Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

jon1981

GreeBo wrote: »

The OP kept cycling, they used their vulnerability to threaten/intimidate the car into stopping.

If this were my intention, I certainly wouldn't have created a thread to discuss.

droidus

GreeBo wrote: »

There are two people who acted very inappropriately and dangerously in this case; my viewing of the video shows the OP passing a moving vehicle thats indicating and about to turn left. Thats a suicidal move in my experience.

All things being equal, and ignoring the issue of blame, who has the potential to cause most harm and therefore who has duty of care?

If this was a pedestrian crossing in front of the car would the driver be justified in proceeding ahead even if the pedestrian was directly in front of him, in the middle of the road?

Fortywatt

"How anyone can say the OP is 'ahead' of the car is baffling for me." (Greebo).

See 10 seconds into the OP's video. If you can see a headlight the car has to be behind. And the viewpoint is that of a (fixed?) rear-facing camera.

Lemming

I was of the opinion of CramCycle and others earlier in the thread of the OP being at fault for the initial incident but the BMW driver being well out of order after that point. But the more I look at the video, and it's quite telling if I continue forward with freeze-frame motion that Jon had cleared the front of the car before it started its turn. Then the car suddenly surges forward; it's not as if the driver was slowly turning, he accelerates.

Time index: 10 seconds


Time index: 11 seconds


The initial incident happens in the space of a couple of seconds so there's an element of doubt to be applied as to reactions, but legally it would look like jon was in the right, not withstanding any phyrric victory to be had in being right but hospitalised or dead. So, small consolation if you're hospitalised or worse and I doubt Mr. Fvckhead in his car would have given much of a sh1t given the driving attitude on display. I would - as others have suggested - consider taking the lane.

Edit: just to be clear here, Jon didn't pass the car in the blink of an eye; it took about 4 seconds to pass it from behind.

dubrov

GreeBo wrote:

The OP tried to proceed despite the fact that a 1 tonne vehicle was indicating and crossing his path - effectively trying to intimidate the driver into stopping to avoid hitting him. He then cycled around the car rather than wait and let the car pass.

That sort of thinking is deluded. You would have to be crazy to gamble your body like that

axer

droidus wrote: »

All things being equal, and ignoring the issue of blame, who has the potential to cause most harm and therefore who has duty of care?

It doesn't look to me that the driver was attempting to injury the the OP - he actually seemed to be aware of the cyclist. He was just pissed off by the dangerous maneuver.

droidus wrote: »

If this was a pedestrian crossing in front of the car would the driver be justified in proceeding ahead even if the pedestrian was directly in front of him, in the middle of the road?

Maybe if the pedestrian was illegally in that position as long as the car didn't go for the pedestrian or put them at risk - the driver could drive up slowly like he did in the clip. I wouldn't as I would just give out from within the car about the silly dangerous\move but I can see how such a move would really piss someone off - especially when it seems the OP didn't put their hand up to apologise and gesture that they were going to cross to get out of the way - but then again there was plenty of opportunity for the OP to stay stopped and avoid the situation in the first place once the car started moving left.

07Lapierre

Lemming wrote: »

I was of the opinion of CramCycle and others earlier in the thread of the OP being at fault for the initial incident but the BMW driver being well out of order after that point. But the more I look at the video, and it's quite telling if I continue forward with freeze-frame motion that Jon had cleared the front of the car before it started its turn. Then the car suddenly surges forward; it's not as if the driver was slowly turning, he accelerates.



The initial incident happens in the space of a couple of seconds so there's an element of doubt to be applied as to reactions, but legally it would look like jon was in the right, not withstanding any phyrric victory to be had in being right but hospitalised or dead. So, small consolation if you're hospitalised or worse and I doubt Mr. Fvckhead in his car would have given much of a sh1t given the driving attitude on display. I would - as others have suggested - consider taking the lane.

I think there is an element of doubt on both sides. The more I look at the video, the more i feel the OP was ahead of the car and if he had kept going, the car would have waited and then turned once it was clear. But both were unsure of the others intentions and hesitated, then both changed their minds.

axer

Lemming wrote: »

The initial incident happens in the space of a couple of seconds so there's an element of doubt to be applied as to reactions, but legally it would look like jon was in the right, not withstanding any phyrric victory to be had in being right but hospitalised or dead. So, small consolation if you're hospitalised or worse and I doubt Mr. Fvckhead in his car would have given much of a sh1t given the driving attitude on display. I would - as others have suggested - consider taking the lane.

Edit: just to be clear here, Jon didn't pass the car in the blink of an eye; it took about 4 seconds to pass it from behind.

There was plenty of time for the OP to stop once they saw the side indicator lighting up. The OP could not clear the car before the car started their left turn which makes the OP's move illegal. There was not a reasonable expectation that the car would not turn before the OP had fully passed the car.

