Not been out on a bike yet mate. Firstly my knee has been bothering me and has some healing still to do and secondly, my bikes are in a bit of a state. I either need to make some fairly expensive repairs to the Touche that I had the accident on or have some work done to my Fuji Track. I keep changing my mind as to what I want to do as I was considering selling the Touche prior to the off anyway, and am thinking of just buying a new bike altogether (my crush this week is on a Cotic X Sunday with discs) and fixing up the other two in time.

I'm really not sure how nervy I will be when I get back down to it. I suspect my reticence will be gone in no time, but I will probably be a bit twitchy about potential side sweeps, but perhaps that is no bad thing.

I am going nuts using PT and the car so, weather permitting, I'll be out there again very soon. Apart from anything my jeans seem to have shrunk a size or two since I had to quit cycling. How weird is that?

Yeah I was nervous after the crash I had last year but I got used to things again fairly quickly. Get the new bike and get back into the saddle asap before the jeans shrink even more!

jejv

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

However, this incident vividly underlines why you are safest travelling close to the speed of the ambient traffic. When passing a queue of traffic, you're *always* vulnerable to anything crossing the queue, or to something ducking out of the queue. The ambient speed approach just may give a little bit more time to avoid an incident..

+1 The ambient speed of a stationary queue is 0mph, and that unfortunately means that unless you can get a big gap between you and the queue to give you some potential stopping distance the only safe approach is to coast past it with the brakes covered

+1 - "potential stopping distance", better visibility & room to maneuver


There's a right turn I do on Hills Road in Cambridge like this, where waiting oncoming traffic will typically flash me to let me turn right off the main road. *I* know there's a cycle lane there, but it's hard to see the (worn) markings at the best of times, and they're near invisible in the wet/dark. The cycle lane is narrow, so I can't see down it - past the queued traffic - until the front of the car is across it. So I creep across until I can see. It wouldn't be good to be doing 20mph+ on that bit of cycle lane, no matter how careful the driver turning right. If the driver turning right is a cyclist in that case, that could be nasty for both parties.

Then if you filter slowly in the cycle lane you're obviously a slow numpty, and quickish cyclists who "know better" will treat you as such.

Wrath Rob

Bummer. Hope you're not too sore for Christmas

rolf_f

Easy enough to say in this circumstance that we ought to ride at the speed of the other traffic - but then what is the point of having roadside cycle lanes or access to bus lanes if, by crawling, we are just going to inflict the same tedious traffic chaos that the cars have to put up with on ourselves?

I tend to be fairly paranoid about people crossing like that. I particularly hate it when drivers 'helpfully' flash other road users to cross their path when they've only just overtaken you. In this case, normally I think I would have been slower past the van given the non existent visibility to the right. What complicates it is the car waiting on the right - it would be easy to think that the van had been waiting for that car rather than the oncoming car.

Tonymufc

Greg66 wrote:

I'd put fault on the driver, for the reasons already stated.

However, this incident vividly underlines why you are safest travelling close to the speed of the ambient traffic. When passing a queue of traffic, you're *always* vulnerable to anything crossing the queue, or to something ducking out of the queue. The ambient speed approach just may give a little bit more time to avoid an incident.

And as has been said before here, who's at fault is scant consolation when you're not at fault but injured nonetheless.

Not sure a bus would've been traveling close to the ambient speed. The driver isn't just crossing traffic but also a bus lane so should really have been looking out for any of the big red things coming down the inside, if only for his own benefit. I was just a bit curious though why the driver pulling out of the left side road didn't try and warn both of you. Its still a bit of a tricky one though. Glad your ok pal.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Tonymufc wrote:

Not sure a bus would've been traveling close to the ambient speed.

If you're built like a bus, and have the resilence of a bus to impacts with cars, by all means ride as if you're a bus. Me, not so much.

itboffin

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I'd put fault on the driver, for the reasons already stated.

However, this incident vividly underlines why you are safest travelling close to the speed of the ambient traffic. When passing a queue of traffic, you're *always* vulnerable to anything crossing the queue, or to something ducking out of the queue. The ambient speed approach just may give a little bit more time to avoid an incident.

