Cyclist has head on collision - contains blood

nitrogen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvJBNiEVSug

The reason why I'm posting it is to illustrate some of the idiots in metal boxes we have to share the roads with.

This video would make an excellent campaign on alerting motorists to look out for cyclists.

droidus

This was posted before I think.

Good idea there though. An advertising campaign using real video of cycling crashes could be quite effective.

crashoveroid

droidus wrote: »

This was posted before I think.

Good idea there though. An advertising campaign using real video of cycling crashes could be quite effective.

Bloody Mondeo drivers.

Saxobank

A Good video, cyclist took a serious hop there, it just shows complacency on the drivers part.. I imagine that if that cyclist wasnt as injured he would giving the Mondeo Driver a serious Bollicking.. and rightly so, that was ridiculous driving!

rebel.ranter

The only thing is that it was a painted roundabout on the road. The cyclist made no attempt to slow down coming into the roundabout. He could have reduced the impact or avoided it altogether if he had slowed down. In fact he failed to yield properly at the previous roundabout too.

The only thing is I know I would probably do the same as he did & fly on through as I imagine he knew the area quite well. To avoid any confusion with my post I acknowledge that the motorist should have being paying more attention too. The Mondeo driver failed to notice the Audi driver too.

CheGuedara

rebel.ranter wrote: »

The only thing is that it was a painted roundabout on the road. The cyclist made no attempt to slow down coming into the roundabout. He could have reduced the impact or avoided it altogether if he had slowed down. In fact he failed to yield properly at the previous roundabout too.

From the video it's hard to tell he hadn't slowed coming into that first roundabout TBH, though it does look like he accelerated through/out of it (normal enough I'd guess). The rider did assess for traffic coming from his right before entering the first roundabout and this was unnecessary entering the second roundabout (as would be braking to any significant extent) as there was no entry onto that roundabout from the right and he had right of way.

The driver failed in his requirement to yield to traffic coming from the right, & rider made no error whatsoever IMHO

blorg

I knew cyclists contained blood before I clicked on this link. Some more than others.

LeoD

Cyclist travelling too fast - very little sympathy for him.

Pherekydes

rebel.ranter wrote: »

In fact he failed to yield properly at the previous roundabout too.

The Mondeo driver failed to notice the Audi driver too.

He clearly turned his head at the first roundabout to see the entrance on his right was clear.

I'm wondering if the Mondeo might have had a close shave with the Audi if the cyclist hadn't intervened?

Captain Havoc

LeoD wrote: »

Cyclist travelling too fast - very little sympathy for him.

That's just horse manure, he had the right of way, even in a car I would have approached the same speed. The driver didn't see him or misjudged his speed.

Mr. Presentable

CheGuedara wrote: »

From the video it's hard to tell he hadn't slowed coming into that first roundabout TBH, though it does look like he accelerated through/out of it (normal enough I'd guess). The rider did assess for traffic coming from his right before entering the first roundabout and this was unnecessary entering the second roundabout (as would be braking to any significant extent) as there was no entry onto that roundabout from the right and he had right of way.

The driver failed in his requirement to yield to traffic coming from the right, & rider made no error whatsoever IMHO

I agree. In fact the car that hit him also failed the basic "enter a roundabout by turning left" and seemed to aim straight across as though the roundabout didn't exist.

rebel.ranter

Pherekydes wrote: »

He clearly turned his head at the first roundabout to see the entrance on his right was clear.

Turning your head & yielding are different things. But as I said I know I would have done something similar on occasions.

I'm not trying to ostracise cyclists, I am a cyclist myself on frequent occasions. I believe that there are many more poor drivers than cyclists/

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm wondering if the Mondeo might have had a close shave with the Audi if the cyclist hadn't intervened?

I think you're right there.

Pherekydes

LeoD wrote: »

Cyclist travelling too fast - very little sympathy for him.

LOL, just LOL.

Pherekydes

rebel.ranter wrote: »

Turning your head & yielding are different things, he turned his head beyond the yield line.

There was nothing to yield to. You yield on entering a roundabout to traffic already on it, so there was no need to yield in that case.

Woodgate

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm wondering if the Mondeo might have had a close shave with the Audi if the cyclist hadn't intervened?

Mondeo would have been in the right in that case as the Audi should have yielded for him, but obviously the Audi driver prob thought the Mondeo was stopping for the cyclist.

Danbo!

rebel.ranter wrote: »

Turning your head & yielding are different things.

Yield means yield to oncoming traffic. If there is no oncoming traffic, dont yield. Sure what would you be yielding to?

