Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

Options
1234568»

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Legally, the cyclist should have slowed and let the car continue. Also legally, the car should have observed the cyclist, made a judgement on distance and speed and not started the turn (different laws, one being more open to interpretation than the other). Either way, a legal case would depend more on the AGS and their willingness to proceed with it.

    Civil case wise, much the same problem, you will have legal eagles who can argue either side quite well and it would come down to the judge on the day.

    Morally, again, much like the first point, I think they are both in the wrong but in my opinion, the turn was clear and being made, while the car was morally wrong to start it as the cyclist presumably is visible in enough time and is doing a fair clip, the cyclist was also culpable as it was a possibility and should have been more defensive.

    Form a personal point of view, I think the cyclist was much more in the wrong than the car using any of the three areas above (which are all more gray than anyone on the internet would like to admit), but in no way was the motorist in the right, just not as much in the wrong.


  • Options
    #213
    keeponrockin
    Registered Users Posts: 556 ✭✭✭keeponrockin


    Did you ever see the sign on the back of trucks..DO NOT PASS ON INSIDE IF VEHICLE IS TURNING LEFT..It applies to cars aswell..U undercut them when they were clearly turning left..you failed to anticipate this and so are in the wrong.


  • Options
    #214
    Tow
    Registered Users Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭Tow


    Technically you were overtaking on the inside, which is wrong.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Options
    #215
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Tow wrote: »
    Technically you were overtaking on the inside, which is wrong.

    Cyclists are allowed to pass on the left except in specific circumstances (of which this would appear to be one).


  • Options
    #216
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    This footage is perfect for this debate in that it does not show one way or another who has gone wrong here.

    You cannot tell how fast the car was going before it enters the frame.
    You cannot tell how fast the bike was going before it enters the frame.
    You cannot tell if the car was indicating before it moves to take the turn.
    You cannot tell if the driver looks in their wing mirror.
    You cannot tell if the bike had decelerated from a higher speed before impact.
    You cannot tell if the driver looks over their shoulder.
    You cannot tell if the car just overtook the bike.
    All you can say is that the car turned and that the bike ran into it.

    This gives an awful lot of scope for speculating on what occurred. I think that it is not possible to apportion blame definitively based on what we have seen. I'm a bit confused by how people can say it was 100% one person's fault or another's. You just cannot tell.

    You can put forward scenarios which fit the footage we saw which could tilt it either way, but they may not match the actual events.

    If both were flying along, and the car nudged ahead, hauled on the brakes, and turned in as they flicked the indicators as an afterthought we would reach one conclusion. If the car had been waiting patiently indicators flashing at the turn as the bike weaved up behind them we could draw another conclusion. Both fit the footage.

    In any event, if I was cycling that bike I would have been a lot warier of vehicles loitering at an entrance/junction, and if I was driving that car, I sure as sneck wouldn't have turned across an oncoming bike, right of way or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    check_six wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused by how people can say it was 100% one person's fault or another's. You just cannot tell.

    You can put forward scenarios which fit the footage we saw which could tilt it either way, but they may not match the actual events.
    Not all your points are true,

    You cannot tell if the car was indicating before it moves to take the turn.

    Yes you can, you can clearly see that the indicator light was switching off as it enters the frame. This means it has had a least 1 full cycle of on time before entering the frame.

    You cannot tell if the bike had decelerated from a higher speed before impact.
    Well god help us if he was:eek: but if he was already decelerating before entering the frame, and shows that he saw the potential danger, then why did he not continue to decelerate when in frame?

    Most people are saying, by the current Laws, in is the cyclists fault.

    Could the driver have been more careful, possible, but the cyclist still broke the law.

    Should the law be change, or be more clear (As in Germany), I believe so, but that is still not the case now.

    Would this work in Ireland??:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #218
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    ForestFire wrote: »
    Not all your points are true,

    You cannot tell if the car was indicating before it moves to take the turn.

