Cyclist has head on collision - contains blood

dave.obrien

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.

I rarely am drawn to say things about people I don't know and have never met, so I apologise about what was here before this edit, but you seem to be ignoring what actually caused the accident.

The cyclist did nothing wrong, the driver drove head first into him, ignoring the normal etiquette on a roundabout, ie, actually driving around the middle of it instead of straight through it, and apparently demonstrating a serious case of selective vision. I agree cyclists should be slower and more vigilant in urban and suburban areas, but how do you know what speed this cyclist was travelling at AT ALL? How have you decided that that speed was too fast? Is it on the basis that he was in a collision? A collision which was not his fault? Oh, but he can go on espousing how it was not his fault all the way to A&E, he's still the one who got injured, maybe next time he'll take the bus instead, because until there's a critical mass of cyclists, cycling is too dangerous and we should all leave it alone.

You make no sense to me, but I had no right to call your character into question.

lescol

This helps to get a better view of the junction/roundabout, http://tinyurl.com/38o373g
The road markings would suggest that cars approaching from the same direction as the Mondeo habitually cut across the roundabout. The cyclist is in no way to blame, his positioning looks good and he follows the rules of the road.

Joxer_S

Not to excuse the driver for his obvious inattention, but the layout of that junction had a role to play too. A white circle painted on the tarmac in lieu of a proper kerb offers a poor deterrent to drivers to slow down and take the turn properly, rather than blasting straight through as this guy did.

BostonB

The drivers totally in the wrong and the cyclist in a good road position. But personally with cars at a junction like that I wouldn't assume they are going to stop, because in my experience they often don't. I would have slowed more than this guy did. I'd do the same driving or cycling.

I agree that those painted roundabouts do not help at all.

chakattack

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.

Yes it's very easy to drive carelessly and barely looking where you are going!

If you can see a car approaching at 30kph you should be perfectly well able to see a cyclist.

Entering the path of oncoming traffic is not the time to check your rear view mirror or blindspots.....

chakattack

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.

You'll find that the 20k commuters you speak of are acutely aware of their vulnerability, have very keen observation and anticipation skills and avoid potential accidents caused by the kind of lazy, haphazard and careless driving you seem to be exonerating on a daily basis.

BostonB

The reality is people are failible, drivers cannot see 360 and have blind spots. I find it entirely plausable that cyclist was hidden by the A pillar, as the car approached, and just when the cyclist moved out of the blind zone the driver was then looking at the Audi, due to the layout of the junction. Drivers still at fault, thats obvious, he should have look back straight ahead before moving. But I wouldn't assume he'd has seen me. How often do you see buses and taxies indicate, and pull out at the same time, and only when they've started moving do you see them look in the mirror.

Assumption the mother of all....

sy

dave.obrien wrote: »

I rarely am drawn to saying these things about people I don't know and have never met, but you seem like a tool.

Out of order, no need to use this language. You can disagree with LeoD, as many others have, without resorting to name calling.

Unfortunately drivers don't "see" cyclists as we would wish them to . Had incident the other evening while cycling through my local town. Travelling about 30kph down a quiet main street, a driver did a you turn from opposite side of street and proceeded to travel in the direction I was moving. In the process I swerved and braked hard to avoid collision and then proceeded after the car which stopped at the next junction. Pulled up and tapped at the drivers window. A surprised (big!) young man duely opened it and I asked him what he was up to etc!!!!. He genuinely hadn't seen me :eek: and apologised profusely. I knew from his face that he was being truthful so accepted his apology and advised that he might notice fast moving cyclists in the future.

On recollection I was probably going too fast and yes a lot of motorists (especially in rural towns) are not used to cyclists travelling more than 10kph. Most are looking out for other cars or pedestrians.

dave.obrien

sy wrote: »

Out of order, no need to use this language. You can disagree with LeoD, as many others have, without resorting to name calling.

Agreed, LeoD, I apologise, I'm sure you're not what I said you are, it's just that your defense is pretty flimsy, and your accusations are preposterous, in my opinion! All the same, I should not have said what I said, and I am about to edit my previous quote, because I know I was wrong about name calling.

SerialComplaint

The challenge for me when cycling in such situations is to balance the need to give hand signals with the need to keep hands on the bars for braking and gear changing. There is one right turn on my commute where the traffic is often backed up, and I've mastered the art of head-signals, i.e. signalling my intentions with dramatic head-nodding and head-pointing and eye contact. It ain't pretty, but it generally works.

PS I posted this clip a few weeks ago, and it was pretty much ignored. That makes me sad...

Sitec

What actually happens insurance wise here?

Would the cyclists medical bills and bike value be refunded?