The word Yield has just lost all meaning to me.

EDIT: Pherekydes got there first

jimmyendless

A car drove into me at a junction in January and that brought back some bad memories. I was on a motorbike though.

Skatepark

:eek:Oh that looked painful. The driver was an idiot totally his fault. The cyclist had right of way. It sickens me here drivers have no patients for people walking or cycling. If some one is walking across the road or waiting to cross the road let them cross. Its just good manners and you will probably get to your destination just as quick. I do drive in case you are wondering.

Pherekydes

Woodgate wrote: »

Mondeo would have been in the right in that case as the Audi should have yielded for him, but obviously the Audi driver prob thought the Mondeo was stopping for the cyclist.

Looking at it again, the Audi did yield.

LeoD

Captain Havoc wrote: »

That's just horse manure, he had the right of way, even in a car I would have approached the same speed. The driver didn't see him or misjudged his speed.

He can go on about having the right of way all he wants as he picks his cracked head and bike off the road but if he's going to continue cycling at high speeds in an urban area where motorists may not see him or he can't take evasive action should anyone, including pedestrians, accidentally ever get in his way then I look forward to a series of videos being posted by this lad.

furiousox

There is a slip exit to the the cyclists left (to the right of the mondeo)
I wonder did the mondeo driver think that's where the cyclist was going?
The cyclist didn't seem to make any hand indication of where he was going.
I would have entered the roundabout slower and indicated/pointed with my right hand towards the exit I intended to take.
Having said that, the car wasn't waiting around to see which exit the bike was going to take!

(I'm a lot more cautious these days since breaking my shoulder last year )

Lumen

LeoD wrote: »

He can go on about having the right of way all he wants as he picks his cracked head and bike off the road but if he's going to continue cycling at high speeds in an urban area where motorists may not see him or he can't take evasive action should anyone, including pedestrians, accidentally ever get in his way then I look forward to a series of videos being posted by this lad.

That's nonsense, the cyclist is going at a perfectly normal speed. Roundabouts are generally safer the faster you go (this is why learner drivers find them so difficult).

If you look at the trajectory of the Mondeo, it drives straight over the middle of the roundabout apparently without slowing down at all.

So even putting aside the fact that the Mondeo driver failed to yield to a cyclist either by incompetent observation or homicidal tendencies, the driver demonstrates a complete inability to use a roundabout correctly. This person should not be driving at all.

That said, there were opportunities for evasive action by the cyclist, but you have to be really switched on to anticipate that level of idiocy.

rebel.ranter

I give up. I was merely trying to point out that the cyclist was not completely fault free. As the previous poster has suggested the cyclist was traveling far too quickly for the conditions & ultimately contributed to his own downfall. If you're not in a metal box then I believe that you need to be extra cautious of what other dummies on the road might do.
I had a near miss like this myself as I was bombing it through an urban area & was almost pole axed from the side by a woman in a Punto. I never thought you could skid both wheels at the same time! It definitely focused my mind as regards urban cycling.

DirkVoodoo

LeoD wrote: »

Cyclist travelling too fast - very little sympathy for him.

Ha, total rubbish! I think the wide angle lens he has makes it look like he is going faster, I'd say he is doing somewhere between 25-35 kph. The guy didn't yield, simple as.

DirkVoodoo

rebel.ranter wrote: »

I give up. I was merely trying to point out that the cyclist was not completely fault free. As the previous poster has suggested the cyclist was traveling far too quickly for the conditions & ultimately contributed to his own downfall. If you're not in a metal box then I believe that you need to be extra cautious of what other dummies on the road might do.
I had a near miss like this myself as I was bombing it through an urban area & was almost pole axed from the side by a woman in a Punto. I never thought you could skid both wheels at the same time! It definitely focused my mind as regards urban cycling.

What conditions do you speak of? Do you think the cyclist should get off at the roundabout and walk? If you do 30 kph in a car through that roundabout and someone hit you, would you say you were going too fast for the conditions?

I don't think he was "bombing" through, I think what people here are saying when they say "conditions" is "cyclists are slow, he was going fast for a cyclist". Which doesn't matter. He was traffic and it looks to me like he was within the traffic limit (probably 50 km/hr?).

h3000

furious wrote: »

There is a slip exit to the the cyclists left (to the right of the mondeo)
I wonder did the mondeo driver think that's where the cyclist was going?
The cyclist didn't seem to make any hand indication of where he was going.
I would have entered the roundabout slower and indicated/pointed with my right hand towards the exit I intended to take.
Having said that, the car wasn't waiting around to see which exit the bike was going to take!

