Dash cam saves your ass (no Roundabout stuff please :)

I really wonder if these could lower our premiums.... you're essentially a walking camera

dickwod1 wrote: »

PMSL ... the first guy missed his turn and I'm undertaking him? weird comment

What so funny about nearly hitting a cyclist? When leaving the roundabout you are supposed to take extra care and check for other road users (for example cyclists or motorcyclists continuing around the roundabout). You should have yielded and allowed him/her to return to the left hand side of the road. Also, you approached the roundabout in the right lane and left the roundabout in the right lane when there was no traffic in your left lane.

Fair enough, the cyclist made a mistake but they weren't intentionally breaking the rules of the road. You on the other hand show little consideration for the cyclist and are more at fault in my opinion.

You cannot see the red light in the video. If the second cyclist had a red light then they are at fault.

Páid wrote: »

What so funny about nearly hitting a cyclist? When leaving the roundabout you are supposed to take extra care and check for other road users (for example cyclists or motorcyclists continuing around the roundabout). You should have yielded and allowed him/her to return to the left hand side of the road. Also, you approached the roundabout in the right lane and left the roundabout in the right lane when there was no traffic in your left lane.

Fair enough, the cyclist made a mistake but they weren't intentionally breaking the rules of the road. You on the other hand show little consideration for the cyclist and are more at fault in my opinion.

You cannot see the red light in the video. If the second cyclist had a red light then they are at fault.

Pretty sure.....yep....your wrong about everything except the last line.

Barrel wrote: »

what did you want the OP to do? ... slam on in the middle of a 2 lane roundabout with traffic aproaching from all directions to let a cyclist who has cycle paths all around him but still choses to be on the road to turn around and cross back across 2 lanes of traffic to get to the left where there is a cycle lane anyway? ... if this was a motorbike would you day the same?

The motorist wasn't travelling at speed and the cyclist is clearly visible from the very beginning (when the driver was halted) so there should be no need to "slam on".

On a roundabout, traffic comes from behind or from the left.

The motorist should have been in the left lane both approaching the roundabout and leaving it as there was no traffic in the left lane. If he had been, he would not have came any where near the cyclist when exiting.

I'm not saying the cyclist is without fault, they clearly made a mistake. Undertaking the cyclist so close could have made a bad situation worse.

dickwod1 wrote: »

OBV Im laughing at your very silly comment

If I stood on the brakes I would have caused a major pile up - I seen what he was doing I slowed down and I moved over to give him room - its a two lane roundabout with the left lane being a bus lane both before and after the junction bar 10 meter's where I came from and was going to so I'm perfectly entitled to be in the right lane and to continue on straight - as for the person made a mistake and he didn't intentionally mean to break the rules of the road is irrelevant to the situation

You're the one that doesn't understand that you should be yielding to someone ahead of you already exiting the roundabout. You don't seem to slow down at all in the video. Even if you had the right of way in this case (and you don't in my opinion), that right is not absolute, you still have to proceed with caution. When you saw that the cyclist missed his/her turn and exited in the right hand side of your lane you should not have undertook them, instead you should have yielded.

Barrel wrote: »

and traffic approaches while your yielding from the right?

and you need to look up what undertaking actually is

and its the cyclist thats totally and completely at fault

I was talking about the incident where the motorist & cyclist exits the roundabout. The traffic from the right where the motorist joins the roundabout isn't of any relevance here.

From the current rules of the road page 130;

When leaving the roundabout take extra care at all exits, checking for other
road users – for example, cyclists and motorcyclists who may be continuing on
the roundabout.

The motorist clearly undertakes the cyclist as they exit the roundabout.

Yes, the cyclist is at fault, I have said that twice already.

aman23 wrote: »

Also from p130 - Treat the roundabout as a junction. You must yield to traffic coming from the right, but keep moving if the way is clear.
bike should have yielded to car, not only coz its in the rules of the road, but coz cars always win, in a collision with Lycra wearing idiots:P

That is from the section marked "Approaching a roundabout" where you have to yield to traffic already on the roundabout. The motorist and cyclist are exiting the roundabout in this case.

It is precisely because cars always win that they should yield to "lycra wearing idiots" (and pedestrians, motorbikes, etc.).

Barrel wrote: »

why was the cyclist not on the cycle path provided? that would be much safer

why did the cyclist pass the two lanes and then turn around to go back to in the oppisite direction instead of just going around the roundabout? that would be much safer

why are you defending this idiot of a cyclist who put himself and the other road users in danger?

I didn't defend the cyclist once. I said he was at fault three times. God knows why the cyclist changed his/her mind but they did. When faced with this situation the driver should have yielded to the cyclist up ahead but instead carried on and undertook him/her instead.

Páid wrote: »

It seems that most people know how to enter a roundabout but precious few know the rules about exiting.

which is especially funny seeing you give out about it given that you seem to be the only one on this thread who doesn't know them.

i'm also interested in this new type of physics you appear to have invented that allows for someone who has clearly passed their exit on a roundabout to then double back and take that exit that they have missed without (apparently, according to you) travelling anti-clockwise on the roundabout against the flow of traffic.

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Quote me the example that clears it up.

This applies to unprepared cyclists with poor lane discipline too, right?

All we can say for sure here is that there was no accident. I'm going to credit the OP for that. In my opinion the OP saw the cyclists unexpected manoeuvre & reacted to avoid an accident.

We don't know if the OP was prepared to stop or not because they didn't have to attempt an emergency stop. We don't know if the cyclist had pulled another dumb move would the OP would have hit him. All we can say for sure is that the cyclist in this particular incident was inconsiderate of his own wellbeing & of other road users, and that there was no accident. Of the OP & the cyclist, who's the lucky one?

We're pulling this thread off-topic so I won't reply anymore. Drive safe!

Yes, the cyclist exhibited very poor judgement. There was no-one ahead of him when he was exiting that he had to yield to. The OP was approaching from behind (and travelling faster than the cyclist) and should have exercised more care when undertaking the cyclist so closely.

The portion of the sentence you refer to is an example. It's meant to cover every similar eventuality when exiting a roundabout but it's not limited to the example given. It is meant to highlight the fact that someone could be obstructing your way when you intend to exit.

There is no question that the cyclist was at fault, but there is also a duty of care by the motorist to other road users when exiting a roundabout.

The OP posted the video with the intention of highlighting cyclists breaking the rules of the road. This does not exonerate him from criticism of his driving in the same video.

Yes, both cyclists broke the rules of the road, but so did the driver in the second incident. My stance my be very unpopular but that clause is in the rules of the road for a reason.

The 'rules of the road' and safety are sometimes 2 very different things.