    Yes you can, you can clearly see that the indicator light was switching off as it enters the frame. This means it has had a least 1 full cycle of on time before entering the frame.

    I think that the point is that you can't tell how long the car has been indicating beyond that. If the car had been indicating for ages, that's one thing, but if it only flicked on the indicator as the light enters the frame then it's too late and the car is not in a position to clear the turn before the bike arrives (which it doesn't).
    ForestFire wrote: »
    You cannot tell if the bike had decelerated from a higher speed before impact.
    Well god help us if he was:eek: but if he was already decelerating before entering the frame, and shows that he saw the potential danger, then why did he not continue to decelerate when in frame?
    He could have had the brakes on full and still arrived into the frame at that speed depending on how fast he was travelling prior, you cannot tell from the footage. He could have been accelerating into the crash, you just cannot tell.
    Also, just because you identify a potential danger doesn't mean you always have time to avoid it.

    ForestFire wrote: »
    Most people are saying, by the current Laws, in is the cyclists fault.

    Could the driver have been more careful, possible, but the cyclist still broke the law.
    My point is that you cannot tell this from the footage. Also, that if I was put in either position, I would have done something different to mitigate against the other party doing something stupid. I'd like to think that everyone on here would do the same in either party's shoes.
    ForestFire wrote: »
    Should the law be change, or be more clear (As in Germany), I believe so, but that is still not the case now.

    Would this work in Ireland??:rolleyes:

    How do the German laws work?


  • Options
    #219
    Cyclenutter
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Cyclenutter


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Legally, the cyclist should have slowed and let the car continue. Also legally, the car should have observed the cyclist, made a judgement on distance and speed and not started the turn (different laws, one being more open to interpretation than the other). Either way, a legal case would depend more on the AGS and their willingness to proceed with it.

    Civil case wise, much the same problem, you will have legal eagles who can argue either side quite well and it would come down to the judge on the day.

    Morally, again, much like the first point, I think they are both in the wrong but in my opinion, the turn was clear and being made, while the car was morally wrong to start it as the cyclist presumably is visible in enough time and is doing a fair clip, the cyclist was also culpable as it was a possibility and should have been more defensive.

    Form a personal point of view, I think the cyclist was much more in the wrong than the car using any of the three areas above (which are all more gray than anyone on the internet would like to admit), but in no way was the motorist in the right, just not as much in the wrong.

    Once again read the Legal Status on page 98
    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/provision_of_cycling_facilities_ch4_2006.pdf
    As determined by the NTA. You must yield to cyclist in a cycle lane.
    Just as you would a bus lane or any other lane.


  • Options
    #220
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,758 ✭✭✭cython


    Cyclenutter wrote: »
    Once again read the Legal Status on page 98
    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/provision_of_cycling_facilities_ch4_2006.pdf
    As determined by the NTA. You must yield to cyclist in a cycle lane.
    Just as you would a bus lane or any other lane.

    That is a design manual. Not the legislation. Further it is a 12 year old manual, and updates have been made to the relevant legislation in that time. On top of all that, the NTA's documentation (and thus interpretation) is no more legally binding or enforceable on road users than the RSA's interpretation in the ROTR book. It is the legislation that is important, so please cite some of relevance.


  • Options
    #221
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Cyclenutter wrote: »
    Once again read the Legal Status on page 98
    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/archive/provision_of_cycling_facilities_ch4_2006.pdf
    As determined by the NTA. You must yield to cyclist in a cycle lane.
    Just as you would a bus lane or any other lane.

    Again, not a legal document. Do you have the SI or similar, it would be handier than a policy document. Considering some of the issues I would have with policy documents, I'd prefer the legal standing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    check_six wrote: »

    How do the German laws work?

    With the right tools it would be possible to calculate the speed and deceleration of the bike, but I doubt anyone posting here can do that.

    The German laws work the correct way of course:D

    The cycle lane is consider a full proper lane, with the same rules as any other lane on the road.

    Therefore you cannot enter it or cross it without ensuring it is clear first.