And as has been said before here, who's at fault is scant consolation when you're not at fault but injured nonetheless.

+1 The ambient speed of a stationary queue is 0mph, and that unfortunately means that unless you can get a big gap between you and the queue to give you some potential stopping distance the only safe approach is to coast past it with the brakes covered.

Doesn't matter who's fault it is your objective should always be to get where you're going safely, personally If i can't see ahead in all directions then i'm going to go at a speed where I can stop dead, bike or car.

Be safe people it's silly season, 99.9% people out there have their minds on getting home, what's for dinner and what should they buy X for Christmas. No one cares more about your safety then you! ride that way.

fnegroni

On this one, I think you had the better outcome by not slowing down: you hit the front of the car and the bonnet. If you had slowed down, you might not have been able to brake hard enough and would have hit the side of the car.

The front of cars, especially bonnets, are designed to cushion the impact with pedestrians: the bonnet of most new cars are made in aluminium with honey comb like structures that make impacts relatively minor at urban speeds.

On the other hand, A and B pillars are now massive, and doors are reinforced, since they are designed for impacts with other heavy vehicles, not a bicycle.

So, IMHO, you actually had a better outcome this way.

Tonymufc

Greg66 wrote:

Tonymufc wrote:

Not sure a bus would've been traveling close to the ambient speed.

If you're built like a bus, and have the resilence of a bus to impacts with cars, by all means ride as if you're a bus. Me, not so much.

Greg you misunderstood what I meant. I simply meant that whilst a cyclist might match the speed of the traffic a bus necessarily wouldn't, given that it was traveling in a lane solely designed for its use. And the outcome whilst painful for Gaz would probably have been far worse for the driver had it been a bus that would've hit the car rather than a cyclist.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Tonymufc wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Tonymufc wrote:

Not sure a bus would've been traveling close to the ambient speed.

If you're built like a bus, and have the resilence of a bus to impacts with cars, by all means ride as if you're a bus. Me, not so much.

Greg you misunderstood what I meant. I simply meant that whilst a cyclist might match the speed of the traffic a bus necessarily wouldn't, given that it was traveling in a lane solely designed for its use. And the outcome whilst painful for Gaz would probably have been far worse for the driver had it been a bus that would've hit the car rather than a cyclist.

Ahhh. Understood.

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

(cjcp will remember when I almost stacked into the back of a bus trying to talk to him and ride at the same time)

Yep, and nearly did it myself heading home a couple of months back when another rider said I could move ahead of him and I looked back to say "no worries" and waved him through.

Gaz - how are you feeling now? Glad it wasn't worse. And what's your route? I'm not terribly keen on these bus lanes, and I remember riding to the likes of Crystal Palace, Dulwich, Clapham or Tooting where bus lanes at least *seemed* to be more common than on my route because the Spidey-sense Greg mentioned was in over-drive most of the route. On my route, the NKR presents similar dangers.

gaz545

cjcp wrote:

Gaz - how are you feeling now? Glad it wasn't worse. And what's your route? I'm not terribly keen on these bus lanes, and I remember riding to the likes of Crystal Palace, Dulwich, Clapham or Tooting where bus lanes at least *seemed* to be more common than on my route because the Spidey-sense Greg mentioned was in over-drive most of the route. On my route, the NKR presents similar dangers.

Nearly 100%
I've got an appointment to see my GP on monday just to make sure.
This isn't my usual route home, but i decided to take it due the weather conditions. I usually commute all the way along the CS7 to Colliers wood or tooting and then go over to mitchem and then on to south croydon.
The bike is booked in for a look over at my LBS on tuesday, definitely going to need a new front wheel, potentially a new headset.

sketchley

Is the van driver at fault for not checking his / her mirror before flashing the vehicle to turn? Unfortunately probably not in the letter of the law, I’ve no sound at work but did the van driver apologies or get out and admit mistake?

