Near Miss of the Day 23: Featuring a U-turning SMIDSY driver

davel wrote:

On the other [hand], I'm behind *any* campaigning that draws attention to shit driving.

... and shit cycling too? We can't call out motorists if we're not prepared to objectively assess cyclist's performances.

simonmb wrote:

davel wrote:

On the other [hand], I'm behind *any* campaigning that draws attention to shit driving.

... and shit cycling too? We can't call out motorists if we're not prepared to objectively assess cyclist's performances.

Absolutely - I'm just calling for proportion/perspective. I only piped up when I saw the first posts castigating the cyclist, when I think their errors were way less significant than the driver's.

This isn't black and white: cycling (and driving) is based on a set of assumptions and risk calculations - and they're based on perception of risk more than actual risk. Many people don't even get on a bike on the road because they think it's too risky (I *think* I read a survey that suggested more people don't cycle because of perception of danger, than actually cycle regularly). This morning I made an assumption (and risk calculation) that I wouldn't be rear-ended on the way into work. If you've ever taken primary or filtered, again, you've made the risk-based assumption that other drivers won't just do exactly what this driver did and drive over the road without looking or indicating. That might fit your risk appetite but don't assume that everyone has the same one: some people won't take primary and won't filter and, to labour the point, millions of people won't even get on their bike to commute etc because their risk threshold is set way lower. They think your self preservation is haywire because you get on a bike regularly. Millions of them can't be wrong, right?

The cyclist might have been a bit keen to nick the gap or to make the point, but he rides in London: you mix with a mass of humanity on foot, on bikes and in cars. If you assumed that each person you encountered was about to do something stupid or unpredictable, you'd be permanently hanging back behind everyone else and wouldn't get anywhere. If he's a daily commuter he probably has a relatively high risk threshold - I'm not sure I would commute daily there.

So he maybe made a daft assumption (while actually just riding his bike at an acceptable speed, in a predictable manner). Nothing too outlandish, and I wouldn't call it 'shit' riding. You're judging him by your own risk appetite and, given he wasn't hit, who was actually right?

Pulling off the road, doing a u-ey straight back round onto a quietway, and apparently not checking - yeah, for me, that is pretty shit driving. I'd sooner castigate the driver for creating the situation, than the cyclist for exploiting it somehow.

davel wrote:

Yeah I think we're all somewhere in the middle-ish. The bit that I'm arguing about is that you both jumped on the cyclist. And that's fair enough - to a point. I'm arguing for fair weighting, and against this dig at cyclists' mistakes while the metal elephant in the room is being driven all over the road. Neither of you have given anything like the same attention to the berk in control of the car. And a dig at poor English, really? Yours isn't exactly perfect on this page, either. I assume we're both bashing this out on a phone while battling autocomplete/autocorrect and trying to do three other things: try to keep the argument on point, at least.

Again words are being put in mouths. Just because I started by saying that the cyclist could've slowed down, doesn't mean that I don't think that the driver hadn't made a mistake.

Happy for you to correct my English too, just show me the errors,  but I genuinely struggled to make sense of what you were saying.

don simon wrote:

davel wrote:

Yeah I think we're all somewhere in the middle-ish. The bit that I'm arguing about is that you both jumped on the cyclist. And that's fair enough - to a point. I'm arguing for fair weighting, and against this dig at cyclists' mistakes while the metal elephant in the room is being driven all over the road. Neither of you have given anything like the same attention to the berk in control of the car. And a dig at poor English, really? Yours isn't exactly perfect on this page, either. I assume we're both bashing this out on a phone while battling autocomplete/autocorrect and trying to do three other things: try to keep the argument on point, at least.

Again words are being put in mouths. Just because I started by saying that the cyclist could've slowed down, doesn't mean that I don't think that the driver hadn't made a mistake.

Happy for you to correct my English too, just show me the errors,  but I genuinely struggled to make sense of what you were saying.

The funny thing about comments on Web pages is that they only record the words that you type into them. They don't really register your 'thoughts' or 'sentiment' unless you shove the appropriate words in them. Neither I, nor the Web page, is going to infer the apportion of blame that you actually meant unless you type what it is that you actually mean.

And really - have a look at your spellings in previous posts. Mistakes happen. You can make your point without strikethrough sarcasm, but if you're going to pull people up on English, try doing things like spelling parties, responsibility and manoeuvre correctly.

don simon wrote:

Quote:

Why are you also making it binary when even those (incl me) saying it's MORE the responsibility of the driver are mostly not saying the cyclist doesn't have ANY responsibility.

Poor English is always going to be poor English. I am glad that we agree (I think). How the hell do you get that I'm making it binary?

