Cam footage - who is at fault here?!

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 12:11am #1

So I was on my regular commute this morning. Coming up to a junction level with a car, myself in the cycle lane proceeding straight ahead, motorist turning left.

I've done this journey 100s of times and 99.99% of the time, car looks in mirror, slows and waits for opportunity to turn... that is... until this tool decides differently. I may be wrong but i'm pretty sure I had right of way here.

If above link is broken ->

https://youtu.be/EQZPowFh7xw

Effects · 16-01-2018 12:38am

Video isn't working.

16-01-2018 12:48am

The evasion you had to take there was bonkers, at 2 or 3 points because of his actions he was 100% aware of you being where you where.

BUT you should have seen he was indicating left on the approach and sat back im afraid. You reach him just as he's about to turn.

16-01-2018 12:52am

Fixed embedding for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQZPowFh7xw

the_pen_turner · 16-01-2018 12:56am

you are. you can see at 7 seconds that the car is indicating. your not allowed to overtake on the left if the car infront is turning left

also the car was wrong for the second part.

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 1:01am

Actually what you don't see is the queue of cars ahead of him. We reached the junction at the same time.

the_pen_turner · 16-01-2018 1:02am

its hard to get the full picture with only a rear facing cam

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 1:05am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

its hard to get the full picture with only a rear facing cam

Yeah in this instance it matters. I'll have to invest in front facing for completeness. He slowed down to my speed due to the traffic ahead of him. I Didnt catch him up purposely.

the_pen_turner · 16-01-2018 1:08am

was he indicating before you got to him

mickdw · 16-01-2018 1:11am

Hard to know full story from that cam but the first glimpse we get of the bmw shows his indicator on so why put yourself in such a situation would be my question? If you know he is turning, keep yourself in a safe position. If you keep doing that type of move, a half blind driver will knock you down. He will likely be in the wrong but does it matter if you are injured or killed?

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 1:14am

Point Taking. Footage is not complete. Indicator came on as i got to his rear about 10 metres out so I'd call it last minute. Given the slow speeds both of us braked handy enough.

Though he was determined to get by me!

Cookie_Monster · 16-01-2018 1:43am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you are. you can see at 7 seconds that the car is indicating. your not allowed to overtake on the left if the car infront is turning left

indicating does not give you right of way to cross a lane if there is someone already in that lane. The fact the cyclist is slightly behind rather than along side is not relevant, it was not safe for the car to enter and cross the cycle lane and he should have waited until the lane was clear

ittakestwo · 16-01-2018 1:59am

I presume the cam is on your bike and your not the bike in the cam?

If so the driver is 100% at fault here as he cant make the turn with out forceing you to break. This is the same as a 2 lane road, if you are on the inside lane and want to go to the out side lane you have to make sure there is enough room, even if you are 1 or 2 meters ahead of the car on the inside lane you can't barge across. If they can't take a left with out forceing you stop then they are at fault if a collision occurs.

CramCycle · 16-01-2018 7:20am

As said earlier, without a front cam it is impossible to say. From my perspective, your both in the wrong from a "whats the correct thing to do", from a legal stand point, I think you are in the wrong based solely on the video.

Morally:
Driver was turning left (and as far as the objective viewer knows, indicating in good time), you should not have went up the inside. Either hold back or go around them.
Driver knew you were there and knew where you would be, should not have went, right of way or not.
When you got round, it looks like you made it in front and stopped (perspective is a bitch) but then you keep pushing. At this stage, time to let it go. the driver is still pushing, being in the right isn't what I want on my gravestone.
(I add a caveat that what I say on the internet and what I would do in real life may be completely different).

Legally:
If the driver was at the turn, indicating, and moving before you got to them, then they had the right of way as I think, and could be wrong, that cycle tracks on road are not separate lanes. You can use them to overtake on the left but do not have right of way in the above scenario.

knucklehead6 · 16-01-2018 7:25am

jon1981 wrote: »

Though he was determined to get by me!

Nope... from what i saw you were the one who passed him and you were the determined one.

If he had passed you then cut you off to make the turn he'd be wrong, but from my pov you were more wrong there.

And no i'm not a cyclist, but i have driven support car for cycle events in the past.

ted1 · 16-01-2018 7:27am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you are. you can see at 7 seconds that the car is indicating. your not allowed to overtake on the left if the car infront is turning left

also the car was wrong for the second part.

I think your getting the op mixed up with the muppet behind him who comes off the footpath

Lumen · 16-01-2018 7:31am

I think Cram is right. When using a cycle lane you are perpetually undertaking which is legal by exception unless there is a vehicle turning left. Then you have to stop undertaking.

The intent of the law appears to be to prevent conflict by putting the onus on the cyclist to manage speed relative to traffic being undertaken, but in practice it allows for cutting up with impunity.

