Triathlete urges drivers to "think twice" after shocking dashcam footage shows moment bike was catapulted into the air from collision

'advocated'... Bollocks! I'm reluctant to get involved in these spats, but you know damn well that was not what was meant. mdavid is obviously pointing out the ridiculous nature of the RoSPA advice...and I suspect you are well aware of that.

"I'm reluctant to get involved in these spats"

but here you are.

Reluctant...not scared.

Yes, here I am, pointing out your deliberately provocative post and accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting a post, the meaning of which was perfectly clear.

Are you suggesting I should keep my mouth shut? 

no . Pointing out the irony of your moral posturing. feel free to say what you like.

The only 'moral posturing' was your nasty suggestion that mdavidford was advocating the dropping of concrete blocks from motorway bridges, in an attempt to shut down the argument that making eye contact and watching where wheels are pointing would have had no positive effect where a driver has approached a roundabout way too fast to make proper observation, taken the racing line and flown across a roundabout in the wrong direction.

Irony? 

Did you actually watch the video ?

The car was moving quite slowly.   

Not slowly enough to negotiate the roundabout on the right side of the road.

Not slowly enough to observe properly and check for  approaching cyclists. 

Not slowly enough to avoid cutting across the hatched markings at the roundabout exit. 

mdavidford wrote:

"As you approach a motorway bridge, try to see where the pedestrian's eyes are pointing. Consider how you would deal safely with them unexpectedly dropping a concrete block on top of your car."

In all seriousness, if possible I will change lanes away from pedestrians overhead on bridges, after exactly this happened to a friend of mine.

nicmason wrote:

you mean Rospa are victime blaming. ?  who knew.

It wouldn't be the first time.  CUK, or CTC as it was then, have in the past withdrawn from co-operation with RoSPA because of their pro-car, anti-cycling stance.

Do you work for Police Scotland perchance?

The article is about motorcycles which are somewhat faster. Nowhere in there does it talk about how to deal with people driving the wrong way round a roundabout.

So much for 'well intentioned'

As it was, the cyclist gave as much distance as possible from a driver pulling out who would use the roundabout correctly. The fact that there were 2 mini roundabouts is irrelevant for driver given their direction of approach and the first roundabout was irrelevant at the point the cyclist was at the second roundabout.

In traffic a cyclist is often going at the same speed as the other vehicles so thats a nonsense. 

The articlel is about avoiding risk . Something that a vulnerable road user should be aware of. Presumably your all for waking up in hospital saying "I had right of way" 

If you are in traffic, at the same speed, then the risk is lower and the situation is much less likely to arise. The problem is where a motorcycle is going at 30/40/50 and driver fails to notice.

The article is not about avoiding risk - you would do that by not using the roads. You can reduce or mitigate risk but not eliminate it.

Can you point out where the article helps with people doing illegal things? As ever, you fail to deal with the main point - in this case driving the wrong way around a roundabout.

What next - cyclist fails to accommodate left hook or right hook.

As before, the cyclist reduced risk with their positioning.

Q Can you point out where the article helps with people doing illegal things?

A Consider how you would deal safely with the vehicle unexpectedlypulling out in front of you

Turning right or left isn't illegal. It may count as careless driving in certain circumstances.

Driving round a roundabout the wrong way is illegal.

How would you reduce risk on a dual carriageway when confronted by a driver towing a caravan coming at you head on ?

(I have already answered dealing with people pulling out unexpectedly 3 times in this article)

nicmason might have been better trying to find something from RoSPA explaining how a motorist on the motorway should always be keeping an eye out for and taking avoiding action from stolen cars being driven at them head-on.

I mean - it could happen, and if the motorist was not paying proper attention then it would clearly be their fault.

Doesn't even have to be stolen. Could easily be by a confused person who should have been medically disqualified from driving but as there is no providence for that to happen until they drive 20 miles down a motorway the wrong way, they could still do it. Then yes, all th drivers going correctly up the motorway are stupid and would clearly be their fault. 