EDIT: Especially as I think both perties have fault; the driver made a shit maneouver while the cyclist could have stopped in time to avoid a potential problem. Perhaps this is the problem in that we all pass responsibility on to others and expect them to get out of the bloody way.

This.

harman_mogul wrote:

I'm with Don Simon on this. It's no use being right but dead.

Right. How about right and not dead, like the cyclist in the video?

It's a bit less snappy, granted, but it's a metric fucktonne more accurate.

don simon wrote:

Quote:

Okay. Forget the responsibility of a cyclist. I take responsibility for everything I do. I press the button at a pedestrian crossing - but still look both ways even when I know the green man is inviting me to cross. I drive my car at an appropriate speed for the conditions rather than at the maximum allowed by the law. This sort of thing. Responsibility isn't a word only used 'whenever something like this happens', it's something we all, as 'responsible' humans, should be aware of. Ride without responsibility and it'll be you whose death we will be lamenting here one day.

Applauds.

For those of a certain age, I'm always reminded of The Brittas Empire where Gordon Brittas is run over on a zebra crossing, he is heard saying "...But it was my right of way..."

Go figure.

The vast majority would say that if a road user can't stop safely, then they are circulating too quickly.

Why are you also making it binary when even those (incl me) saying it's MORE the responsibility of the driver are mostly not saying the cyclist doesn't have ANY responsibility.

Re: your point about vulnerability - fair point. But in a civilised society where people operating heavy machinery have to get licensed to use it as transport, you'd kind of hope that that added burden of responsibility brought with it some additional sense to then not drive it all over the fucking road without looking for others who might not be in metal cages.

don simon wrote:

Quote:

Okay. Forget the responsibility of a cyclist. I take responsibility for everything I do. I press the button at a pedestrian crossing - but still look both ways even when I know the green man is inviting me to cross. I drive my car at an appropriate speed for the conditions rather than at the maximum allowed by the law. This sort of thing. Responsibility isn't a word only used 'whenever something like this happens', it's something we all, as 'responsible' humans, should be aware of. Ride without responsibility and it'll be you whose death we will be lamenting here one day.

Applauds.

For those of a certain age, I'm always reminded of The Brittas Empire where Gordon Brittas is run over on a zebra crossing, he is heard saying "...But it was my right of way..."

Go figure.

The vast majority would say that if a road user can't stop safely, then they are circulating too quickly.

Except that if the pedestrian is crossing on a zebra crossing, it *is* their right of way once they step out!  Anyway, most people don't have the time to wait for a driver to politely stop and let them across (clue: it would never happen).

oldstrath wrote:

No looking, no indicating. But you lot want to apportion some of the  blame to the cyclist for failing to stop, even though the motonr gave no indication of his cretinous plan. Should we just all stop whenever a driver turns into a parking place, on the off chance he'll use it to do a completely unadvertised uturn?

Don't be so bloody ridiculous, read the road and make decisions. Why does everything have to be in the extreme?

Have a read of this to see who should look and who should signal and who should take avoiding action.

http://road.cc/content/forum/226092-close-passing-applies-us-too

FFS!

oldstrath wrote:

No looking, no indicating. But you lot want to blame the cyclist for failing to stop, even though the moton gave no indication of his cretinous plan. Should we just all stop whenever a driver turns into a parking place, on the off chance he'll use it to do a completely unadvertised uturn?

Thanks for saying that and saving me the trouble.

Driver makes a completely unpredictable manouevre without looking but many people here are blaming the cyclist.  Why?  The driver had an absolute duty to look, but he didn't.  The cyclist had no duty to do other than what he did, carry on riding along his right of way.  If there had been a collision I would have expected the driver to have been found 100% responsible.

There seems to be  a mentality which just accepts bad driving as inevitable: it isn't.   We all need to be accountable for our actions, and the more power you have, the more responsibility too.  This driver was irresponsible to an illegal degree and we should all be condemning them, not absolving them.

simonmb wrote:

Sharing the roads mean sharing the responsibility. Surely?

And sharing the consequences? So whenever a cyclist gets injured the driver should be hit with a hammer? Or does the 'sharing' only go one-way?

The cyclist avoided a hit, so as far as he's concerned it's job done. All that remains is another example of how motorists habitually fail to look properly, and so should be kept away from cyclists and pedestrians.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

simonmb wrote:

Sharing the roads mean sharing the responsibility. Surely?

And sharing the consequences? So whenever a cyclist gets injured the driver should be hit with a hammer? Or does the 'sharing' only go one-way? The cyclist avoided a hit, so as far as he's concerned it's job done. All that remains is another example of how motorists habitually fail to look properly, and so should be kept away from cyclists and pedestrians.