If you drive a high sided vehicle and flash a low sided vehicle to turn in front of you, you must be aware that they cannot see if someone is coming up the bus or cycle lane and that any person coming up the inside cannot see that you have flashed or that someone is turning. Why drivers that flash cannot look in the inside lane and act accordingly I do not know. That's not to excuse the turning car driver as he / she must also be sure the lane is clear. Training of motorists, van and HGV drivers to check the inside before flashing, particularly on high cycle use routes, would go a long way to cut down on this kind of thing, making them jointly responsible if the person they flash has an accident further still.

bobinski

Glad to hear you are not badly hurt mate. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

gaz545

Sketchley wrote:

Is the van driver at fault for not checking his / her mirror before flashing the vehicle to turn? Unfortunately probably not in the letter of the law, I’ve no sound at work but did the van driver apologies or get out and admit mistake?

If you drive a high sided vehicle and flash a low sided vehicle to turn in front of you, you must be aware that they cannot see if someone is coming up the bus or cycle lane and that any person coming up the inside cannot see that you have flashed or that someone is turning. Why drivers that flash cannot look in the inside lane and act accordingly I do not know. That's not to excuse the turning car driver as he / she must also be sure the lane is clear. Training of motorists, van and HGV drivers to check the inside before flashing, particularly on high cycle use routes, would go a long way to cut down on this kind of thing, making them jointly responsible if the person they flash has an accident further still.

I'm not aware if the van or another vehicle flashed the car through.
Under the letter of the law, a flash does not denote 'go ahead', it is a warning.
It is up to the driver crossing the lanes of traffic to check for traffic in other lanes. The driver didn't do that thus the full responsibility is on them.

sketchley

gaz545 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Is the van driver at fault for not checking his / her mirror before flashing the vehicle to turn? Unfortunately probably not in the letter of the law, I’ve no sound at work but did the van driver apologies or get out and admit mistake?

If you drive a high sided vehicle and flash a low sided vehicle to turn in front of you, you must be aware that they cannot see if someone is coming up the bus or cycle lane and that any person coming up the inside cannot see that you have flashed or that someone is turning. Why drivers that flash cannot look in the inside lane and act accordingly I do not know. That's not to excuse the turning car driver as he / she must also be sure the lane is clear. Training of motorists, van and HGV drivers to check the inside before flashing, particularly on high cycle use routes, would go a long way to cut down on this kind of thing, making them jointly responsible if the person they flash has an accident further still.

I'm not aware if the van or another vehicle flashed the car through.
Under the letter of the law, a flash does not denote 'go ahead', it is a warning.
It is up to the driver crossing the lanes of traffic to check for traffic in other lanes. The driver didn't do that thus the full responsibility is on them.

I know. My point is that a drivers flashing or even simply leaving a gap, rarely do so with regard to the inside lane. The fact the law doesn't require them too is not my point. If they did have this concern it would reduce this kind of situation.

Bassjunkieuk

As others have said glad to see your OK. The near miss you captured of me (admittedly under slightly better conditions!) shows how easily this type of problem can occur and this type of incident is probably one of the ones I fear most.

In fact I did have a car toot as I was heading towards a side turning today as a car pulled across them. I can only assume they saw me coming up the inside and wanted to warn the crossing driver. As it was such bad conditions (wet rather then icy but can't tell all the time...) I was already on a go-slow so stopped on this occasion.

fljaweiu

Some vehicle drivers are not looking for bicyclists. They simply just don’t see them.

mitb

it has been touched on but it seems to me the fact you move over to the right to leave space for the car sticking out on the left is a massive factor, it restricts your visiibilty to the car turning right and your view of him. Over on the left the angle of visibility to both of you is greater, might not have been enough but you'd both have had more warning.

So, in short, in addition to the car in the accident let's not forget how much of a pillock the sticking-out-car is.

592

Out of interest what camera do you use? Very good quality considering the conditions. Make sure you claim everything back from the driver. No doubt it was his fault!

Bassjunkieuk

592 wrote:

Out of interest what camera do you use? Very good quality considering the conditions. Make sure you claim everything back from the driver. No doubt it was his fault!

It's a ContourHD 1080p (think Gaz runs the older 720p version rearward facing...). I also recently got one and have been very impressed with the results :-)