Poly

Regardless, who has to yield to whom.
The fact is that the guy was cycling quite aggressively, yes the car was in the wrong, but we all know that there are blind idiots on the road.
A decent motorcycle course will teach you to always anticipate the idiots
Is it worth getting your head cracked open to prove you had the right -of-way?
It reminds me of guys who cycle 4 abreast, yes, you have the right to, but is it worth getting yourself killed to prove your point?

JJJJNR

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

Duckjob

The motorist was at fault for not yielding. However,

When referring to right of way, the rules of the road always qualify by saying you can proceed "if the way is clear".

Putting myself into the cyclist shoes, I really would've been a lot more cautious approaching that roundabout. I wouldn've had that car firmly in my sights on the approach to monitor whether he was a danger or not.

Also, the cyclist IMO was going that bit too fast for the conditions around him.

I estimate from the video that from copping that the car was going to be a problem I would have had maybe 1 sec of hard braking. This might not have avoided the collision completely but if not, it would at least have turned it into a much more minor incident.

If the cyclist was travelling within speed safe for the conditions around him, he should've been able to avoid the incident.

Notwithstanding right of way, when on the road, you constantly have situations where your right of way is encroached on by other road users. This is true whether you're on a bike, car, motorbike whatever. You slow down, stop if necessary, and continue when the way is clear.

If you can't avoid a collision with somebody who takes your right of way, then you're going too fast!

jman0war

JJJJNR wrote: »

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

You think it's 50/50?
What, are you trolling?
The cyclist is completely on the roundabout before the car has started entering it.
Car driver 100% at fault.

souter

Driver was 100% culpable, no question.
But I don't like roundabouts. There are several on my commute and I've lost count of the number of times a vehicle has pulled out in front of me. So far nothing worse than giving them a torrent of abuse because I almost expect it.
And there's the rub, if you slow down because you suspect a car is going to pull in front of you, the driver thinks you're yielding to them. So you pedal on so ready for the collision just to demonstrate the rules of the road.
I think it's worst on busy roundabouts where there is a predominant flow of traffic. A driver will be waiting for a break in the traffic, sees a cyclist and consciously or not thinks "f3ck it, its only a bike" and pulls out in front of you.
That said, on less busy roundabouts, particularly the paint only job as in the video, quite often I find cars stopping before I've even enterred it. Fair play, I give them a wee salute in appreciation.
But you can't count on that, so expect the worst and slow down (but not too slow).

Wibbs

Yep the driver was at fault, but all this talk of the law and right of way is sadly usually only good in theory and people can get too anal about it.

What I learned early on is this, never underestimate the stupidity of fellow road users of all kinds and if its bigger than me it has "right of way". When Im on my bike I'm just above woman with pram(tm)* on the food chain and I cycle accordingly. Pretty much anything I hit or am hit by will hurt or kill me. When I'm driving, trucks and buses have the "right of way". Not in law or good manners, but for my safety's sake.


Keep safe out there folks.



*Don't get me started on some of them and pedestrians in general. "oh its just a bike, I'll step out now". Then again you get them doing that in front of cars too. Madness.

papac

so expect the worst and slow down (but not too slow).

+1.
Car was 100% culpable in this instance.
Its no use being in the right if your dead though. I personally assume that every motorist is going to go out of her way to try to murder me-because sooner or later one of them will.

In the situation in this vid I would never have assumed that Mondeo was gonna stop unless I had eye contact and even then I would be wary of a foot slipping off a clutch pedal.

Extreme defensive cycling but its a good habit that has kept me alive for a long time.
Car 100% culpable -in law.
Cyclist should have known better than to trust him-in the real world..

Lumen

Duckjob wrote: »

When referring to right of way, the rules of the road always qualify by saying you can proceed "if the way is clear".
...
If you can't avoid a collision with somebody who takes your right of way, then you're going too fast!

Not true. There are plenty of cases where you can have a largely unavoidable collision if someone pulls out on you, crosses your path, or swerves onto your side of the road.

The full expression from roadcraft (quoted from here) is "Ability to stop the car on one’s own side of the road in the distance that can be seen to be clear, and that can be expected to remain clear".

The key is the expectation of probable behaviour, taking into account the possibility of mistakes.

If improbable behaviour happens you still need a contingency plan ("the ability to anticipate the potential or actual threat from all hazards and continually evaluate ‘what if?’ scenarios to ensure there is always a contingency plan to respond to changes...never appears surprised or caught out by a hazard") but in this case the balance of fault is so skewed towards the car driver as to make criticism of the cyclist (also the one lying bleeding on the road) seem a little petty.

kakee

From looking at the video over and over it seems the mondeo driver didn't see the cyclist or the audi and he most certainly didn't notice the roundabout. If you look at the mondeo, he had no intention of going around anything.

finty

A lot of the discussion seems centred on who was technically at fault here.