There were no consequences here. In this intance the cyclist clearly pushed on and squeezed through a shrinking space. He was the only one of the two involved that was aware of the building situation. The motorist should have been aware but wasn't. If there had been a collision it would have been as much 'bike hits car' as 'car hits bike'. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Not that obvious - it may seem obvious now with hindsight... and was it really the cyclists responsibility to make the car aware of its presence, or the drivers responsibility to look?

Yes, self preservation means we should all look after ourselves, but lets not allow our  self preservation methods remove responsibility from those who have been awarded a licence to demonstrate that they have been trained and deemed competent to drive on the roads. 

We, as cyclists need to stop victim blaming, and stop accepting pathetic levels of driver awareness / competence / care. 

Who's victim blaming in this one? You're putting an awful lot in there to defend something that no one's said.

I think it's pretty fair to anticipate that the muppet driver was likely to swing back out into the road, Either way I'd have been a tad more cautious and prepared to stop. No, it wasn't the responsibility for the cyclist to do anything, just a good idea. A shout, slow down or taking a different line would all have .

In a different argument we'd be saying that the following road user has a responsibility not to run into the vehicle in front.

I totally agree that the driver should have looked, but as a road user I also assume that they haven't and that applies to when I am cycling, driving or walking.

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

don simon wrote:

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

It's the weight of that responsibility that makes this a debate, isn't it.

Person on bike has some responsibility not just to plough on regardless.

Person in 1-ton metal thing has some responsibility not to just do a 180 with their fucking gormless eyes closed.

So in that equation, I'll start the bidding at 90% driver, 10% cyclist.

And not wanting to put words in JRW's mouth/comments box, I think that was his point. The comments on here do not reflect the weighting of error on the tit of a driver just driving their wallymobile wherever they like without checking properly, pausing or any discernible signals. The comments on here have focused on the relatively minor contribution on the part of the cyclist.

Combine that with the likelihood of who comes out of this encounter with injuries, were it a tad closer, and I don't think that's a million miles away from the definition of 'victim blaming'.

davel wrote:

don simon wrote:

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

It's the weight of that responsibility that makes this a debate, isn't it.

Person on bike has some responsibility not just to plough on regardless.

Person in 1-ton metal thing has some responsibility not to just do a 180 with their fucking gormless eyes closed.

So in that equation, I'll start the bidding at 90% driver, 10% cyclist.

And not wanting to put words in JRW's mouth/comments box, I think that was his point. The comments on here do not reflect the weighting of error on the tit of a driver just driving their wallymobile wherever they like without checking properly, pausing or any discernible signals. The comments on here have focused on the relatively minor contribution on the part of the cyclist.

Also the point is that we can all rest-assured that physics will ensure that on average the cyclist gets punished for their share of 'responsibility'. No need for posters to trouble themselves trying to do physics's job for it. It's the motorist's part that requires more external intervention.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

don simon wrote:

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

It's the weight of that responsibility that makes this a debate, isn't it. Person on bike has some responsibility not just to plough on regardless. Person in 1-ton metal thing has some responsibility not to just do a 180 with their fucking gormless eyes closed. So in that equation, I'll start the bidding at 90% driver, 10% cyclist. And not wanting to put words in JRW's mouth/comments box, I think that was his point. The comments on here do not reflect the weighting of error on the tit of a driver just driving their wallymobile wherever they like without checking properly, pausing or any discernible signals. The comments on here have focused on the relatively minor contribution on the part of the cyclist.

Also the point is that we can all rest-assured that physics will ensure that on average the cyclist gets punished for their share of 'responsibility'. No need for posters to trouble themselves trying to do physics's job for it. It's the motorist's part that requires more external intervention.

@FluffyKitten - you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'responsibility'. The responsibility is to see a situation building and avoid it. That's all. There's no sliding-scale of consequences that relates to this. There's no reason for us to believe that we'll ever share the level of risk we do when we are motorists.  Shared responsibility - but as cyclists we understand if things go horribly wrong it'll be us that come off worse. Is this news to you?

simonmb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

don simon wrote:

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

It's the weight of that responsibility that makes this a debate, isn't it. Person on bike has some responsibility not just to plough on regardless. Person in 1-ton metal thing has some responsibility not to just do a 180 with their fucking gormless eyes closed. So in that equation, I'll start the bidding at 90% driver, 10% cyclist. And not wanting to put words in JRW's mouth/comments box, I think that was his point. The comments on here do not reflect the weighting of error on the tit of a driver just driving their wallymobile wherever they like without checking properly, pausing or any discernible signals. The comments on here have focused on the relatively minor contribution on the part of the cyclist.

Also the point is that we can all rest-assured that physics will ensure that on average the cyclist gets punished for their share of 'responsibility'. No need for posters to trouble themselves trying to do physics's job for it. It's the motorist's part that requires more external intervention.