(I'm a lot more cautious these days since breaking my shoulder last year )

Cyclists have to indicate at junctions or roundabouts just in the same way as motorists have to. therefore he did not have to indicate (with a hand signal) until after he passed the first exit. In this(video) scenario the cyclist should have indicated to take the second exit just as the Mondeo hit him but I reckon he was a bit busy being knocked down at this stage.


BTW: I hope the cyclists made a full recovery.

LeoD

Lumen wrote: »

That's nonsense, the cyclist is going at a perfectly normal speed. Roundabouts are generally safer the faster you go (this is why learner drivers find them so difficult).

If you look at the trajectory of the Mondeo, it drives straight over the middle of the roundabout apparently without slowing down at all.

So even putting aside the fact that the Mondeo driver failed to yield to a cyclist either by incompetent observation or homicidal tendencies, the driver demonstrates a complete inability to use a roundabout correctly. This person should not be driving at all.

That said, there were opportunities for evasive action by the cyclist, but you have to be really switched on to anticipate that level of idiocy.

As I said before, he can argue all he wants about how right he was but he's still lying in a heap on the road. I'm sure most people here drive also so you surely recognise the difficulty sometimes in seeing a cyclist travelling at +30kmh down a street. When driving in an urban environment, apart from looking in front of us, we are continually glancing left, right, behind, left, right, behind, etc. We can easily pick up on other large road vehicles like cars, vans, buses and lorries at a glance but it is very easy to miss a lone cyclists travelling at speed so until we end up with a greater mass of cyclists on the roads/streets, I would advocate cyclists reducing their speed and cycle at a speed where if someone or something suddenly blocks your path, you can easily avoid them or if you do collide the consequnces are insignificant.

Captain Havoc

LeoD wrote: »

As I said before, he can argue all he wants about how right he was but he's still lying in a heap on the road. I'm sure most people here drive also so you surely recognise the difficulty sometimes in seeing a cyclist travelling at +30kmh down a street. When driving in an urban environment, apart from looking in front of us, we are continually glancing left, right, behind, left, right, behind, etc. We can easily pick up on other large road vehicles like cars, vans, buses and lorries at a glance but it is very easy to miss a lone cyclists travelling at speed so until we end up with a greater mass of cyclists on the roads/streets, I would advocate cyclists reducing their speed and cycle at a speed where if someone or something suddenly blocks your path, you can easily avoid them or if you do collide the consequnces are insignificant.

It's for such reasons we have courts, so vulnerable road users are compensated for the stupidity of others. I think a car would be more careful if he knew he was going to have to pay for the heap on the ground in front of him, especially when the heap has video evidence.

Lumen

LeoD wrote: »

I'm sure most people here drive also so you surely recognise the difficulty sometimes in seeing a cyclist travelling at +30kmh down a street.

I do have occasional difficulty with cyclists in rear blind spots, but have never missed a cyclist driving straight towards me at speed. Have you?

How does a cyclist become more difficult to see at speed? The human brain is excellent at identifying small, fast moving objects within the field of vision and reacting instictively. Dodgeball?

CheGuedara

@h3000 - spot on, my thoughts exactly

LeoD

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Ha, total rubbish! I think the wide angle lens he has makes it look like he is going faster, I'd say he is doing somewhere between 25-35 kph. The guy didn't yield, simple as.

I would say he was doing about that also which I think is looking for trouble. However, as this forum seems to contain quite a number of cyclists who consider a 20km work commute normal where getting from A to B as quickly as possible doubles up as training, the prevailing attitude is that cyclists don't have to or shouldn't have to tolerate or anticipate the behavioural inadequacies of other road users in urban areas.

emtroche

Anybody else notice the irish guy asking him was he alright?

Priceless!

DirkVoodoo

@LeoD: I understand what you mean. I have had occasions driving where I haven't seen a cyclist. However, this is generally in heavy traffic in built up areas. This is a lone cyclist, completely unobscured and directly in the main road through a small town, travelling at what may seem like high speed for a bike but would not be excessive speed for a car travelling the same line (hence one can't say he "flew out of nowhere"). Conditions are perfect, he is on a main road (not the footpath) and visibility is fine. I don't see where the cyclists speed hinders the driver's observation or makes it in any way his fault.

DirkVoodoo

Can I just step back for a second:

What caused the accident? The driver not yielding. The cyclist was already on the roundabout, meaning that his speed was not a factor. It may have resulted in a more forceful impact, but I don't see how it made the driver less aware.