Obviously it was the car driver, no excuses.

However, the cyclist should have the sense to expect the unexpected and take care of himself if only for the reason that he is going to come off a lot worse in any collision.

He was going at a speed where he had no idea if the driver had spotted him, not something I'd do on a bike going around a roundabout. Crossing any lanes entering a roundabout I'm eyeballing the car drivers to see what they are doing and have they seen me.

You might get great satisfaction being in the right, but I'm sure it won't make a difference when you are sliding along the road using you face as a brake.

Your first priority is to take care of yourself!

Civilian_Target

JJJJNR wrote: »

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

ROFL! For sure, the cyclist would definitely have been more careful if it was a flourescent yellow Mondeo, with two silver stripes!

wil

heffomike54 wrote: »

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

WRONG - hope you are never called as witness to an accident.

Driver of green mondeo was wearing black shoes, black short sleeved shirt and brown old man trousers, and would appear to be IRISH.

And an idiot.
After running him down and parking a short distance away, he gets out and runs to the cyclist, pulls his arm in some sort of attempt to lift him, cyclist says no, then in broad Irish accent asks (just typical) "are ya all right"

He walks away, possibly to talk to an English lady out of shot
Then man with south London accent wearing brown sandals, grey socks, brown denim trousers comes in to shot and takes charge asking if eyclist wants ambulance (says yes face hit), tells him him nose bleeding and also suggests calling for police.

Green G-reg mondeo WAS totally in wrong.
Cyclist wasnt expecting typical Irish driver on road and proceded as would be normal, even the black Audi was waiting for him, but Mr O'Mondeo didnt bother to even look let alone yield.
Shure twas only a painted roundabout, we dont have them at home your honour.:mad::mad::mad:

Events
Cyclist approaches first roundabout, looks right checks behind, goes straight.
Approaches roundabout in question, checks over shoulder, positions centre right on road, carries on in clear position with intention to take second exit (definitely not straight).
Green mondeo approaches roundabout, black Audi crawls to yield line of third exit, cyclist passes at centre of roundabout aimed at second exit.
Green mondeo enters roundabout at speed apparently going straight but positioned to cross over circle, Collision, keeps going then stops a distace away from cyclist.

Cyclist error, - to be lulled in to the false sense of security caused by the fact that the majority of drivers he encounters on England roads actually learned to drive and follow the rules.

A mistake he'd soon get out of here:(

As finty mentioned, there is little satisfaction to be gained from being "Dead right"

Wibbs

I think we need less of the anti irish rant TBH. Ive driven extensively in the UK and the English are not much better than here. No way. The Scots for some reason are though. Very consistent drivers IME. Try cycling in somewhere like Spain. I would suggest a full harness of armour.

BostonB

JJJJNR wrote: »

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

50/50? are you looking at the same video? The driver doesn't have right of way and doesn't look. Its entirely his fault.

Hi Vis does nothing if the driver isn't looking in that direction.

s.a.man

LeoD wrote: »

Cyclist travelling too fast - very little sympathy for him.

Omg... Am I Reading this properly? The cyclist had the right of way, the driver should have been more cautious. I in the other hand have no sympathy for the driver if the cyclist is going to claim.

wil

Wibbs wrote: »

I think we need less of the anti irish rant TBH. Ive driven extensively in the UK and the English are not much better than here. No way. The Scots for some reason are though. Very consistent drivers IME. Try cycling in somewhere like Spain. I would suggest a full harness of armour.

Being 100% Irish I have no intention of anti-Irish ranting, simply a wake up to reality.
Having driven and cycled extensively for many years in both countries I know of very few English/Scottish/Welsh trained drivers who are not dumbfounded by what is the norm here. On the other hand I know many Irish trained drivers who see no difference when they drive in the UK.
It says more about the level of training that has been the norm until recently in this country.

I acknowledge that with greater training enforcement, driving standards have improved, but only very recently and there are still a huge proportion of drivers on our roads with little or no formal training.

And for all the thumbs up it took 5 pages to point out the obvious from this video.
Observation is one of the most important aspects stressed in UK training.

If I was that cyclist in the UK, I would have cycled just as he did.

On the otherhand, if I was doing that same cycle here, I would not make the same assumption that the mondeo would stop and I would take greater account of that likelihood.

Both would have been correct assumptions based on the conditions.

If I was cycling in another country that I am familiar with, that has even less adherance to basic safety and rules, I would cycle with even greater care and perhaps decide to walk.