CramCycle

Lemming wrote: »

I was of the opinion of CramCycle and others earlier in the thread of the OP being at fault for the initial incident but the BMW driver being well out of order after that point. But the more I look at the video, and it's quite telling if I continue forward with freeze-frame motion that Jon had cleared the front of the car before it started its turn. Then the car suddenly surges forward; it's not as if the driver was slowly turning, he accelerates.

Same here, its a rear camera so the front wheel of the bike would be nearly at mid junction when the car accelerates.

Lemming

axer wrote: »

Exactly there was plenty of time for the OP to stop once they saw the side indicator lighting up. The OP could not clear the car before the car started their left turn which makes the OP's move illegal.

Eh, he did clear it. It's all there in the freeze-frame footage; a picture says a thousand words.

Edit; and as Cram has succinctly pointed out; that's footage from the REAR of the bike.

Chips Lovell

At this stage the OPs footage has been analysed more times than the Zapruder film.

axer

Lemming wrote: »

Eh, he did clear it. It's all there in the freeze-frame footage; a picture says a thousand words.

Edit; and as Cram has succinctly pointed out; that's footage from the REAR of the bike.

No, watch the video and you can see the car is already moving left while the OP is passing the car - this means the execution of the turn has already started and the OP still passing the car. That is an illegal move.

Moflojo

Lemming wrote: »

I was of the opinion of CramCycle and others earlier in the thread of the OP being at fault for the initial incident but the BMW driver being well out of order after that point. But the more I look at the video, and it's quite telling if I continue forward with freeze-frame motion that Jon had cleared the front of the car before it started its turn. Then the car suddenly surges forward; it's not as if the driver was slowly turning, he accelerates.

I'd agree.

OP took a bit of a chance by going up the inside and should have anticipated the possibility of a left turn and kept back.

Beyond that the driver begins to use his big BMW as a weapon and tries to bully the squishy human on the bike out of his way.

As a driver, in that scenario I would have been jamming on the brakes, allowing the cyclist to get clear of my path, and then checked all mirrors and blind spots for more pesky cyclists before heading on my merry way without anyone's death or injury on my conscience for the rest of my life...

Lemming

axer wrote: »

No, watch the video and you can see the car is already moving left while the OP is passing the car - this means the execution of the turn has already started and the OP still passing the car. That is an illegal move.

The car is pointed straight ahead when cleared.

Hint: observe the front wheel. Its angle remains consistent until just after Jon passes it.

magicbastarder

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

At this stage the OPs footage has been analysed more times than the Zapruder film.

brake, and to the left.
brake, and to the left.

Lemming

magicbastarder wrote: »

brake, and to the left.
brake, and to the left.

Ah, Bill Hicks parody at its finest :pac:

Fortywatt

axer wrote: »

No, watch the video and you can see the car is already moving left while the OP is passing the car - this means the execution of the turn has already started and the OP still passing the car. That is an illegal move.

On whose part? It's a rear-facing camera so we are not seeing the cyclist's viewpoint. Is it open to the driver to make an overtake by the cyclist on the inside illegal by starting to turn left? The cyclist must have right of way once the conditions for a legal overtake on the inside are there - reasonable expectation that the manoeuvre can be completed in time etc. It's also easy to forget that the driver has responsibilities too when starting to manoeuvre - indicating doesn't give him absolute right of way.

axer

Fortywatt wrote: »

On whose part? It's a rear-facing camera so we are not seeing the cyclist's viewpoint. Is it open to the driver to make an overtake by the cyclist on the inside illegal by starting to turn left? The cyclist must have right of way once the conditions for a legal overtake on the inside are there - reasonable expectation that the manoeuvre can be completed in time etc. It's also easy to forget that the driver has responsibilities too when starting to manoeuvre - indicating doesn't give him absolute right of way.

Looking at the wheels of the car as the op is passing its clear they are moving towards the cycle lane. The op could not have reasonably expected he could have successfully passed the car on time that is indicating left and moving over left. The op is overtaking a car indicating and starting to move left so does not have tight of way.

shane1981

I know this junction well. The OP is behind the BMW approaching the junction. The BMW is in a lane for vehicles proceeding straight or turning left.

Regardless of indicators in use or not, there is always risk that a car could take turn to left.

Wishbone Ash

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

At this stage the OPs footage has been analysed more times than the Zapruder film.

Do we have a grassy knoll?

Cookie_Monster

amcalester wrote: »

A cyclist is not allowed overtake a vehicle on the left if that vehicle is indicating to turn left and will complete the maneuver before the cyclist passes.

that only applies if they are in the same lane, there is a separately marked cycle lane there, it's its own lane and make the above meaningless.

The guy can't just cut across it, exactly the same way another car on the BMWs right can't simply turn across him just cos he's indicated.