If the driver had entered the roundabout and the cyclist then hit the side of the car at his speed, then yes you could say his speed was not suitable and he failed to yield to the traffic on the roundabout.

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

If you look at the trajectory of the Mondeo, it drives straight over the middle of the roundabout apparently without slowing down at all.

the driver demonstrates a complete inability to use a roundabout correctly.

I would have said the driver demonstrates a pretty common practice with painted roundabouts. There often isn't enough room to drive around one of these without rolling over part of the painted area so drivers will often treat the markings as a guide to who has right of way and will then cross the junction directly instead of circling the painted disc.

OTOH, lack of observation / judgement etc...

LeoD wrote: »

I'm sure most people here drive also so you surely recognise the difficulty sometimes in seeing a cyclist travelling at +30kmh down a street. When driving in an urban environment,

Daytime running lights ftw here. I run two each flashing front/rear lights at all times and I feel they contribute to being spotted.

LeoD

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

@LeoD: I understand what you mean. I have had occasions driving where I haven't seen a cyclist. However, this is generally in heavy traffic in built up areas. This is a lone cyclist, completely unobscured and directly in the main road through a small town, travelling at what may seem like high speed for a bike but would not be excessive speed for a car travelling the same line (hence one can't say he "flew out of nowhere"). Conditions are perfect, he is on a main road (not the footpath) and visibility is fine. I don't see where the cyclists speed hinders the driver's observation or makes it in any way his fault.

I'm not arguing whether the motorist should or shouldn't have seen him. This motorist may have seen and stopped for 1000's of cyclists over the years but this time he unfortunately didn't. As you say yourself, you have on occasion missed seeing cyclists while driving for whatever reason - we all do - but luckily we don't end up hitting them most of the time. The point I am making is that lone cyclists are more vulnerable in urban areas and need to be aware of this. If you're on a bike and you collide with any motorised vehicle, you will come out worse. Prevention is better than cure and all that hoopla.

Lumen

cdaly_ wrote: »

I would have said the driver demonstrates a pretty common practice with painted roundabouts. There often isn't enough room to drive around one of these without rolling over part of the painted area so drivers will often treat the markings as a guide to who has right of way and will then cross the junction directly instead of circling the painted disc.

That's not the law, and that's not how I drive. Sticking a wheel on the circle and pretending it's not there at all are different.

I'm not saying that was a major factor in the accident, I just think it further demonstrates the drivers incompetence.

I am a firm believer in using maximum anticipation when cycling, and I can see how in this case it might have been possible for the cyclist to mitigate the accident, but in this case I struggle to get past the incompetence of the driving, and cannot understand why someones first comment would be "the cyclist was going too fast".

coolbeans

The cyclist was 100% in the right, that's indisputable. However people make mistakes and the fact that we're not surrounded by a metal box puts the onus on us to be extra vigilant for occurances such as this. If it were me I'd doubtless be doing a similar speed but would be extra vigilant on a roundabout such as this which for obvious reasons is particularly poorly designed from a cyclist's point of view. I don't thnik the zero sympathy comment is warranted though; that's just confrontational.

coolbeans

cdaly_ wrote: »

Daytime running lights ftw here. I run two each flashing front/rear lights at all times and I feel they contribute to being spotted.

Agree with this, I run a flashing front LED with new batteries all the time and they do make a differece. I wish I didn't feel the need but...

DirkVoodoo

Actually, this reminds me I nearly hit the side of a truck the other day on Brighton road. I had seen it double parked in the village on double yellow lines a few minutes before. Anyway, as I was heading home I saw it up the road having pulled in to turn around. I saw the lady driving it, she was looking to turn right, looking only at the traffic on her left. Didn't once turn and look in my direction before turning across me. I slowed down and had my hands on the brakes (one of those "this could be bad" feelings) when I saw her head fixed over her left shoulder. She pulled out stright in front of me, as she passed me I gave a big thumbs up.

Had I not seen her lack of observation I could have carried on at my speed (~ 25 kph) down the road and she would have run over me. My speed there would have meant very little, I'm sure though the excuse would have been "he came out of nowehere" instead of "I forgot to look both ways".

Anyway, yes it pays to be observant cycling as well as driving.

jimmyendless

rebel.ranter wrote: »

I give up. I was merely trying to point out that the cyclist was not completely fault free. As the previous poster has suggested the cyclist was traveling far too quickly for the conditions & ultimately contributed to his own downfall. If you're not in a metal box then I believe that you need to be extra cautious of what other dummies on the road might do.
I had a near miss like this myself as I was bombing it through an urban area & was almost pole axed from the side by a woman in a Punto. I never thought you could skid both wheels at the same time! It definitely focused my mind as regards urban cycling.