Practically speaking you have to be prepared for vehicles turning across you from both directions at every junction you pass and every dropped kerb, regardless of who is right.

buffalo · 16-01-2018 8:34am

As per Cram and Lumen, the law (SI 2012/332) says:

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where
vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or
are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal
cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and
there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle
in which the driver has signalled an intention to
turn to the left will execute a movement to the
left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

The driver was indicating the entire time they were in frame. Assuming they were indicating for a couple of seconds before that, then you were not performing a legal overtake.

If they weren't indicating before you started your overtake, then you were in the legal right, but probably not wise to continue with the overtake anyway.

cython · 16-01-2018 8:38am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

indicating does not give you right of way to cross a lane if there is someone already in that lane. The fact the cyclist is slightly behind rather than along side is not relevant, it was not safe for the car to enter and cross the cycle lane and he should have waited until the lane was clear

ittakestwo wrote: »

I presume the cam is on your bike and your not the bike in the cam?

If so the driver is 100% at fault here as he cant make the turn with out forceing you to break. This is the same as a 2 lane road, if you are on the inside lane and want to go to the out side lane you have to make sure there is enough room, even if you are 1 or 2 meters ahead of the car on the inside lane you can't barge across. If they can't take a left with out forceing you stop then they are at fault if a collision occurs.

Buffalo, Lumen and CramCycle have already addressed this well, but the crux of the issue is that nowhere in the Irish statutes are cycle tracks equated to or given the same status as lanes, so it can't be assumed that there is a responsibility on drivers to yield to cyclists using them to pass on the left. If they are delineated by a solid line (mandatory lane), then obviously it's a do not enter for motorised vehicles, but where the line goes dashed as is the case here, the law affords basically no protections or particular right of way.

listermint · 16-01-2018 8:47am

Legal or not please do not perform these maneuvers, there's nothing gained from being right and dead.

If you see the indicator 10 metres out then slow down and possibly go down the otherside of him.

You put your body on the reliance a driver would see you, when the chances are they could have their mind in the office or on last year's holiday.

It's not worth being right in these scenarios and too many die taking this risk. Usually with vehicles that can't or haven't seen you

Lumen · 16-01-2018 8:51am

The obvious legislative solution is to make left turning when being undertaken illegal, then both parties would be in the wrong in the event of a collision.

Then, if people behaved according to the law, they would have to slow down and "negotiate" the turn, i.e. the driver would have to wait until any approaching cyclists had stopped.

Seve OB · 16-01-2018 9:00am

ittakestwo wrote: »

I presume the cam is on your bike and your not the bike in the cam?

If so the driver is 100% at fault here as he cant make the turn with out forceing you to break. This is the same as a 2 lane road, if you are on the inside lane and want to go to the out side lane you have to make sure there is enough room, even if you are 1 or 2 meters ahead of the car on the inside lane you can't barge across. If they can't take a left with out forceing you stop then they are at fault if a collision occurs.

Comments like this :rolleyes:

I often wonder where some people learn the rules of the road.

Alek · 16-01-2018 9:05am

that cycle tracks on road are not separate lanes.

I was always convinced they are. Does anyone know what does the law say?

16-01-2018 9:12am

Guys, I've seen a guy getting wiped out on the road. He was in the right and couldn't avoid anything but that didn't matter one bit, he was dead by the time that I got to him.

It's not f#cking worth it.

cython · 16-01-2018 9:14am

Alek wrote: »

I was always convinced they are. Does anyone know what does the law say?

Almost all (if not actually all) of the legislation relating to cycle tracks is contained in SI 332/2012:

“Cycle tracks

14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—

(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,

(b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or

(c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058.

(3) Where a cycle track, provided by traffic sign number RUS 009 in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line), is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

(5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

(b) A reference in paragraph (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

Additionally, the signs/markings used for cycle tracks (RRM 022 and RRM 023) are specific to them, and not the same as those used for "normal" traffic lanes, meaning the same restrictions and caveats do not necessarily apply to them as to traffic lane markings such as RRM 001 and RRM 002a/b, etc.

Cookie_Monster · 16-01-2018 9:17am

cython wrote: »

Buffalo, Lumen and CramCycle have already addressed this well, but the crux of the issue is that nowhere in the Irish statutes are cycle tracks equated to or given the same status as lanes, so it can't be assumed that there is a responsibility on drivers to yield to cyclists using them to pass on the left. If they are delineated by a solid line (mandatory lane), then obviously it's a do not enter for motorised vehicles, but where the line goes dashed as is the case here, the law affords basically no protections or particular right of way.

how is it not the same as the dashed lines between two driving lanes?

650Ginge · 16-01-2018 9:20am

2 tonne car indicating left. But you pushed on anyway.