@FluffyKitten - you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'responsibility'. The responsibility is to see a situation building and avoid it. That's all. There's no sliding-scale of consequences that relates to this. There's no reason for us to believe that we'll ever share the level of risk we do when we are motorists.  Shared responsibility - but as cyclists we understand if things go horribly wrong it'll be us that come off worse. Is this news to you?

No. Nor is it news to me that some cyclists seem to think it's really important for them to talk about the 'responsibility' of the cyclist, whenever something like this happens. I just wonder why they do that. Can you explain why?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

simonmb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

don simon wrote:

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

It's the weight of that responsibility that makes this a debate, isn't it. Person on bike has some responsibility not just to plough on regardless. Person in 1-ton metal thing has some responsibility not to just do a 180 with their fucking gormless eyes closed. So in that equation, I'll start the bidding at 90% driver, 10% cyclist. And not wanting to put words in JRW's mouth/comments box, I think that was his point. The comments on here do not reflect the weighting of error on the tit of a driver just driving their wallymobile wherever they like without checking properly, pausing or any discernible signals. The comments on here have focused on the relatively minor contribution on the part of the cyclist.

Also the point is that we can all rest-assured that physics will ensure that on average the cyclist gets punished for their share of 'responsibility'. No need for posters to trouble themselves trying to do physics's job for it. It's the motorist's part that requires more external intervention.

@FluffyKitten - you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'responsibility'. The responsibility is to see a situation building and avoid it. That's all. There's no sliding-scale of consequences that relates to this. There's no reason for us to believe that we'll ever share the level of risk we do when we are motorists.  Shared responsibility - but as cyclists we understand if things go horribly wrong it'll be us that come off worse. Is this news to you?

No. Nor is it news to me that some cyclists seem to think it's really important for them to talk about the 'responsibility' of the cyclist, whenever something like this happens. I just wonder why they do that. Can you explain why?

Okay. Forget the responsibility of a cyclist. I take responsibility for everything I do. I press the button at a pedestrian crossing - but still look both ways even when I know the green man is inviting me to cross. I drive my car at an appropriate speed for the conditions rather than at the maximum allowed by the law. This sort of thing. Responsibility isn't a word only used 'whenever something like this happens', it's something we all, as 'responsible' humans, should be aware of. Ride without responsibility and it'll be you whose death we will be lamenting here one day.

simonmb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

simonmb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

don simon wrote:

But trying to claim that the cyclist shouldn't take some of the reponsibility is wrong, pure and simple.

It's the weight of that responsibility that makes this a debate, isn't it. Person on bike has some responsibility not just to plough on regardless. Person in 1-ton metal thing has some responsibility not to just do a 180 with their fucking gormless eyes closed. So in that equation, I'll start the bidding at 90% driver, 10% cyclist. And not wanting to put words in JRW's mouth/comments box, I think that was his point. The comments on here do not reflect the weighting of error on the tit of a driver just driving their wallymobile wherever they like without checking properly, pausing or any discernible signals. The comments on here have focused on the relatively minor contribution on the part of the cyclist.

Also the point is that we can all rest-assured that physics will ensure that on average the cyclist gets punished for their share of 'responsibility'. No need for posters to trouble themselves trying to do physics's job for it. It's the motorist's part that requires more external intervention.

@FluffyKitten - you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'responsibility'. The responsibility is to see a situation building and avoid it. That's all. There's no sliding-scale of consequences that relates to this. There's no reason for us to believe that we'll ever share the level of risk we do when we are motorists.  Shared responsibility - but as cyclists we understand if things go horribly wrong it'll be us that come off worse. Is this news to you?

No. Nor is it news to me that some cyclists seem to think it's really important for them to talk about the 'responsibility' of the cyclist, whenever something like this happens. I just wonder why they do that. Can you explain why?

Okay. Forget the responsibility of a cyclist. I take responsibility for everything I do. I press the button at a pedestrian crossing - but still look both ways even when I know the green man is inviting me to cross. I drive my car at an appropriate speed for the conditions rather than at the maximum allowed by the law. This sort of thing. Responsibility isn't a word only used 'whenever something like this happens', it's something we all, as 'responsible' humans, should be aware of. Ride without responsibility and it'll be you whose death we will be lamenting here one day.

That's not even an argument in this situation, because the driver was clearly taking less responsibility by dicking about all over the road in their car.

I'm not arguing to not hold back, not scrub some speed, make your presence known etc.

But I'm absolutely arguing that if you make one post to that effect, for this scenario, you should be making nine to the effect that that driver is a selfish or incompetent prick who needs to treat driving as a privilege, not a right.