And this is why drivers are obliged to give cyclists plenty of space when they want to overtake them, and this is also why cyclists are recommended by trainers and officials, to ride either in the secondary position (which would be about 75cm from the kerb) or primary position (in the middle of the lane) when for instance the lane is too narrow to share safely with a car. The driver in this video barely moved over (if at all?) when they passed this vulnerable road user.Cyclists can be unpredictable and cyclists need room to maneuver, and there could be many reasons as to why someone cycling suddenly would swerve when they cycle. A pothole which cyclists often have to dodge, for instance, poses no threat to someone driving (they are only inconvenient) but to someone cycling, they could be deadly, as they may cause you to crash. This is how you safely overtake vulnerable road users - ukcyclelaws.blogspot.com/p/overtaking-cyclists.html
You know I agree, but he's going awfully slow (not even pedaling) to be in the road at all here if there was indeed a bike lane as the driver says. For riding at a good speed those bridge lanes aren't always very suitable. For this guy he would be better off using it IF it was in decent condition. I've got some bridges where I use them and some where I don't. I'm not placing fault on him for the accident though. That's on the driver.
Cyclists are not tight rope walkers and drivers have no right to expect or demand them to take up only a tiny space. Bikes balance and traverse irregularities by wobbling, cars do it by having a wide wheel base. Both need space. Yes, the cyclist swerved out some. Yes, he may have had a specific reason (crack or rock) or just not great balance with all those groceries. It's the main reason why you don't lane share to pass. You GO AROUND, with at least 3 feet of space, which in this case probably means yes, out of the lane. This is a bridge. The cyclist maybe has no other way to go. A little patience saves lives. Travel is a right, driving a dangerous machine is a privilege. I will say it does look that there may be a side path, and while generally I'm not in favor of telling cyclists to get on a path, on a bridge like this, I might, even if it's illegal, especially if I was this slow. But that's his choice and not an excuse for the driver.
The driver (me) was inattentive. But cyclist move on the center on the road over 1meter. Two lane on the sides of the bridge was made only for cyclist and pedestrians. The cyclist, in this case, was probably drunk. I paid my carelessness.
Glad you see your fault, but I'm not sure you see it all. Don't lay this on the cyclist. I think he had balance trouble because of the big weight on his handlebar, but anyway, as I said bicycles are not tight rope machines. Cars stabilize by width, bicycles stabilize by motion. That's how they work. I'm still not sure you quite get it. If by inattentive you mean you were ok on course to give him 6 inches of space but failed to notice when he veered, then you're still not getting it. You don't aim to give a cyclist 6 inches of space!! If you need to use the next lane to give them 3 ft of space then you wait until you can use the next lane and you do that. Nothing says you're going to be able to squeeze by safely in the lane and in fact the engineering standards on lane sharing say that in almost all city street lanes, you wont' be able to safely. Yes, if there was a cycle lane he probably would have been better off using it, and maybe even legally should have. There may be a problem with that lane that he knows about or may not, or he may have just not seen the entrance to it until it was too late. But it's like a driver illegally in the HOV lane. That doesn't make it his fault if you rear end him. Completely separate issues. I know you didn't mean to hit this guy and you're obviously being open about it and taking an example from it for others to see which is great. Sometimes we have to learn the hard way. In these situations though it's hard for the other guy.
And this is why drivers are obliged to give cyclists plenty of space when they want to overtake them, and this is also why cyclists are recommended by trainers and officials, to ride either in the secondary position (which would be about 75cm from the kerb) or primary position (in the middle of the lane) when for instance the lane is too narrow to share safely with a car. The driver in this video barely moved over (if at all?) when they passed this vulnerable road user.Cyclists can be unpredictable and cyclists need room to maneuver, and there could be many reasons as to why someone cycling suddenly would swerve when they cycle. A pothole which cyclists often have to dodge, for instance, poses no threat to someone driving (they are only inconvenient) but to someone cycling, they could be deadly, as they may cause you to crash. This is how you safely overtake vulnerable road users - ukcyclelaws.blogspot.com/p/overtaking-cyclists.html
You know I agree, but he's going awfully slow (not even pedaling) to be in the road at all here if there was indeed a bike lane as the driver says. For riding at a good speed those bridge lanes aren't always very suitable. For this guy he would be better off using it IF it was in decent condition. I've got some bridges where I use them and some where I don't. I'm not placing fault on him for the accident though. That's on the driver.
Cyclists are not tight rope walkers and drivers have no right to expect or demand them to take up only a tiny space. Bikes balance and traverse irregularities by wobbling, cars do it by having a wide wheel base. Both need space. Yes, the cyclist swerved out some. Yes, he may have had a specific reason (crack or rock) or just not great balance with all those groceries. It's the main reason why you don't lane share to pass. You GO AROUND, with at least 3 feet of space, which in this case probably means yes, out of the lane. This is a bridge. The cyclist maybe has no other way to go. A little patience saves lives. Travel is a right, driving a dangerous machine is a privilege.
I will say it does look that there may be a side path, and while generally I'm not in favor of telling cyclists to get on a path, on a bridge like this, I might, even if it's illegal, especially if I was this slow. But that's his choice and not an excuse for the driver.
The driver (me) was inattentive. But cyclist move on the center on the road over 1meter.
Two lane on the sides of the bridge was made only for cyclist and pedestrians.
The cyclist, in this case, was probably drunk.
I paid my carelessness.
Big Ring - Totally agree. The driver didn't appear to make any attempt to move further from the kerb.
Glad you see your fault, but I'm not sure you see it all. Don't lay this on the cyclist. I think he had balance trouble because of the big weight on his handlebar, but anyway, as I said bicycles are not tight rope machines. Cars stabilize by width, bicycles stabilize by motion. That's how they work.
I'm still not sure you quite get it. If by inattentive you mean you were ok on course to give him 6 inches of space but failed to notice when he veered, then you're still not getting it. You don't aim to give a cyclist 6 inches of space!! If you need to use the next lane to give them 3 ft of space then you wait until you can use the next lane and you do that. Nothing says you're going to be able to squeeze by safely in the lane and in fact the engineering standards on lane sharing say that in almost all city street lanes, you wont' be able to safely.
Yes, if there was a cycle lane he probably would have been better off using it, and maybe even legally should have. There may be a problem with that lane that he knows about or may not, or he may have just not seen the entrance to it until it was too late. But it's like a driver illegally in the HOV lane. That doesn't make it his fault if you rear end him. Completely separate issues.
I know you didn't mean to hit this guy and you're obviously being open about it and taking an example from it for others to see which is great. Sometimes we have to learn the hard way. In these situations though it's hard for the other guy.