The 5 driver is an ignorant bollocks too. Two of you at it but he's less likely to get hurt.

average_runner · 16-01-2018 9:26am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how is it not the same as the dashed lines between two driving lanes?

Actually there is no dash line at the turn, the lane ended at the full white line!

comanche_cor · 16-01-2018 9:36am

So I cycle this junction regularly, its a crappy junction like a lot of junctions here in this area!

Personally I would never be up the inside of any vehicle at a junction - I would normally hanging back at the rear of the car, making myself part of the traffic i.e. holding road position, until past the turning point. We all make mistakes - its just, as we all know, that when a driver makes a mistake us as cyclist come off worse.

IMO both have made mistakes here, you were most likely in the blind spot of the driver 'if' they checked their mirrors. The reaction of the driver when they did spot of you was awful, absolutely horrible. It looked like they were trying to force you off road! Most likely they were distracted and thought you were turning left.

As a driver I would let a cyclist through in this scenario as I don't trust them if they are up my inside at a junction. No clue what the rules of priority are in this scenario, but common sense should prevail!

I simply think that this could have been avoided by hanging back a few feet and waiting a few seconds.

cython · 16-01-2018 10:06am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how is it not the same as the dashed lines between two driving lanes?

If you see my more recent post, they are different markings on the road, and thus afforded different meanings.

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 10:13am

comanche_cor wrote: »

So I cycle this junction regularly, its a crappy junction like a lot of junctions here in this area!

Personally I would never be up the inside of any vehicle at a junction - I would normally hanging back at the rear of the car, making myself part of the traffic i.e. holding road position, until past the turning point. We all make mistakes - its just, as we all know, that when a driver makes a mistake us as cyclist come off worse.

IMO both have made mistakes here, you were most likely in the blind spot of the driver 'if' they checked their mirrors. The reaction of the driver when they did spot of you was awful, absolutely horrible. It looked like they were trying to force you off road! Most likely they were distracted and thought you were turning left.

As a driver I would let a cyclist through in this scenario as I don't trust them if they are up my inside at a junction. No clue what the rules of priority are in this scenario, but common sense should prevail!

I simply think that this could have been avoided by hanging back a few feet and waiting a few seconds.

You know I've thought about this again. Normally I am the guy that would move to the right and let him turn. Normally I'm the guy giving way while other cyclists come up behind me and just keep going, completely voiding my ability to give way. (that's another topic for another thread)

But in this instance the front camera is key to the situation

There was a car in front that was slow to take off going straight ahead when the light turned green, hence the car slowing down beside me. When I came alongside him due to him having to slow down for the car ahead, he actually accelerated slightly to make the turn once the car moved off. He saw me.

Either way, there was equal confusion on both sides. However, he did more or less try to run me off the road twice.

droidus · 16-01-2018 10:30am

If it was me I would have let him go unless he was completely stopped and it was clear that he wasnt going to proceed.

On the other hand (and legality aside), what kind of s**thead turns across a cyclist and then continues to drive into him even when its clear he's proceeding? If you are driving in that situation the only safe thing to do is to wait until the cycle lane is clear before turning.

Lumen · 16-01-2018 10:43am

Coming back to the video, I'd say that as soon as the bike moves clear in front of the car's front bumper it has right of way, regardless of what happened before.

So whilst we don't know who was wrong in the initial pass (no front footage), there is only one person definitely in the wrong in this video, and that's the driver.

droidus wrote: »

what kind of s**thead turns across a cyclist and then continues to drive into him even when its clear he's proceeding?

Exactly.

droidus · 16-01-2018 10:46am

Yeah, you could take the initial turn as being a mistake - he technically has right of way, and maybe he hadn't checked his mirrors again before he started turning - but to continue on as if the cyclist wasn't there when he's right in front of you?

Wishbone Ash · 16-01-2018 11:46am

Leaving aside any legal rights, the car driver should have stopped when it was clear that a more vulnerable road user was in his turning line.

ED E · 16-01-2018 11:53am

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Leaving aside any legal rights, the car driver should have stopped when it was clear that a more vulnerable road user was in his turning line.

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

Wildsurfer · 16-01-2018 12:17pm

A little poem thought to me by my late Dad that I will share with you now OP:
"Here lies the body of Benjamin Gray,
who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he cycled along,
But now he is dead as though he was wrong"

CramCycle · 16-01-2018 1:24pm

comanche_cor wrote: »

As a driver I would let a cyclist through in this scenario as I don't trust them if they are up my inside at a junction. No clue what the rules of priority are in this scenario, but common sense should prevail!

