You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I had a [url=
pop up in my Facebook feed[/url] showing a van/cyclist near miss in Plymouth with associated comments; the point seems to be that that folk are arguing as to whether it was the cyclist's or van driver's fault.
I'd interpret it as the fault of the motorcyclist who appears not to have wanted to wait in traffic so illegally moved into a bus lane (all the ones in our area are reserved for buses, taxis & cyclists so assuming the same here) later pushing the cyclist into a row of parked cars and then flashing the van to pull across as the cyclist took evasive action.
I watched a couple of moped couriers whizzing along a cycle lane in Bristol recently and some motorcyclist (and cyclists) do seem to go where they please because they can. I could be biased but wondered what folk thought.
I can't watch the video at work but this link may answer one of your questions
https://www.plymouth.gov.uk/roadsandpavements/buslanes
cyclists is arrogant and law breaking and was the only one who doesn't pay road tax & insurance so obviously it was their fault*
* i haven't read the comments but I assume this the general theme.
Did the motorbike flash the van? If he did, that's pretty stupid and I'd completely agree that's a monumentally stupid thing to do under the circumstances, and would place him as the root cause. I can't actually see it in the video though, and if he didn't, I can't see anything he did wrong.
Van should have looked before turning over another lane.
Cyclist could have been more alert.
In that order.
Edit: crikey, I wish I hadn't looked at the comments.
Motorbikes are allowed to use bus lanes in Bristol I believe
Ultimately the van is at fault, as nobody else had changed their course.
However, the road layout doesn't really help in this situation and neither does the motorcyclist by flashing the van across. The cyclist could have also helped himself by assuming that what actually happened was going to happen and slowed down in anticipation of this. I'm not saying its right, but early anticipation can avoid a lot of incidents.
@Rubber Buccaneer - thanks for that, I had no idea so a big and incorrect assumption on my part (clearly it's not standardised). It still seems to me that the motorcyclist still has a significant part to play in the near miss and seems to ignore the cyclist but clearly I was wrong that he shouldn't have been there.
i haven’t read the comments but I assume this the general theme.
Actually no, it seems fairly split and the actual [url= https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/exeter-street-traffic-accident-plymouth-2072744?fbclid=IwAR2FHP7SM60lna9SjkFxVKI64bWxF1SBRuJOVSQDXIRcQXN_00JqdD3yZA0 ]Plymouth Live[/url] has a quote from the motorcyclist saying "I've already put the footage on a dashcam website and it's had 140 comments - 60 say it's the van driver's fault, 60 say it's the cyclist's fault and another 20 say it was mine."
Motorbikes are allowed to use bus lanes in Bristol I believe
Very possibly, I clearly don't know much about bus lanes! However, the moped couriers I mentioned (we were in Bristol for the day) were in a cycle lane.
To be fair the m/c seems to admit that flashing the van was a bad idea. Cyclist needs to be a bit more aware in that situation. Ultimately the van is turning left across a lane and needs to make sure it is clear.
Don’t really get the bit about forcing the bike into a line of parked cars unless trolling.
I've not looked at the video, but in ANY circumstance when another vehicle is flashing/indicating/waving, the vehicle changing lanes has the ultimate responsibility to check before moving, and not just taking another drivers word that its clear to proceed.
Don’t really get the bit about forcing the bike into a line of parked cars unless trolling.
No, not trolling but perhaps not the best use of words. As the motorcyclist passes the cyclist the cyclist is approaching the rear of a row of parked cars. I would have wanted to move out a bit at this point, but the motorcyclist seems to be passing rather tightly and preventing this; I wonder whether this effectively hide the cyclist from the van driver. Watching it again the cyclist didn't seem to respond to being squeezed between the cars and the motorcyclist.
I stopped flashing other motorists years ago. I'll hold back to give them space if appropriate, but it'll be 100% their choice if the want to make use of it. I changed this behaviour after having a few experiences where either my flashed light was misconstrued (flash out a car, and a pedestrian assumes it was for them to cross the road into traffic) or that I, myself, had not seen something that would have been a hazard to the other vehicle had they just assumed that they were free to turn.
On balance, the motorcyclist shouldn't have flashed, the van should have checked his blind spot (but that's very hard to do on the nearside when you have a panel van or HGV, hence why cyclists are advised to never undertake!) and the cyclist should have anticipated the potential hazard from the van and been more prepared to take evasive action.
In short, all three can probably learn something from the experience. The cyclist was probably the only one of the three that was, legally, completely in the right, but I would classify this as one of those "dead right" situations where one should be prepared to ride defensively if you want to see another day.
The main problem with that is the bus lane.
I'd lean towards the cyclist being at fault (and the one with the most to lose).
I don't really see anything wrong in 'undertaking' as a manoeuvre but you do need to treat it the same as overtaking. eg don't overtake an indicating vehicle, don't overtake a slowing/stopped vehicle without knowing why they slowed/stopped, etc. He tried to pass the indicating van. Motorbike made the situation much worse and the van driver should be checking more so nobody is blame free, though. Its also a rubbish bit of infrastructure, but pretty typical
The main problem with that is the bus lane.
There are junctions like this all over the country unfortunately.
Van's fault here, being flashed doesn't mean it's safe.
Arguably the cyclist could have reacted more quickly but still van's fault.
Arguably the cyclist could have reacted more quickly but still van’s fault.
...the fact that the cyclist had to react quickly suggested that they didn't read the road situation well. The van was signalling for a fair time before and the cyclist should have been aware that they were entering a hazard situation and have been prepared to stop if need be. This doesn't change the assignment of blame for the incident, but this matters little if you're the one involved in an accident.