You can argue semantics on the exact legality of the cycle lane all you want, common sense and practice treats it as a separate lane

the_pen_turner

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that only applies if they are in the same lane, there is a separately marked cycle lane there, it's its own lane and make the above meaningless.

The guy can't just cut across it, exactly the same way another car on the BMWs right can't simply turn across him just cos he's indicated.

You can argue semantics on the exact legality of the cycle lane all you want, common sense and practice treats it as a separate lane

if there was any truth to that then the onus would be on the cyclist to merge into the main lane when their lane stops or disapears

amcalester

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that only applies if they are in the same lane, there is a separately marked cycle lane there, it's its own lane and make the above meaningless.

The guy can't just cut across it, exactly the same way another car on the BMWs right can't simply turn across him just cos he's indicated.

You can argue semantics on the exact legality of the cycle lane all you want, common sense and practice treats it as a separate lane

They are in the same lane for a few reasons one being that the broken white line ends before the junction.

And common sense would be to not to go up the inside of a vehicle indicating left.

What happened next was madness from the driver was madness but cyclists need to take more care in these situations and I say that as a cyclist who learned this the hard way.

KCross

At 9s in that video the cyclist is fully ahead of the BMW with his wheels dead straight, so he had not yet initiated his left turn. The cyclist was already well past the solid white line so already in the junction and the BMW was behind it and clearly has full visibility of the cyclist.

I cant see how the cyclist can be deemed wrong or doing anything to endanger himself here but it all happened pretty quick so I think the driver was just peeved that someone cut inside him and decided to be a p*ick about it.

Sleeper12

Cookie_Monster wrote:

that only applies if they are in the same lane, there is a separately marked cycle lane there, it's its own lane and make the above meaningless.

Doesn't that lane end at a junction? I'm not sure, just asking. I see plenty of junctions where the cycle lane is also part of motor lane according to the road markings.

Don't you always have to give way to traffic on your right if no other rule seems to apply?

fader123

OP, did this incident happen just after 9am this morning?

If so, I coincidentally spotted the same BMW illegally using the bus lane to undertake the traffic along Marino Mart a few moments earlier (I was walking along the side of Fairview Park towards the Dart station). He was sitting in the gridlocked traffic near the pedestrian bridge, then peeled off into the bus lane, incidentally he started indicating as he was making that particular manoeuvre.

*edited to add that while the above is probably not particularly relevant to the current discussion, if you had spotted it you might not have risked passing him on the inside!

Cookie_Monster

the_pen_turner wrote: »

if there was any truth to that then the onus would be on the cyclist to merge into the main lane when their lane stops or disapears

it no more disappears than the two driving lanes... all lanes lose markings crossing the junction and all resume afterwards. They all very obviously continue.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Doesn't that lane end at a junction? I'm not sure, just asking. I see plenty of junctions where the cycle lane is also part of motor lane according to the road markings.

no, it can be seen later in the same clip that the lane continues same as the two driving lanes, it's simply not marked when crossing the junction as there are yellow box markings

ForestFire

KCross wrote: »

At 9s in that video the cyclist is fully ahead of the BMW with his wheels dead straight, so he had not yet initiated his left turn. The cyclist was already well past the solid white line so already in the junction and the BMW was behind it and clearly has full visibility of the cyclist.

I cant see how the cyclist can be deemed wrong or doing anything to endanger himself here but it all happened pretty quick so I think the driver was just peeved that someone cut inside him and decided to be a p*ick about it.

Not defending the drives actions but if you look at it from his perpective for a min.

The cyclist has undertaken him into junction and the car might have even slowed to allow him pass? But at this very point in the video, and you take what you said above , the cyclists was in front of driver, but then the cyclist suddenly brakes at this point.

Maybe the driver thought he delibertly stop to block him after he let him through? Maybe the driver is accelerating as he thinks the bike (without braking) is going to be clear and he does not expect the bike to suddenly stop.

Kaisr Sose

ED E wrote: »

BMWs aren't occupied by drivers, just giant phalluses.

Generalisations....I have seen giant phalluses driving all brands of vehicles.

We were up in arms about the categorisation of cyclists on the LLS last Friday, so let’s not be guilty of the same!

I drive a BMW by the way and I neither am, nor unfortunately have, a giant phallus

Kaisr Sose

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It's a bit confusing looking at it from a rear camera angle, and you probably weren't thinking straight because of the BMW driver's actions (if I understand it correctly now), but you technically should have dismounted crossing the pedestrian crossing.

Such a pedantic comment. The cyclist was not planning on going left in the first place. Give him a break. The driver should not have persisted with thier turn. By the way, I have seen cars pass a green pedestrian lamp on many occasions....for no reason at all other than they could not be bothered to stop!