Precisely, the driver of the larger or vehicle capable of causing most harm/danger should be acting in the most risk adverse in every scenario. Not giving carte blanche to smaller vehicles and cyclists to not give a sh1t but just sort of saying, you know what, maybe the thing that causes the danger should be handled with more care.
I trust no one anymore, its just easier. I wave thank you to people who stop to let me through but I nearly always indicate and go around them if there is even a hint of turning.
When I started commuting more and more on the N11, I quickly learned to take the lane at the bottom of Fosters Avenue to stop left hooks. Most mornings I end up in the driving lane. The first few weeks I got some angry huffs from bus drivers but now, more people are doing it, cars can turn left earlier and buses get through quicker as well.

jon1981 wrote: »

There was a car in front that was slow to take off going straight ahead when the light turned green, hence the car slowing down beside me. When I came alongside him due to him having to slow down for the car ahead, he actually accelerated slightly to make the turn once the car moved off. He saw me.

Nothing excuses the behaviour, being in the right is not a card that lets you off the hook for being a c*****g.

Avatar MIA · 16-01-2018 1:32pm

OP,

Did you cut across the BMW driver to exit through a pedestrian crossing (green man)? And you want to know who is in the wrong?

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 1:43pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

OP,

Did you cut across the BMW driver to exit through a pedestrian crossing (green man)? And you want to know who is in the wrong?

Yes I did to avoid being f**king run over. As you can see there was no pedestrian in the vicinity of the crossing. What did you expect me to do?!

16-01-2018 1:43pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Legally:
If the driver was at the turn, indicating, and moving before you got to them, then they had the right of way as I think, and could be wrong, that cycle tracks on road are not separate lanes.

Just on a point of fact pausing the video at 7 seconds the bicycle is firmly alongside the car which is indicating (I think) but not yet at the turn and certainly not yet 'moving' (if by moving we mean executing the turn).

Don't disagree with the general sentiment and I would also hold back, but I think the driver is far more 'guilty' here.

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 1:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on a point of fact pausing the video at 7 seconds the bicycle is firmly alongside the car which is indicating (I think) but not yet at the turn and certainly not yet 'moving' (if by moving we mean executing the turn).

Don't disagree with the general sentiment and I would also hold back, but I think the driver is far more 'guilty' here.

You know, I can accept the partial blame , the behaviour of the driver afterwards is what shocked me.

07Lapierre · 16-01-2018 1:48pm

OP why did you stop? It seems to me that if you had kept going, you would have cleared the junction and the BMW could have turned behind you? To me, it looks like you stopped so you could confront the driver?

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 1:49pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

OP why did you stop? It seems to me that if you had kept going, you would have cleared the junction and the BMW could have turned behind you? To me, it looks like you stopped so you could confront the driver?

No way, if I hadn't stopped I definitely would have been across the bonnet. I wasn't confident I would have cleared him. I could see him continuing his move as I was passing the corner so I slowed down in case he did clip me.

twowheelsonly · 16-01-2018 1:54pm

jon1981 wrote: »

Actually what you don't see is the queue of cars ahead of him. We reached the junction at the same time.

IMO, and given that there's only rear cam footage, you only reached the junction at the same time because you came up inside him as he was indicating to turn. You should have hung back and given him time to do so, just as the cyclist who was following you did. If that was a truck or a bus you were toast...

Expect the unexpected and look after yourself. Don't expect others to look after you out there.

BTW, if the video showed that the car wasn't indicating I would be 100% on your side but it doesn't. If that video was shown at your inquest then I'd bet that it would be 'death by misadventure' due to the fact that you took a chance by trying to undertake a vehicle that was turning left.

07Lapierre · 16-01-2018 1:55pm

jon1981 wrote: »

No way, if I hadn't stopped I definitely would have been across the bonnet. I wasn't confident I would have cleared him.

Then you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The BMW driver was an ass! Regardless of legalities, there’s no excuse for deliberately driving at someone.

ford2600 · 16-01-2018 1:58pm

To answer OP (had there being injuries to warrant it) in a civil court you are getting paid in a criminal case he doesn't get convicted

Avatar MIA · 16-01-2018 2:00pm

jon1981 wrote: »

Yes I did to avoid being f**king run over. As you can see there was no pedestrian in the vicinity of the crossing. What did you expect me to do?!

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.

jon1981 · 16-01-2018 2:01pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

but you technically should have dismounted crossing the pedestrian crossing.

Yeah, i could have killed someone, sorry about that.

Avatar MIA · 16-01-2018 2:04pm

jon1981 wrote: »

Yeah, i could have killed someone, sorry about that.

No, but if you're on an internet forum complaining about who was right and who was wrong it's to be highlighted.

Cyclists (not all) can sometimes pick and choose the traffic legislation that suits them rather than what is expected. That's the point.

CramCycle · 16-01-2018 2:05pm

MOD VOICE: To save this going down the rabbit hole, lets focus on the turning car and the cyclist going straight through, and the incident involving them alone. While people may be correct about ped crossings, or the cyclist behind on the footpath, it is not the point of the thread and it is only trying to take away from the discussion point. Any questions via PM