Cyclist could have decided to ride a child's bicycle with handlebar tassles and spokey dokeys. He could have got off and walked it along the pavement asking the local Scout troop to assist him at every junction. He could have just stayed at home in bed or altered any of a myriad of other choices that would have avoided this collision. Your "good intentions" in commenting about making eye contact with drivers are basic roadcraft, you are pointing out the bleeding obvious skills which we all have with the transparent attempt to place a proportion of blame on the cyclist on account of you simply don't appear to like cyclists using the road.

There is an adage taught to me by my advanced motorcycle instructor. If you are involved in a collision and your vehicle was moving then there is definitely something you could have done different to avoid the incident. If your vehicle was stationary at the time then there was probably something you could have done different. I expect anyone who sees the footage of this particular crash will be extra aware at roundabouts at least for a bit and that itself is a good enough reason for NMOTD as an ongoing feature. However, whilst taking every care, it is not unreasonable to have an expectation that other road users, especially those who require training and a licence on account of the danger their vehicles pose to others, will at least make some attempt to follow the rules.

"you simply don't appear to like cyclists using the road."

as a cyclist that would be odd.

Ahhh classic case then. Explains why you only ever see what a cyclist must have done wrong as all the MSM and twiter and others say cyclists are a scourge on society.

not really. But theres plentty on here calling car drivers the anti christ so its useful to have a little balance.

nicmason wrote:

not really. But theres plentty on here calling car drivers the anti christ so its useful to have a little balance.

No, no, no - you've got it all wrong!  Nobody here believes that car drivers are the antichrist.  They are just the heralds of the antichrist.  It's different, see?

Mungecrundle wrote:

However, whilst taking every care, it is not unreasonable to have an expectation that other road users, especially those who require training and a licence on account of the danger their vehicles pose to others, will at least make some attempt to follow the rules.

Which is why I hate the phrase 'expect the unexpected' because if you do believe that, the only solution is to stay at home. People use the roads on the basis that people follow the rules, then experience shows where to be cautious to reduce but not eliminate risk.

I tried to find an earlier nmotd where a cyclist is approaching a side road with a car driver waiting at the junction. Everyone expected the driver to do something daft only what happened was the driver behind overtook the driver waiting at the junction and turned right into the main road from completely the wrong side of the road. The idea that anyone could anticipate this is laughable.

The other one was the driver on the roundabout (somewhere in Europe). The next thing that happens is a bmx rider appears from over the top of a hedge and lands in the road in front of the driver.

Can't even stay at home. It would be unexpected that the ISS could suddenly crash through your roof at home. That way lies madness and the belief it is ok to drive the wrong way around a mini roundabout.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

It would be unexpected that the ISS could suddenly crash through your roof at home.

Personally, I lie awake worrying about that every night.

mdavidford wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

It would be unexpected that the ISS could suddenly crash through your roof at home.

Personally, I lie awake worrying about that every night.

Rather like the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac; he lay awake all night worrying about the existence of dog.

Liked (reluctantly). 🙄

Eton Rifle wrote:

Liked (reluctantly). 🙄

Oh come on!  It's good!

So it your view that the cyclist could have avoided this crash by different observation.

Effectively they shoud divert their attention from the two roads which may enter the roundabout from their right and which the cyclist must give way to, and instead look at the road to their left on the assumption that a driver may ente the roundabout from the left, failing to give way to the cyclist on their right, and go the wrong way around the roundabout?

Remember you own words

"The approaching traffic usually gives way to traffic already on the roundabout, which always comes from the right."

(My emphasis)

Except in this case, the car involved in the collision came from the left, because it was illegaly driving the wrong way round a roundabout.

Strangely I've just been out (in a car) and as I approached a mini roundabout I checked all directions not just where the rule book says where the traffic is coming from.

You should try it.

And then you drove over it in a totally illegal way as "we all do that around here". 

I don't think I will try that.