    This includes cyclists coming from behind that you must check for before turning.


    In Germany this means that the cars are tailed back while they wait for the cyclist and they are quit happy to do this (Why wouldn't they be:))


    I can imagine in Dublin, the cars stuck behind other cars giving way to cyclist and how patient they would be:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #223
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    All this said, the last few mornings, I have found cars waiting for me, even though I had slowed for them to complete their turn, it is a nice change of pace to be the usual rather than the exception.

    Typically I move out to the right of the car regardless unless turning myself. Two vehicles in particular, a DB 145 and a fairly new audi (shock and surprise at the latter), had caught me in their rear mirror, and even though I had moved right, waited until they had me on their left before moving in. You know, like a road user is meant to do. I gave a wave to acknowledge the precaution, and I got a wave and a smile back.

    If this continues, my post count may just disappear altogether, long may it last.


  • Options
    #224
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,108 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    check_six wrote: »
    I think that the point is that you can't tell how long the car has been indicating beyond that. If the car had been indicating for ages, that's one thing, but if it only flicked on the indicator as the light enters the frame then it's too late and the car is not in a position to clear the turn before the bike arrives (which it doesn't).

    If he was unable to stop himself from hitting the car it would seem he was cycling without due care and attention.

    What if the car had taken the turn 1 minute before he arrived but happened to break down mid turn? Would he still have plowed into the side of it?

    It looks like he was oblivious to the car turning until it was too late...which is poor cycling as the car was there for a while and indicating for the entirety of the video.


  • Options
    #225
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    Cyclenutter wrote: »
    “Not afforded the same status” - are there classes where you can be trained to make up stuff like that.

    Yes. They're called Law Degree Lectures...


  • Options
    #226
    queldy
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭queldy


    To those who are "blaming" the cyclist - really guys, please just stop it.
    If you are travelling at 30km/h, you cover ~12.5m in 1.5 seconds, that means the length of 2 cars (including the one which is cutting your lane (or track if you wish) and the space in between them).
    If you really think the cyclist is at fault, than it means something like that never happened to you.
    The car stops before turning left, 'cause the garda car is impeding the turn; it turns left as soon as the garda car moves - meaning, the driver was not (and I'm pretty sure he never did in his entire life) checking his left for the cyclist (which, by the way, he overtook a few second earlier without even realizing his existence).

    This is all very sad to me, this "acceptance", this giving up to the system that we are all showing.
    I have been a week in New Orleans few months ago - I was shocked of seeing the respect drivers give you as pedestrian and cyclist - they see you, they know you are there, they almost scared of coming close to you. They would stop even if you are not showing intention of moving. Did work the same way in Germany, last year. And in Copenhagen, and a bit in Wien too.
    It doesnt work like this in Italy (no way!), in Hungary, in Czech Republic and so on.
    I don't know where this come from, but here in Dublin... no guys, it cannot go on like this. Drivers out there are against you (cyclist, pedestrian, driver your self), it's a battle every day. In some other countries, it is transport. Here, it is not - it's something different.
    And the worse is when we surrender to the "cyclist was at fault, he should have thought, he should have prevented, he should have forecasted, he should have seen the 200 dangers around him second after second, he should have stayed home, he should have bought a car himself and forgotten about the bike for the rest of his life".
    This is what is so sad about all this - the cyclist's fault (in a cycling lane, in 2018, in an European capital).


  • Options
    #227
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    queldy wrote: »
    To those who are "blaming" the cyclist - really guys, please just stop it.
    If you are travelling at 30km/h, you cover ~12.5m in 1.5 seconds, that means the length of 2 cars (including the one which is cutting your lane (or track if you wish) and the space in between them).
    If you really think the cyclist is at fault, than it means something like that never happened to you.
    The car stops before turning left, 'cause the garda car is impeding the turn; it turns left as soon as the garda car moves - meaning, the driver was not (and I'm pretty sure he never did in his entire life) checking his left for the cyclist (which, by the way, he overtook a few second earlier without even realizing his existence).