Thats the reality.

Now on a completely different point, wouldn't it be useful if all cars were fitted with cameras for accident claims purposes. Wonder would it have any effect on driving attitudes. It was being trialed in some parts of the US. Perhaps a new thread.

chakattack

Sitec wrote: »

What actually happens insurance wise here?

Would the cyclists medical bills and bike value be refunded?

Yes.

short circuit

JJJJNR wrote: »

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

Next time I see you driving anything other than a flourescent yellor/green car, I am running into you ... whether I am walking, cycling or in my car:)

coolbeans

JJJJNR wrote: »

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

Balderdash.

irishmotorist

I am outraged by this incident - this driver should never be allowed to drive again. He was aggressive or ignorant towards 2 other road users who had right of way (bike and Audi). The incident was totally the fault of the Mondeo driver.

However, I don't think this incident would have happened to me. I constantly find drivers who are ignorant/blind/aggressive who don't see me. It's a danger that I'm aware of and having right of way doesn't stop something bad happening. E.g. cycling down a road, if I see a car trying to pull out across my line or turn in across me. As a result, when I'm approaching junctions, I act like a pussy - self preservation. If I don't see the driver see me, I slow. If I have seen the driver see me, I go full steam ahead and give my Big Head Shake if they ignore my presence or think I'm not going as fast as I am.

One thing that sticks with me is when I was learning to cross the road with my dad when I was a youngefella. Crossing the Crumlin Road at traffic lights, I stepped out on a green man one day. My dad caught me and said "having right of way doesn't stop the bus from hitting you - you should look anyway".

Cabaal

SerialComplaint wrote: »

The challenge for me when cycling in such situations is to balance the need to give hand signals with the need to keep hands on the bars for braking and gear changing.

Lets not forget you often have to keep both hands on the handlebars because hitting a pothole with only one hand holding the bike could cause you to loose balance and come off

Cabaal

JJJJNR wrote: »

Green car, hard to see think its 50/50, doesn't look like the cyclist was wearing anything HI VIS.

:rolleyes:
50/50 because the cyclist was not wearing hi-vis on a lovely sunny day?, no court in this land will agree with your view on this

DePurpereWolf

High vis is just a marketing ploy. Yellow is hardly any more visible than the red he was wearing, and reflectors are useless in daylight. A cyclist wearing red would have sticked out like a sore thumb on a sunny day. If you don't see a red cyclist coming at you in clear day light, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

Try cycling in somewhere like Spain. I would suggest a full harness of armour.

I cycle a lot in Spain and I have to say that drivers there are far more aware of cyclists than they are here. You still get the odd muppet, but on the whole they're much better.

fenris

Does anyone know what the actual outcome was?

DirkVoodoo

Cabaal wrote: »

Lets not forget you often have to keep both hands on the handlebars because hitting a pothole with only one hand holding the bike could cause you to loose balance and come off

True, I find I am rarely able to indicate left coming down through Enniskerry from Glencree, along that really steep road. Mostly to do with poor road surface.

emanresu

irishmotorist wrote: »

I am outraged by this incident - this driver should never be allowed to drive again. He was aggressive or ignorant towards 2 other road users who had right of way (bike and Audi). The incident was totally the fault of the Mondeo driver.

The Audi driver didn't have right of way.

BostonB

IMO it looked to me that the Audi got on the runabout first, just. The Mondeo was barely noticeably, slowing then saw the Audi and decided to try get ahead of it by not yielding and cutting the roundabout. Because the driver weas focused on that, IMO is part of the reason they didn't look ahead properly and see the cyclist.

I was going to repy to irishmotorists comment that its was aggressive and ignorant, is a bit harsh, but what other reason is there to cut across ahead of the Audi instead of slowing, and following him around. I couldn't think of any.

jman0war

It's a tough call.
The Audi gets it's wheels onto teh roundabout first.
But it's clear from 09 seconds on that it has slowed down and entered the roundabout with caution.
Meanwhile the green car has accelerated onto the roundabout.
Infact, it's trajectory looks like it's heading directly over the roundabout centre, rather than around it.

imo it looks like the driver of the green car is more concerned with going thru the intersection ahead of the audi, and not paying attention to traffic coming from the right.

Lumen

There is no confusion or "call" to make about which car has right of way on the roundabout, it's the Mondeo.

The Highway Code says:

"When reaching the roundabout you should give priority to traffic approaching from your right".

So, cyclist has first priority, then Mondeo, then Audi.

I can't believe that point is even up for discussion.

jman0war

Fair enough, i believe the Audi is actually giving way.