"Here lies the body of Henry Gray
He died defending his right of way.
His way was right, his will was strong,
But he’s just as dead as if he was wrong."
I’d lean towards the cyclist being at fault (and the one with the most to lose).
I think darrn's assessment is spot on. The cyclist is the only one in all of this who is 100% legally right, as he was the one with right of way. To place the cyclist 'at fault' is a very dangerous position, because you're basically saying he doesn't have right of way because he's on a bicycle, and bicycles are at the bottom of the food chain. Stick to the gutter, punk, and stop if I want past!
van driver should be checking more
Should have been checking more? It's their responsibility to make sure the way is clear before crossing lanes. Granted, blindspot may have been a factor, and the moto flashing would not have helped, as they'd take this as a sign the way was clear, but also because the moto was approaching, they will naturally rush.
There is no way the cyclist was at fault. However I'm surprised they got as close to the van as they did. Narrowly avoided a serious accident, and it's not like it couldn't be seen unfolding. So bad judgements all round.
Cyclist's fault; he should have seen the van's indicators and held back to allow it to make its turn.
All three were at fault:
Van driver should have seen him, was focusing too much on the motorbiker, who didn't help much by giving him an 'all clear'* to pull in front of him.
The cyclist had ages to spot the left indicator, so either wasn't paying attention, or didn't have the sense of self-preservation to keep a close eye on what he was doing, and make sure that he had eye contact with the van driver before continuing.
Having said that, if he had been knocked over, the van driver would have been liable. He changed his road position without ensuring it was clear.
*aware that giving someone a flash shouldn't mean that, but it is often taken that way.
“Here lies the body of Henry Gray
He died defending his right of way.
His way was right, his will was strong,
But he’s just as dead as if he was wrong.”
I've not heard that before, but it's great and very possibly something I need to think about myself!
To place the cyclist ‘at fault’ is a very dangerous position, because you’re basically saying he doesn’t have right of way because he’s on a bicycle
Absolutely not. Nothing to do with him being on a bicycle. My response was related to him overtaking an indicating vehicle.
its possible that the motorcyclist was blocking the cyclists view of the indicator...and the van drivers view of the cyclist!
its possible that the motorcyclist was blocking the cyclists view of the indicator…and the van drivers view of the cyclist!
I do think that there's something in this; as above the motorcyclist does pass very close to the cyclist penning him in between the motorcycle and parked cars. It looks like this happened as the motorcycle was slowing so they would have run side-by-side for a while. In addition to the potentially obscured views, in that situation I think that I'd have been distracted by closeness of the motorcycle.
I also don't think that the cyclist can be accused of undertaking the motorcycle; the motorcyclist never fully overtook the bicycle but effectively came up alongside and then slowed whilst the bicycle simply carried on.
Absolutely not. Nothing to do with him being on a bicycle. My response was related to him overtaking an indicating vehicle.
Indicating does not give you right of way. Cyclist had right of way. As far as I'm aware, there is no law stating otherwise?
I completely agree that the cyclist put himself in danger by failing to see what was very likely to happen. However, had it have been a bus in the bus lane, I think general opinion would be drastically different (I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people would brand the van driver an idiot).
Van in the wrong legally, all three contributed. But cyclist had almost 10 seconds from this point with a van braking and indicating left, moto alongside him easing off??
Almost everyone commenting on that Facebook thread is certainly wrong
Love the way the video promps you to blame the cyclist by saying that a cyclist almost collided with a van instead of the reverse.
Van is in the wrong legally. The cyclist was a bit daft not to see it coming and he motorcyclist was a complete tool flashing his lights.
so illegally moved into a bus lane (all the ones in our area are reserved for buses, taxis & cyclists so assuming the same here)
Some are legal some arent, its a nightmare. I tend to ignore them as a rule unless its a regular route where I have stopped to look at the signs. The signs are too small to really see when movingvat normal speeds.
Rule 110. [...] Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message [...] . Broken by motorbike guy.
Rule 111. Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully. Broken by van guy.
Rule 183. When turning [left ... ] give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction. Broken by van guy.
I missed which rule the cyclist broke.
Having said that I agree with @daern et al (cyclist should have avoided) and like the ditty.
Cyclist’s fault; he should have seen the van’s indicators and held back to allow it to make its turn.
Yeah 'cause if you're in a 44 tonne lorry it's definitely not your fault to wipe out a car out if you deigned to indicate and they don't get the **** out the way.
I missed which rule the cyclist broke.
The common sense type not the legal type.
@twowheels That's a very concise summing up of the HC rules - thanks!
Post it as a comment on Facebook so they can all tell you you're a moron who hasn't a clue and doesn't pay road tax anyway 🙂
You also forgot to blame the road designer for a crap piece of design!
Not sure the cyclist is legally 100% in the right as the van was well in front but I guess thats exaggerated by the wide angle lens on the camera. No point in being in the right and squished tho
If I had been the cyclist tho I would have been much further to the right so no room for the motorbike to get past / alongside. In a bus / cycle lane I ride 2/3 of the way across the lane from the kerb and I would have been watching that van like a hawk. and then once the van starts to turn you have the option to go round it to the right.
I missed which rule the cyclist broke.
How about:
167 Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users
163 only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
Neither of those would apply if the cycle lane carried on across the junction but it stops just before. At the moment of near miss the cycle/bus lane has stopped and there are no separate lane markings. Rubbish bit of infrastructure as already mentioned.
The mash sums it up...