He hit me, and you just ran me over - helmet cam

bails87

Now that's something to complain about :roll:

hfidgen

Does no-one elses "spidey- sense" tingle as the stream of cars does their left turn?

I'd already be braking and prepared for an emergency avoidance manoever as the van crosses. It's pretty reasonable in my mind to assume some asshole will just follow the van.

Or is that just me?

(I really have had to do this 2-3 times now, I'm not just waving my willy around in a web forum)

EKE_38BPM

hfidgen wrote:

Does no-one elses "spidey- sense" tingle as the stream of cars does their left turn?

I'd already be braking and prepared for an emergency avoidance manoever as the van crosses. It's pretty reasonable in my mind to assume some asshole will just follow the van.

Or is that just me?

(I really have had to do this 2-3 times now, I'm not just waving my willy around in a web forum)

Its not just you, I've done it too.
The vehicles crossing that junction had my spidey-senses tingling, but watching a video of a cyclist on Youtube does that anyway.
There is no way in which the cyclist is to blame, but I would like to think that I would have been a bit more aware of the danger at that junction it I was in that cyclist's place.

My driving instructor told me an acronym to use when driving: LADA
Look - Take proper observation of the road(s). The Golf should look along the road (where the cyclist came from), into the road they wish to turn into (to make sure it is clear and safe to enter) and in its mirrors to make sure another vehicle (motorbike) is trying to overtake it as it turns right.
Assess - Weigh up the situation. From the Golf's POV:"How fast is that cyclist going? Will I be able to clear the junction before they reach the junction?"
Decide - Knowing what you know, what will you do? At this point, it is clear the Golf driver either didn't Look, or incorrectly assessed the situation and this lead to the wrong decision.
Act - You've decided what to do, now do it. Don't dawdle and second guess yourself. The Golf failed in either the first or second part of the acronym, made a bad choice in the third and then acted on it.

The Focus also had to LADA and also failed, but compounded their errors by then continuing to drive despite having a bike wedged under the car, proving just how bad her observation was.

bails87

I don't understand why the Golf driver said he swerved to try to avoid the cyclist, why didn't he just brake?

EKE_38BPM

bails87 wrote:

I don't understand why the Golf driver said he swerved to try to avoid the cyclist, why didn't he just brake?

Or even better, look, see there is a cyclist coming and stop?

The Rookie

To be fair to the women in the focus, she was almost certainly looking to her right, she saw the cyclist pass in front of her and then pulled out, the road would have been clear before she looked to her right, once she was pulling away a cyclist on the floor was almost certainly invisible to her, I'm not saying she is blameless, but I think what happened needs putting in persepctive, the black Golf caused the accident not her.

Simon.

First.Aspect

Mr Sworld wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Light travels in straight lines.

If you can prove that then there will be an shitload of Quantum Physicists interested in talking to you about wave-partical duality. Also quite a few Astrophysicists might be phoning you up from Honolulu.

May I be the first to congratulate you on your imminent Nobel Prize BTWl.

Light does travel in straight lines, its space which is bent. Don't you know nuffink?

bails87

EKE_38BPM wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I don't understand why the Golf driver said he swerved to try to avoid the cyclist, why didn't he just brake?

Or even better, look, see there is a cyclist coming and stop?

Well, yes, obviously. It's just the "I saw you, and I swerved to miss you but I hit your back wheel". Turning slightly to the left or right when you're about to effectively T bone someone won't do anything, hit the brakes and the cyclist might have made it through. Of course, if both drivers had looked he'd have had a good chance too.

bails87

The Beginner wrote:

To be fair to the women in the focus, she was almost certainly looking to her right, she saw the cyclist pass in front of her and then pulled out, the road would have been clear before she looked to her right, once she was pulling away a cyclist on the floor was almost certainly invisible to her, I'm not saying she is blameless, but I think what happened needs putting in persepctive, the black Golf caused the accident not her.

Simon.

But the cyclist was already tumbling through the air as he passed in front of her, she should have seen someone falling to the ground in front of her car, she won't have seen a cyclist happily riding past and assumed he'd continued.

gilesjuk

PeteMadoc wrote:

The simple fact is, women are cr4p drivers!

A bit harsh and untrue in general, but possibly true in terms of accidents with cyclists.

They have more accidents but they are low speed impacts, men do the job properly and write off cars.

Apparently there are differences in male and female vision. But in this case they should have meant that the female driver should have seen him better.

Women apparently have better peripheral vision (to keep watch on their children I suppose), meaning she should have been aware of what was going on.

The Rookie

bails87 wrote:

But the cyclist was already tumbling through the air as he passed in front of her, she should have seen someone falling to the ground in front of her car, she won't have seen a cyclist happily riding past and assumed he'd continued.

Not really, if she was looking to the right to check for space to pull out she'd have been looking 'behind him' by the time the contact with the golf occured, she would almost certainly not have seen it. You don't look right at a 45 degree angle but a near 90 degree one.

Simon

jonnyboy77

The Beginner wrote:

bails87 wrote:

But the cyclist was already tumbling through the air as he passed in front of her, she should have seen someone falling to the ground in front of her car, she won't have seen a cyclist happily riding past and assumed he'd continued.

Not really, if she was looking to the right to check for space to pull out she'd have been looking 'behind him' by the time the contact with the golf occured, she would almost certainly not have seen it. You don't look right at a 45 degree angle but a near 90 degree one.

Simon

Sort of implies that it's ok to look to your right but not in front of you when exiting a junction? Its not dissimilar to those people that run into the rear of cars at roundabouts, they focus so much on the traffic on the roundabout they forget/assume the actions of the car directly in front of them.

I have watched the video a number of times now, and see no excuse for either driver what so ever. The attitudes and subsequent actions/behaviours of the VW driver are more acceptable than the continued disbelief/denial of the Focus driver ... but by and large they should both see some sort of punishment for their actions (in my opinion).

- Jon

First.Aspect

The Beginner wrote:

bails87 wrote:

But the cyclist was already tumbling through the air as he passed in front of her, she should have seen someone falling to the ground in front of her car, she won't have seen a cyclist happily riding past and assumed he'd continued.

Not really, if she was looking to the right to check for space to pull out she'd have been looking 'behind him' by the time the contact with the golf occured, she would almost certainly not have seen it. You don't look right at a 45 degree angle but a near 90 degree one.

Simon

Did you see that post a couple of pages ago about driving from memory, rather than what's actually there? You seem to be defending that the driver presumed how traffic would evolve, and pulled out accordingly. That's how accidents happen.