No doubt a little confused as to what exactly the Mondeo is up to traveling directly over the roundabout centre.

GreeBo

h3000 wrote: »

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.

To me it looks like there is a Y junction at the roundabout, left is a separate lane, right enters the roundabout.
The cyclist takes the "right turn" from the left hand side of the approaching lane without any signal.
I would have signaled or slowed down or both.

Righteousness is not for cyclists.

radia

At a guess the black Audi, having seen the cyclist and presuming the green Mondeo had too, was expecting the Mondeo not to enter the roundabout. So the Audi thought he could go himself, as he'd be far enough ahead before the cyclist reached that part of the roundabout.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

There is no confusion or "call" to make about which car has right of way on the roundabout, it's the Mondeo.

The Highway Code says:

"When reaching the roundabout you should give priority to traffic approaching from your right".

So, cyclist has first priority, then Mondeo, then Audi.

I can't believe that point is even up for discussion.

ROTR also says "Pay attention to vehicles already on the roundabout", and "Look forward before moving on to make sure that traffic in front of you on the roundabout has moved off. This means that you will be able to move on to the roundabout without blocking any traffic coming from your right."

I think jman0war and BostonB have a point - if the Mondeo had behaved correctly, and slow to check fully for traffic to his right, then the Audi would've been on the roundabout by the time he entered. Alas, that was not the case here. Before the Mondeo makes the (wrong) decision to enter the roundabout, the Audi has right of way by virtue of already being on the roundabout.

edit: radia makes the same point.

lescol

If you follow the link you can go onto street view and play around to get a view of what each would have seen as they approached the roundabout. A cyclist from the Mondeo direction is doing well. You also get to see how drivers make a mess of coping with that junction. http://tinyurl.com/38o373g

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

Before the Mondeo makes the (wrong) decision to enter the roundabout, the Audi has right of way by virtue of already being on the roundabout.

No, no, no. The Audi never has right of way, there is absolutely no ambiguity here.

There is no priority rule about "being on the roundabout first". The recommendation to pay attention to traffic already on the roundabout is more to do with the general responsibility not to crash into the back of other vehicles.

Analogous rules apply to pulling on to a main road from a side road. If you are approaching a main road, you should wait until the road is clear, so as not to impede traffic on that road. However, if you do pull out into traffic, the other cars still have a responsibility to brake to avoid smashing into the back of you, but that has no bearing on the basic right of way.

When I first moved to Ireland from the UK, I could not believe the manner in which people pulled out from side roads onto national roads. It is completely common here for someone to pull out then gently apply the throttle, taking twenty seconds to get up to speed, and creating a concertina effect behind them. If you tried that in the UK, you'd be (at the very least) subjected to flashing headlights, beeping horns, and streams of abuse, and on a bad day you'd be barged off the road into a ditch.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

No, no, no. The Audi never has right of way, there is absolutely no ambiguity here.

There is no priority rule about "being on the roundabout first". The recommendation to pay attention to traffic already on the roundabout is more to do with the general responsibility not to crash into the back of other vehicles.

Not crashing into the back/side of a vehicle is exactly the danger if someone doesn't yield to a vehicle already on the roundabout. One can't just slam on the accelerator as soon as the right hand side is clear - if someone at the next exit is already entering the roundabout, one has to allow them time to get around.

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

Not crashing into the back/side of a vehicle is exactly the danger if someone doesn't yield to a vehicle already on the roundabout. One can't just slam on the accelerator as soon as the right hand side is clear - if someone at the next exit is already entering the roundabout, one has to allow them time to get around.

Of course, but this doesn't mean that the Audi has priority to enter the roundabout in the first place. "I was there first" is no defence in the event of an accident.

BostonB

Lumen wrote: »

There is no confusion or "call" to make about which car has right of way on the roundabout, it's the Mondeo.....

Well I'm not confused about the right of way. Thats not an issue for me. But you can learn a lot of the mindset and driver behavior here.

If the Mondeo stayed at a constant speed you could argue its just through familiarity has developed the bad habit of going straight through there, without checking left. However it seems to slow then speed up, presumably after seeing the Audi. Having seen the Audi he can't know its yielded unless he keeps watching it. If watching the Audi hes not watching the straight ahead. But the cyclist was most likely in a blind spot, when he last checked the straight ahead.

Its subtle, but what perhaps causes this accident is the driver trying to beat the Audi. The cyclist assumes the Mondeo has seen him, and is relying on having right of way. It hasn't occurred to him that perhaps the Mondeo hasn't seen him.

Even if the Mondeo had seen him, it not uncommon for drivers to mis judge the speed of a cyclist or just ignore their right of way. Assume nothing.