I think the cyclist was fault free but was not travelling in a completely safe manner for himself as there was no time to react to the car. When judging risks, a car facing you at a roundabout would not be seen as a huge danger with the amount of visibility they would have.

His actions were not at fault and within the law but other precautions could have been made for improved self preservation.

DirkVoodoo

LeoD wrote: »

I'm not arguing whether the motorist should or shouldn't have seen him. This motorist may have seen and stopped for 1000's of cyclists over the years but this time he unfortunately didn't. As you say yourself, you have on occasion missed seeing cyclists while driving for whatever reason - we all do - but luckily we don't end up hitting them most of the time. The point I am making is that lone cyclists are more vulnerable in urban areas and need to be aware of this. If you're on a bike and you collide with any motorised vehicle, you will come out worse. Prevention is better than cure and all that hoopla.

I'm not sure how that works. Should cyclists yield to any cars approaching them on roundabouts? In the end it was an accident and some of them are unavoidable (although getting rid of all the crap drivers might help). You can only anticipate so much before you might as well just get off and walk. Of course there are cyclists who behave unpredictably, perform silly maneuvres, breeze through busy junctions, etc. but that guy was on the main road, he wasn't on a cycle lane or hopping off the kerb. His speed was reasonable for the traffic and the area, he wasn't weaving through rush hour. Could he have anticipated that? What if he had slammed on his brakes, he might have got hit from behind, gone through the windscreen, anything really just as bad or worse than what happened. I don't think he did much wrong really.

Redjeep!

A friend of mine was in a truck a couple of years ago that collided with another truck that pulled a U turn just as he drew level with him on the road from Rosslare to Wexford.

Both trucks ended up, upside down in a field and the emergency services couldn't believe anybody was still alive (nobody was seriously injured).

My point : If a crap truck driver can fail to notice another truck doing 80km/ hr about 10 yards away from him, what chance do we have as cyclists .

heffomike54

Three pages of a thread & nobody has mentioned that the driver was a wearing socks with sandals! Never mind the traffic police, I hope someone called the fashion police! :D

studiorat

How come the cyclist didn't stop in time? It's a narrow street not the bleedin' Champs Elysee.
I've come onto roundabouts driving cars, motorbikes and cycling and met with lunatics of all types; looking the wrong direction, driving the wrong way around, you name it. Thing is each time I was travelling at a speed where I could do something about it.

To me it looked like the bike was going to the left and not across the roundabout. He seemed to be on the left right up until the junction. An auld signal wouldn't have gone a miss by the looks of it.

rebel.ranter

emtroche wrote: »

Anybody else notice the irish guy asking him was he alright?

Priceless!

He sounds/looks like a guy at work, I sent him a link to the video to as if it was him

Captain Havoc

studiorat wrote: »

How come the cyclist didn't stop in time? It's a narrow street not the bleedin' Champs Elysee.
I've come onto roundabouts driving cars, motorbikes and cycling and met with lunatics of all types; looking the wrong direction, driving the wrong way around, you name it. Thing is each time I was travelling at a speed where I could do something about it.

To me it looked like the bike was going to the left and not across the roundabout. He seemed to be on the left right up until the junction. An auld signal wouldn't have gone a miss by the looks of it.

Signal which way? The guy in the car didn't see him or misjudged, no signal in this world was going to avoid that. You signal after the last exit and before the one you're going to take.

DirkVoodoo

studiorat wrote: »

me it looked like the bike was going to the left and not across the roundabout. He seemed to be on the left right up until the junction. An auld signal wouldn't have gone a miss by the looks of it.

Maybe the driver thought the same thing? I guess then you should either wait until someone has signalled or let them move off before trying to second guess them.

Maybe the only way around this is for cyclists to indicate "right" when going straight through at a roundabout.

Lumen

Captain Havoc wrote: »

You signal after the last exit and before the one you're going to take.

No. You signal left after the last exit before the one you're going to take. That doesn't preclude other signals.

In this situation I would signal right before and during entry to the roundabout, then point to the exit as it was taking it. Signalling right is the most appropriate way to send a "stay where you are" signal to traffic at or approaching the roundabout.

Captain Havoc

Lumen wrote: »

No. You signal left after the last exit before the one you're going to take.

That's what I meant.

Lumen

studiorat wrote: »

To me it looked like the bike was going to the left and not across the roundabout. He seemed to be on the left right up until the junction.

Not to me. The second picture is particularly damning.