    This is all very sad to me, this "acceptance", this giving up to the system that we are all showing.
    I have been a week in New Orleans few months ago - I was shocked of seeing the respect drivers give you as pedestrian and cyclist - they see you, they know you are there, they almost scared of coming close to you. They would stop even if you are not showing intention of moving. Did work the same way in Germany, last year. And in Copenhagen, and a bit in Wien too.
    It doesnt work like this in Italy (no way!), in Hungary, in Czech Republic and so on.
    I don't know where this come from, but here in Dublin... no guys, it cannot go on like this. Drivers out there are against you (cyclist, pedestrian, driver your self), it's a battle every day. In some other countries, it is transport. Here, it is not - it's something different.
    And the worse is when we surrender to the "cyclist was at fault, he should have thought, he should have prevented, he should have forecasted, he should have seen the 200 dangers around him second after second, he should have stayed home, he should have bought a car himself and forgotten about the bike for the rest of his life".
    This is what is so sad about all this - the cyclist's fault (in a cycling lane, in 2018, in an European capital).
    It was the cyclist's fault - there is no evidence to suggest the car had just overtaken the cyclist. The cyclist was effectively over taking the car on the left and failed to pay necessary attention. It has already been discussed that a cycle "lane" in Ireland offers little to no rights and is really just an extension of the car lane - or worse. Cyclists need to move away from the belief that a cycle track gives them any right of way - for their (our) own safety. Its why it would probably be safer if any non fully segregated cycle tracks are done away with.


  • Options
    #228
    queldy
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭queldy


    axer wrote: »
    It was the cyclist's fault - there is no evidence to suggest the car had just overtaken the cyclist. The cyclist was effectively over taking the car on the left and failed to pay necessary attention. It has already been discussed that a cycle "lane" in Ireland offers little to no rights and is really just an extension of the car lane - or worse. Cyclists need to move away from the belief that a cycle track gives them any right of way - for their (our) own safety. Its why it would probably be safer if any non fully segregated cycle tracks are done away with.

    Yes, thank you.
    This is exactly what I was talking about. You have accepted it; you have surrendered to the car-centrism long long time ago.


  • Options
    #229
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    queldy wrote: »
    Yes, thank you.
    This is exactly what I was talking about. You have accepted it; you have surrendered to the car-centrism long long time ago.

    Blindly ignoring reality is not going to change anything, and in fact it may get you killed or injured.

    Cyclists are like any other road users, or indeed pedestrians, they do have to be aware of the hundreds of dangers around them every second and act accordingly.

    We've all seen the stats, we know that drivers are responsible for most accidents and that policies towards cyclists are often dangerous and misguided - that does not mean that cyclists are absolved of responsibility to cycle safely and be aware of their surroundings.


  • Options
    #230
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    queldy wrote: »
    Yes, thank you.
    This is exactly what I was talking about. You have accepted it; you have surrendered to the car-centrism long long time ago.
    If you mean I obey the law and cycle according to the law then yes I do. Not acting like I have legal right of way when I don't not only is the legal way to use the road system but it will also reduce the chance of death and injury while I am cycling. This does not mean I accept that the way things are are they way they should remain.


  • Options
    #231
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Fian


    There are two seperate questions here:

    Was it the cyclists fault? Answer - yes.

    Was it the motorists fault? Answer - yes.

    These are not mutually exclusive - it is not a binary question, there are degrees of fault on both sides.

    Cyclist appears not to have noticed that car was turning left, car appears not to have noticed that a cyclist was approaching on his inside. If either of them did notice and proceeded anyway they are fools/psychopaths.

    Where there is less "grey area" is who would be found liable if it went to court, and who would be injured. For those two questions there is a different answer on each side. So cyclist got hurt clearly and should have been more careful to protect himself. Driver will lose his no claims bonus and should also have been more careful to protect himself.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement