im not a cyclist but if i was i wouldnt be going infront of a driver who isnt giving me enough space while im by his side, id slow down and get behind them, value your life more than your ego.
The highway code encourages cyclists to "take the lane" - riding in the middle of the lane to prevent motorists passing unsafely (by squeezing past and not giving adequate space). Also being directly in their line of sight (straight ahead) means they are less likely to get hit than by the motorist "wafting" from left to right which often happens (could also be to avoid potholes or other road users).
@@lifeisbetterwithj I think this is an instance to show exactly why everyone needs to give each other space. The move over is something like a second and the accident happens maybe a second or two later. This is exactly the range that drivers are also told to keep space wise, temporarily from other cars (3 seconds+) because it normally takes a second to recognize an issue and more to react, and more to actually stop. So while it might be a good idea to pull in front of the car for those reasons, I suspect it's a good idea to rush ahead of the vehicle to get in their view and give them more time to react, here it appears the cyclist pulls in front almost immediately with hardly any space between, fortunately it looks like the car had time to break.
A lot of people on bikes think they own the road. Some are just entitled as hell. I don’t even remember how many times I have seen 4 cyclists side by side in twos taking up the whole road and not letting anything past. Even when there was a path they could have easily went on and let cars past they just sit in the middle of the road inconveniencing every other car user who are stuck behind them at 10 miles an hour. I get the feeling a lot of cyclists think they are morally superior so the road should be theirs based on this.
@@lifeisbetterwithj The question for me is who got to the crossing where they were both stopped first. If it was the car, then the cyclist had no right to the lane at all.
I remember an argument with my mum and dad about her driving. She said “ I was in the right” my dad said “what good is being in the right if you are dead”.
Similar thing, my dads motto was 'as long as it's not my fault, I'm insured.' I said once, tell that to a 5 year old bouncing off your bonnet. After the evil look, I did think it made a difference.
@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo You took that as a death threat? ... He's saying being right doesn't matter if the fight results in your own demise. like the turn of phrase, the hill you want to die on. Is it worth defending the hill to the death in a fight of principle? You may even be in the right fighting for the hill, but If it's obvious the fight will end in you being dead, is it really worth fighting for the hill? You may also call it a Pyrrhic Victory.
They feel the need to enforce themselves upon the road. It isn’t about being safe. It’s about exercising their “right” to ride a bicycle on a road full of cars. The entire hobby is rooted in it.
when a real case of endangerment by negligence, adrenalin f.e. drivers on their phone who rush by you at an inch, totaly unaware An explination, not an excuse
it was deliberate - he knew the driver was trying to bully him out of the way and gave him a FU.......driver should have backed off at that point but decided he would crash instead
Just because the law may be on your side, does not mean that the grim reaper will be. I have been cycling for 50 years and we were taught to cycle defensively. Personally, at that speed I would have been reasonably comfortable with the range-rover that close but would have preferred more space. However, I would have dropped back because he may not have seen me and could potentially turn onto me. Why this cyclist chose to put himself in harms way I do not know - but I see it a lot. I frequently see cyclists "force" bad positions, I presume to get a feeling of righteousness.
No cycle test or instruction legally required. Funny how cyclists always quote the Netherlands in arguments but omit the compulsory training they do at school.
As am I & I totally agree with you. Its as if he deliberately swerved in front of the car . I would say its a cyclist version of when a car brakes suddenly and gets rear ended so he can make a claim against the driver.
Just like the driver did to the cyclist without giving a lawful distance. The cyclist was taking up a more prominent position on the road, as they are advised to. The cyclist did not need to indicate, the driver knew very well where the cyclist was and intentionally drove at the cyclist, in the full knowledge that tge driver coukd have caused death.
@@FredScuttle456 The driver knew very well where the cyclist was, he'd just passed him cutting him up and nearly knocking the cyclist off his bike. The driver hadn't managed it, when a second chance presented itself, the driver made sure not to miss. If he had actually tried to avoid a collision, the driver would have done an emergency stop.
Yes, that analysis is exactly what I expected. Pleased to have heard your legal view on this. Cyclists need to be more responsible for how they interact with other road users in my view. As a cyclist I would have stopped when the car got too close and let it go ahead out of harm's way.
I don't believe the car was too close if both parties observed sensible road craft. What puzzles me about this is thta the cyclist was initially beside the car, but then got in front before moving into the cars path. If he was going fast enough to move from beside to in front, why did he then slow so the car hit him?
Noo the car was! Literally ran him over. In uk you need to give minimum 1.5m space to cyclists. The rangey was already breaking the law by being that close them ran him down. Should be charged with attempted murder
nahhhhhh , cyclist didnt know the car driver would run him over when he placed himself in danger . He expected brakes to be slammed on to avoid him , it didnt happen , stupid wins prizes . Theres a worth to the ego of some cyclists and his was to be sat on his arse nursing bruises next to a broken bike . Of note it was being recorded by another darwin award contender so that ego was super dooper inflated by this .
@@godzillas6301 the car knew the biker was there, he expected the biker to be infront of him, still ran him down, laws on bikers side pal. If that was a motorbike you'd be saying car at fault.
@@Yeetyeet2154 Unless of course the car was the first to the crossing where they both stopped. If that were the case then the cyclist violated that 1.5m rule.
Stupid rules aside, the reality of cycling in a city (I cycled across central London in rush hour for years) is that you need to be happy, confident and talented enough to be close to vehicles. In the real world, that cyclist had plenty of space if he’d focussed on himself and not focussed on the driver of the car.
Totally agree. Yes, the LR was too close, but on my daily cycle commute into London that sort of distance is quite normal, especially in slow moving traffic.
That makes absolute sense. The cyclist must have slowed, hence the brake lights, the traffic lights were on green. Why did the cyclist move in front and then slow down?
@@Must_not_say_that A car avoiding a pothole has to balance damaing his car or crashing in to another car. we tend to choose the former because the latter is idiotic, much like this cyclist. I suppose if you do damage your bike you could just do what we do and take a hit on your insurance, oh, wait a second, thats right you have no insurance, or licence for that matter or indeed any means of identification at all, some of which is probably contributary to this accident. Had he put his fist through the window of that car, he can most likely get away scot free whilst the driver picks up the tab. You want equal rights on the road? then take equal responsibility how does that sound?
@Must_not_say_that You simply can't just go swerving all over the road, avoiding potholes and drains without first indicating your intentions or at least checking that it is clear and safe to do so. The cyclist clearly knew the car was there, deliberately rode in front of a vehicle that had clearly already done a close pass thereby showing the cyclist they were a danger! Cyclist was on an ego trip, simple as that.
He slowed and moved over to make the right turn, It was a turn right lane and the cyclist has the right to use the whole lane. Cars behind must leave sufficient stopping distance from vehicles in front. As soon as he was in front the car should have backed off. You can't just drive into someone because youre pissed theyre in front of you. When you get your licence you will understand.
@bikeman123 The car war backing off, break lights went on as soon as the bike moved in front. The cyclists swerved in front of the car and braked. Its his fault.
This isn't shaky cam footage. This is someone who had a friend who knows how to setup, operate and frame the shot... And it's the camera operators blog who he refers to the fallen cyclist as his teammate. This has red flags. Especially how there are examples of other Cyclists in London who are catered to and yet they still film misleading footage claiming they are not catered too. Regardless the cyclist broke the No.1 rule. Don't distract the driver while the vehicle is in motion.
It's his fault because you always must maintain adequate distance to the vehicle in front. In this case, I would say fault is split 50-50 because the cyclist clearly drifted in front of the car in an unnecessary manner, cutting him off. But the driver failed to maintain adequate spacing. Even if someone brake checks you and you rear end him, you will still share some of the fault.
Look at the brake lights. The driver operates his brakes BEFORE the cyclist falls. The cyclist went directly in front of the vehicle, and very close to it. The driver braked but couldn't stop so quickly as to avoid a collision.
@@ManOfMonism you did see the cyclist deliberately swerve in front of the vehicle? Or are you partially sighted? The only way the driver could have avoided the idiot is if he had parked up before it happened.
@@ManOfMonism Are you serious? If a motorbike cut infront of you with inches to spare and imediatley slowed down making you hit it, it would it be your fault for not paying enough attention and leaving enough room? Do you not know that when you overtake , you should leave a 2 second gap when you pull in? The reason for a 2 second gap is to give enough time to react , the cyclist gave the car none.
@@DemiGod.. what you just described is a common insurance scam here in the uk. cyclist is an idiot in this case and if he files a person injury lawsuit I'd say he did it deliberately.
@@TesseractDome yeah lane gets narrower, cyclist was infront, you need to leave 1.5m space for cyclists. Rangey should never have overtook him and stayed back
Thanks again for your great explanition of a legal concept. As this happended in California I feel it pertinant to share some legal information that the cyclist is more likely to be aware of than the Landrover driver; that is that California has very progressive road rules regarding cyclists and pedestrians such that cyclists may move to the left in order to avoid road hazards and that any vehicles behind them must yield the right of way to a vehicle in front of them in the same lane, and on a two way street cyclists must ride as close as possible to the right curb with a few excpetions; the most important in this case being unless if the cyclist is approaching a right hand turn. Other pertinent rules include: vehicles, including other cyclists, must give 3 feet of clearance to any cyclist on the road either ahead or to the side of them, if you can't give 3 feet of space to a cyclist you must yield to them until you can provide that safe space. Another tip for tourists visiting the US is that each state has its own rules of the road and if you are renting a vehicle to do a road trip the rental company is under no obligation to inform you of this, so it is worthwhile to visit the state motor vehicle webiste for each of the state you will be driving trough and look them over for their differences. Source material: www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/laws-and-rules-of-the-road-cont1/
@@venusfooltrap7371 Peculiar comment. I currently ride a Gazelle e-Bike, a Ducati (1000ss half-fairing), a very special BMW 430D and a Polo run around. No chariots. Ready to give one a go. Might I try yours?
As a cyclist I would consider myself a fool if I did what this guy did. He was an accident waiting to happen. Just because he wanted to shift wide to give the drain cover a wide margin does not mean that all other road users are able to accommodate his wished. This even more profound since he already knew there was a vehicle beside him. Dude was a fool.
@@S7Vmv which law? Which country? Tne road narrowed on the cars left, yet the cyclist steered right into the path of an oncoming vehicle. The guy was a fool. I can say this cos i cycled every day to work 5 miles through south London and managed to survive in a hostile environment.
@@conormcmenemie5126 as a driver you are required by law to leave a cars width of space, and if the driver done this. the cyclists could steer like that and not be anywhere near of being hit. that's the point. the car created the situation. why is the car so close?
@@S7Vmvit’s obvious from your comment that you haven’t watched and understood the video. The cyclist, who knew they would swing wide to take the junction, knowingly put themself in closely front of a 2T+ vehicle. Unless I missed something the cyclist doesn’t have brake lights and didn’t signal their intent to turn, just how was the vehicle driver supposed to know the idiot cyclist was going to slow? The cyclist should have put his ego aside and slotted in behind the vehicle.
Point-scoring, entitlement and arrogance by both parties is clearly at work here and that's asking for trouble. One of the best bits of safe driving advice I've ever seen comes from instructor Ashley Neal's YT channel in which he teaches his student to question their role in every situation: 'Am I part of the problem or am I part of the solution?'
Undertalking a moving vehicle, and without leaving enough space between him and the vehicle when he moved in front of it. IF he had gone forward but NOT in fornt of the car, he might have been fine.
moved in front and then braked. The driver was already braking so the cyclist must have braked harder. 100 per cent teh cyclist looking to cause trouble.
drivers should give them at least 1.5 meters (5 feet) of space when traveling at speeds up to 30 miles per hour. At higher speeds, drivers should give cyclists more space, and at speeds of 30 miles per hour or more, drivers may need to give cyclists the width of their car. so why is the car so close to begin with?
I bet if the driver gave extra space to the cyclist and an accident took place where the car crashed into another as a result, you know 100% the cyclist would ride off like they had no responsibility. Get some insurance and registration papers and past some tests, be it an actual licence to ride a bike and then we can talk about how much you should have the same rights as other vehicles on the road.
It’s a right turn lane. You can’t turn at 45 degrees. You need to pull out a bit to take the corner to hold that position. If you don’t you’re going to veer across the lane once you go round the corner. I’m not saying the cyclist is completely right. But it did all start with a car straddling lanes because the driver feels the need to overtake the cyclist who’s moving at the same speed as the traffic, coming up to a turn. If you’re on a bike you’re vulnerable, being right doesn’t keep you alive.
It's called claiming the lane and is designed to keep motorists at a distance, cyclists are encouraged to do so and 100% within their rights to do so. Cars MUST give way to cyclists, the cyclist was clearly in front of the car yet the driver does nothing to slow and give them space.
@@greghart6310 the problem with trying to assert road dominion as a cyclist is that you are the most likely to die in any vehicle collision - Though I do also encourage cyclists attempting to claim the lane especially with HGVs and tractors.
The asshole is the driver making his own lane by driving next to the cyclist without any intention of overtaking. Either you overtake or you drive behind, but not next to.
Pathetic. If you were walking next to a road way or parking lot and car came close to you, you wouldn’t react or take action to make sure the driver is made aware of your presence because you’re polite. Give your head a wobble
@@BauregardSenior87 the car could've not illegally overtook the cyclists and this would never happen, but for some reason some drivers feel they should never have to adjust their speed or be responsible for their own road position, almost like they're trying to be professional victims.
Range Rover was to close. Cyclist banging on the car was road rage. Maneuvering in such a manner as to cause another road user to brake or change direction is bad. Cyclist is a moron.
Rover had a vehicle immediately on his left. The Rover probably slowed down or the cyclist speeded up. In any event the cyclist pulled in front literally PASSING from the wrong side of the road aka illegal.
@@Interdiction tapping? He had to lean over to repeatedly bang the side of the car, you just know that's one of his favourite tricks. All he had to do was slow down slightly and the car would have been out of his way but he has try to make his point by staying alongside and then eventually veering out and brake checking the car because he wanted to 'beat' the driver. Guy is a total tool.
why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more, if you follow the law you can never be close enough for this to even happen with a cyclist
@@SuperCholdi why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more, if you follow the law you can never be close enough for this to even happen with a cyclist
@@bertbertoUk As a non-cyclist, you wouldn’t know that a human being will drift on a bicycle when he looks away from where he intends to travel. Call it a limitation of the human brain.
I'd accept Daniel's assessment 100% I had a crazy case 2 years ago on a single-track road (with passing places every 100 metres) and a cyclist overtook me (I was doing 9 mph) he caused £1270 of damage but, claimed in court he suffered almost £2000! Cutting a long one short, he lost based on the width of the road (his 'space' to pass was 31") unfortunately, him having no insurance, meant I was the loser financially, as he had no means of paying! My costs went well over £2700!
As a cyclist, I would not wrestle with a motor vehicle. I would have allowed the Range Rover to go ahead irrespective of who is right or wrong. I feel this cyclist was mostly to blame.
Agreed. There’s also a principle that, if a fellow road user is being a nuisance, best to get distance from them. So maybe slow down and let the driver move a few car lengths ahead.
I pay good money to keep my bicycle safe, and stay out of the way out of vehicles - it is a lot easier than trying to cop an attitude with two Tonnes of moving steel.
Well normally if you’re in charge of the two tonnes of metal it’s your responsibility to avoid hitting other people, rather than theirs to avoid being hit by you
Fellow cyclist who cycles 20 km every day primarily on roads similar to that. The cyclist is completely in the wrong here. He got caught up by a close pass which sure the driver shouldn’t have done. But rather than think objectively about how to handle the situation safely he got emotional, tapping on the car and getting in front of the car to make a point. It’s about as close to road rage from a cyclist as I’ve seen. One of the things I’ve realized cycling so far is that this concept of right of way needs to stop. We need to do our best to minimize the chances of road incidents. If it means allowing someone to cut us off so be it. Because remember folks, a fender can be fixed. Broken ribs, bones or worse can’t so easily be fixed. And to the Barrister’s point, if you the cyclist can show you took all prudent measures to avoid an accident but still got in an accident, then liability will shift all the way to the driver.
I have a suspicion that the cyclist swerved to avoid the raised drain that he almost landed on when he crashed, it looked like he went in front because the Rover braked, which may well have been more courage than sense ?!?
@@colingregory7464 The "raised drain" was entirely within the width of the gutter (light grey coloured part of the road). The cyclist was not cycling in the gutter and the drain was not (even remotely) in his path so he had no need to swerve into the path of the Range Rover (which he knew was right behind him). Even were the drain in his path (which it wasn't) and he wished to avoid it then prior to moving out (into the path of the Range Rover) he should have looked and signalled. He did neither. I am a cyclist and the incident was 100% the fault of the cyclist. The prior footage (not shown in this video but can be viewed on the UpRide website) shows the cyclist checking over his left shoulder and signalling prior to moving out to pass a parked car. Therefore the cyclist clearly knows what he should do prior to moving further out into the road. Also, the prior footage shows that, after he passed the parked car, he stayed further out in the road (further from the kerb) than he had been prior to passing the parked car. If the cyclist had returned to closer to the kerb (without being in the gutter) there would have been ample room for the Range Rover to pass. One last point, in the UpRide description of the video, the guy filming states "He squeezed my teammate against the curb and then when my teammate moved into the road to avoid an old drain pipe and make a right turn." If (as claimed) he was going to make a right turn then he failed to make a signal. When making a turn (be it on a bike or a car) does not entitle the rider/ driver to swerve out to make it easier to make the turn (at a faster speed). What should happen is to maintain your position on the road and reduce speed to safely take the turn. One last thing, if he was intending to make a right turn (as claimed by his filming teammate) then he would have his left leg (not right leg) extended and his right leg bent. When cornering, it should be the inside leg that is bent.
@@rogerexcell249 He didn't hold out his left arm, no... Because he was in a right turn only lane. Read the Highway Code, specifically rule 213. It is the car driver's responsibility to give other vulnerable road users room to react suddenly to poor road surfaces.
Before you even say it. Im saying its the cyclist fault he deliberately pulls infront of a 2.5 tonne vehicle which can’t stop as quickly as a smaller vehicle.
This reminds me of a time when I was a young 6 year old lad. I couldn't cycle very quickly, and as I approached a right hand bend with a left turn into the local quarry works, I heard the lorry on the road behind me. I thought "I bet he's not going to stop, and will go left, into the quarry". I slammed on the anchors, and the truck ploughed straight on, going left into the quarry. It still gives me a cold sweat thinking about it now. It would be good if you could cover the accidents caused by delivery "cyclists" on overpowered/ illegal electric bikes. Thank you.
I presume he thought he was further ahead of the car than he actually was - or maybe he swerved out into the road without thinking. I doubt he intended to get crashed into, but he was negligent for sure.
Cars are supposed to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance. The Highway Code states that you should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide: leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds.
@@caparn100amazes me more people aren't pointing this out. Cars clearly at fault. I couldn't hit a car infront of me and say aww he was too close. You rear end someone your at fault. Driver should be banned
@@caparn100it’s not in this country Highway Code probably not applicable here, cyclist twat pulled in front and moved out in front of a 2.5 ton vehicle cyclist was making a point and came of worse which makes him a complete twat
The car basically travelled a straight course, about a foot inside the lane markings that you see from time to time. If the cyclist got rear-ended it was due to undertaking then moving out in front of the car. That said, both of them could easily have made it a non-event (trademark for Ashley Neal pending) but didn’t…
The cyclist is at least a metre from the kerb, causing the RR to pass more closely to begin with, and there's at least another 80cm between the RR and the cyclist when he banged on the window, so he had a 'lane' of about 1.8m to cycle within - which is perfectly adequate. He then swerves in front of the RR at the junction - "to avoid an old drain pipe", extravagantly, by at least another metre and either brakes or slows down to make the turn, causing the RR to run into him. This is 100% the cyclist's fault - he was seeking confrontation.
Yes exactly. The cyclist was out on a jolly ride looking for trouble. Cyclist has the “cyclist chip on shoulder against all drivers and is a member of the Lycra Club, with tight crutch. What an arse
All the car had to do was slow down? Cyclists have right of way. 1.5m car should've gave the cyclist? Did that look like 1.5m? Clearly a fat car driving moron
@WilliamLaverick-wo1nb, time to give up cycling and admit you favour four wheels. Your analysis applies equally to the driver. All he had to do was slow down.
A robber pulls a gun on you - and you try to wrestle the gun out of his hand and he shoots you in the leg. Should YOU be considered at fault? You would just play along with bullies and criminals? Just lay down flat... like a doormat?
Well explained, my biggest gripe is that these cyclist knowingly undertake vehicles on the inside and then blame the driver, this is an action that should be legislated against.
@@paddymurphy-oconnor8255 thats because the cyclist is being a twat and bashing the sie of his vehicle -- he doesnt deserve respect. Most importantly, the cyclist may also have come up alongside the vehicles blind spot
Let's think critically. If i was in lane 2 and merged back into lane 1 without giving enough room to the car behind me i would likely be held liable for causing an accident. I see no reason why this circumstance is different
It's only one lane, any part of which should be available to any road user. The Range Rover driver appears to feel the need to share it with a more vulnerable road user who indicates that it's not a good idea and then gets rear-ended when he establishes something approaching prime position. It's difficult to judge the clearance between his back wheel and the Range Rover as he moved across, or whether he braked before being hit but it's certainly possible that he misjudged. Assuming no brake-check (which would be unlikely for any but the insane), the onus would usually be on the vehicle behind to avoid a collision. I would have dropped back after the tap on the window if I'd been driving.
Essential the cyclist brake checked the car in the end, but as cycles dont come with brake lights or indicators (legally required on all other road legal vehicles) nor gave any cycling hand actions to indicate intention of turning or slowing down, the car has warning of their actions and no chance
@@S7Vmv Thing is, that passing closeness wasn't the cause of the accident. If the car had left enough space at the side it still would have been an accident when the bike swerved in front of it and stopped.
Driver of course drove too close to the cyclist, but the second the cyclist decided to move in front of the vehicle, he was 1000% at fault. 0 survival instincts on the man.
@@lordcurre39 this incident didn't happen in the UK, you're forgetting we drive on the 'wrong' side of the road 🤣 At a guess I'd say this was in America. Still, I agree with you, the car driver did nothing wrong here.
I am 100% cyclist, commute every day in Greater Manchester and this is 100% cyclist fault. What a bell end. Like he did it in a purpose. I always "care" about safety of a car more than of myself if you know what I mean. In case of error, mishap, accident... they will have a dent in the body and I may have dent in the skull. I always trying to have footprint on the road as small as it's possible and give a way to driver even if code favours me in particular situations. I think drivers appreciate this, didn't have any accidents so far.
Basically the cyclist should not have put himself in the path of the vehicle, he should have stayed on the Near side of the car. Near side being nearest to the curb! He shouldn't have touched the car either.
As a cyclist, don’t get yourself killed or injured for the sake of being right, your ego or making a video to post online. As a driver remember that every time you get behind the wheel you have the potential to seriously injure or kill someone and it’s your responsibility to look after them, even if they’re being silly, like in this case.
@@robgilmour3147 there is a difference between a break check and slowing down. I’m not saying the cyclist was right here, let’s be very clear there. I am Dutch, the cycle nation of the world, and this was silly from the cyclist. But that does not make it a break check.
@@robgilmour3147 Wikipedia definition; A brake check, also known as a brake test, occurs when a driver deliberately either taps on the brakes several times or slams hard on the pedal when moving in front of another vehicle, with the intention of causing the behind driver to either collide or take evasive action
@@CobisTaba With respect, just because something is written on Wikipedia does not mean that it is the gospel truth or fully accurate. The citation for what you've quoted from Wikipedia is taken from an article from a New Zealand website (DT - Driving Test) and this is what that article states: "Brake testing or brake checking is a phrase often heard in motorsport, but can be applied to the road, too. A brake test is when a driver ahead of you deliberately and unnecessarily brakes hard in order to force you to take evasive action or to cause you to run into the back of them. It is used in road rage incidents or when the driver in front is trying to commit insurance fraud." Notwithstanding what else I say below, the cyclist was clearly suffering from road rage, which evidenced by him recklessly (and dangerously for himself) banging on the side of the car. Also, it is possible that the cyclist was attempting insurance fraud. He had his perfectly placed teammate cycling behind him to capture the incident on camera. It is worth noting that the Range Rover passed the following cyclist (filming) just seconds before he started to pass the cyclist (that fell off his bike). The Range Rover passed the following cyclist with a similar width gap and there was absolutely no negative reaction/ comments from the following cyclist so he clearly did not consider the car to be too close. The gap to the the cyclist (who banged on the window) was not in contravention of California law and the Range Rover, prior to the banging on the window, had not interfered with the safety of the cyclist. As an aside, the cyclist was cycling too far from the kerb (curb) in contravention of California law and, even if he thought the car was too close (even though it wasn't), he had ample room on his right to move further away from the car (without going into the wide gutter, which is part of the road). In order to reach the car (to hit it), he had to lean way over to his left (evident by how far to the left his head is from the centre of his body). Returning to the New Zealand website article, it goes on to say the following: "Brake testing is *dangerous driving,* but that doesn’t tell you why the driver in front might be doing it. There are a number of reasons: *The driver thinks you did something wrong, e.g. you cut them off, but you didn’t actually do something wrong* *The driver thinks you did something wrong, e.g. you drove inconsiderately in some way, such as tailgating, aggressive overtaking, driving too slowly, etc* *The driver is mentally unstable and has issues that are either psychological or drug-induced, and you don’t have much control over that.* *The driver wants you to run into them so that they can claim on their insurance.^ At least one (or more) of the reasons could easily apply to the cyclist. The facts of the matter are that the cyclist was intending on turning right at the junction but failed to give any signal that this was his intention (in contravention of California law as he was obliged to give a right signal from 100 feet before the turn). He knew that the car was very close to him (and the driver could not be aware of his intention to turn right as he had not given any signal) yet he deliberately moved directly in front of the car (also without any indication or signal) then immediately applied his brakes, which caused the Range Rover driver to take evasive action (perform an emergency stop) and collide with the bike. Therefore there seems to be pretty strong evidence that the cyclist did break check the Range Rover. What the cyclist did was clearly dangerous (not least to himself).
Afternoon Dan 👋A nice breakdown of events that will hopefully deter less vulnerable road users from putting themselves into extra risk. Having not gone through the comments where this may have been already said there is an added point that I just need to mention. It looked as though to me the cyclist was going to turn right, which was the reason for them moving in front of the vehicle. They didn't slow much, but they did slow a little just a few moments prior to impact which in my opinion contributed towards the collision also. As normal, two poor road users battling for the same space.
All schools should make it compulsory for all children to complete a Cycling Proficiency Test at 12-15 years old... We did ours in junior school, (after hours, non compulsory in the 80's)
The car was initially at fault, but then the bike chooses to undertake then pull out and brake test the car. The bike rider is part narcissist, part Lemming and will eventually succumb to Darwin’s Law if he carries on like that. The bike riders stupid actions should legally override the car drivers negligence.
How much fkn space does a cyclist need??? See what looks like the gutter by the pavement? That's where these clowns need to be, that's where we were expected to be when we rode our bikes back in the 70's/80's, as far to the side as possible.
At no point does the bicycle _undertake.._ The car is undertaking the bicycle. This is a RHT road (and a right turn only lane), not the UK. And he's not 'brake testing' - he's slowing down for the corner and the massive pothole. The car simply needed to back off, but kept right up behind him. _That_ was the unsafe action.
@@wessexdruid7598 you need to watch it again. The car is too close as he passes, then the cyclist goes from the rear of the car to just past it and swerves in front of the car while slowing down. The cyclist is just as capable as the car of braking, but chooses not to. Was he a safe distance past the car when he swerved in front of it? The evidence would suggest not. Riding a bike does not excuse you from using good road sense, it was a stupid manoeuvre.
I will say cyclist's fault, Range Rover had a tight fit if you look at the line on the road on his left, and we don't know what is coming towards him on the left...
I will say driver's fault, Range Rover had a tight fit if you look at the line on the road on his left, he should have kept back and not overtake the cyclist at that point.
just imagine if the cyclist was driving the car instead and did what he did. there would be no doubt he was 100% at fault. the cyclist lacks common sense and his ego made him go a little crazy
why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more, if you follow the law you can never be close enough for this to even happen with a cyclist
@@Metro6am how can a car following the law over take a cyclist and the cyclist has the ability to touch the car?so they law was broke. and the cyclist reacted. stop defending criminal scum
I’m currently studying a law (conversion) masters and I’m finding tort so interesting…pleased to say that contributory negligence was my first thought!
Not all Cyclists are like this! I hope people realise .. but also car drivers need to leave at least a metres width when passing .. and also not get too close behind...
It takes two to tango in this instance, IMO. The driver should have backed off from a potentially dangerous situation. The cyclist was just an idiot: cars are harder than people! I had a similar situation where I backed into a cyclist and knocked him off. I was in a van with restricted view, and had no idea he was right behind me. The police took no action against me.
cars/vans/motorbikes back off when a lorry/bus driver is about to do a potentially dangerous situation (which they do all the time if you spend any time on the road). its like... there's this thing called a pecking order on the roads... infact... just in life... don't fuck around with shit that's bigger than you coz if you can get hurt... you probably will get hurt. lorrys just gona pull out or keep going on my side of the road is he? oh well better stop or move the fuck out the way... dont want to crash or hurt myself. then god gave us this cyclist.
Agreed, but the law still places more responsibility on the driver of the larger vehicle. So the driver may end up, for example, with 80% of the blame even if it was only 50% his fault .
True, but the UK and America have very similar legal systems especially as it pertains to civil or common law, so many legal principles such as reasonable duty of care ect still stand up.
As a cyclist and a driver I can see both sides of this. On the drivers side there is the distance they are from the centre of the road to consider, as well as the distance from the cyclist while at the same time ensuring good positioning for the upcoming junction. From being a cyclist there is also the condition of the road to consider. - Cyclists often have to maneuver around potholes and drain covers etc, as well as being in the correct position on the junction. I feel that in this case it has to be 50/50 as neither party seemed to consider what the other party would do and compensate for it.
It's in America (look at the script accompanying the video) which means a)the motorist doesn't have to give the cyclist space and b) 'filtering' is not legal the way it is here in the UK which means that the cyclist should never have been in the Range Rover's lane in the first place.
The most important thing is to consider what the end result could be if there is an "accident", Car - Worst case scenario Minor damage, Cyclist - Worst case scenario death! So in conclusion the Cyclist has to stop because its common sense regardless of any other factors, obviously "they" are entitled!?!
Looking at the video, it seems to me that the cyclist pulled out infront of the Range Rover and then SEEMS to have braked hard, - basing this on the fact that the Range Rover brakes so hard that they LOCKED the back wheels - as shown by the skid marks - and then hits the cyclist. Now if the cyclist was turning right, why did they not give some sort of indication to warn the car ? Also, realistically, the cyclist had no need to swerve out to "avoid an old drain pipe" (I think they mean drain cover actually as there is no pipe there) but they had PLENTY of room to stay where they were (on their own line of travel) without the need to swerve out especially bearing in mind they were (apparently) going to be turning right but had given NO INDICATION AT ALL.
In the first frame, the car's front tire was next to the bike's rear tire, so it does look more like the car was tailgating instead of the cycle attempting to overtake on the inside.
Range Rover should not overtake so close to a bike rider -- it works both ways. In the start it was the Range Rover that decided to overtake the bike rider who was riding 1/3 in the lane and moved out into the second lane. When the Range Rover got level it edged towards the bike rider and pushed them into the gutter --- this is an very aggressive driver who no doubt thinks they own all of the road . From then on its 50 /50 fault , but the event was started by the driver of the Range Rover.
Not saying the cyclist did the right thing but the counter argument is that if all cyclists just dive out of the way of cars forcing their way through then this encourages idiots like this Range Rover driver to think it's an acceptable practice. This is what the new UK highway code rules try to tackle by giving cyclists the right to ride defensively & in the middle of the lane when they feel is necessary as ultimately they are the vulnerable road user. That said I wouldn't put myself in harm's way just to make a point. As the old saying goes: 'He was right, they cried, he was right all along. But now he's as dead as if he was wrong'. In short, I'm not sure what the answer to the correct outcome is. All I know is people shouldn't be t***s to each other in the first place & that driver should have held back & waited to overtake to give a car's width of space.
I was 3 years old when I realised that you shouldn’t play with your toys on the road! You want to ride a toy? Either go where there aren’t any cars, or ride as though your next peddle is your last…..because it could be.
The only thing to add (and I don't think it made a difference to the outcome) is that the RR was closing the distance to the kerb until just after the cyclist hit the RR window. He/she then straightened up. Perhaps indicating a lack of observation from the RR driver. Agrred the cyclist shouldn't have put himself in front of the RR.
The cyclist didn't drift out he deliberately turned left into the vehicle ( like all road users appear to do now as thay don't appear to be able to turn a corner without using more than one lane usually 3 & the footpath)
Banging on window is distracting driver contributing to risk. He went in front way to close and despite green light slowed down 100% at fault by trying to be an activist
I’m a road cyclist like the one in the video and have countless experiences and close scrapes. One thing I’ve learnt is I waitlist like to keep my limbs and skin and the risk is a hit or accident and run. Personal responsibility even if you’re in the right, not worth it because a cyclist will always come off worst
'Spite' was in operation by both sides. The cyclists manoeuvre was suspicious, unnecessary, unless to make a point which he certainly did, I'm no lawyer but I know logic and emotion don't mix and they're both guilty of being clowns. And then the American way of being when it comes lawsuits and all - Any reason to launch a lawsuit.
I don't think there was any spite from the car, the driver was correctly looking to the left when entering a junction to check for red light runners when the cyclist made a totally unpredictable move.
Cyclists have a duty to their own safety to ride defensively. A Range Rover is much bigger than a bloke on a bike. Stay away from the vehicle. Don't ride directly and closely in front of the vehicle.
@blackbeltbarrister Excellent analysis. Would be good to know if it did in fact end up before a court. I also noticed the cyclist could reach out and hit the car, but could not signal that he was overtaking and moving in front of the vehicle. My understanding is cyclists should use hand signals, maybe not in that cyclists jurisdiction, but definitely here in Australia. On that basis I would push your 80% to 85 or 90%.
While I'd like to blame the cyclist, the RR wasn't making a safe pass. Even if the cyclist was antagonist in the situation and being a terrible road user, the RR never had enough safe space to pass. Therefore I would argue that his manoeuvre was dangerous.
Cyclist clearly thinks he own the entire road. You’d have thought given his vulnerable position on the road, he’d have a little more self preservation!
I'm a cyclist. Firstly the written commentary below says they're in a team.At no point does he signal his team mate behind to slow down,stop or point to the potential hazard so he plainly didn't give an F about his team mate.2nd..Slapping the range rover was stupid,he could've(and probably did)put himself off balance,hence the slight swing away to the right and then over-compensating in the opposite direction,thus swinging out in front of the car. The slapping probs distracted the driver too and made him/her to swerve slightly to the right(you move to the side you're leaning to,to see). 3rd..I don't drive but that range rover couldn't change lanes,so was giving him as much room as he could afford,plus in my opinion wasn't going very fast. 90% the cyclist's fault. Learn a bitta respect for other road users and yer bloomin' team mates-learn how to signal them!
The only thing I'd disagree is that the Range Rover had nowhere else to be. Yes it did: Behind the cyclists. If there isn't space to be beside a cyclist safely, you shouldn't be beside them. Simple as that.
@@KindredBrujah but they were safely side by side and the car could have easily passed but the cyclist didn't want that to happen... it was unsafe the instant the bawbag took his hand off his steering and braking mechanism to reduce the space some more to slam on the windows... then speed up to pull out in front of the car. maybe putting his own hand back on his bars threw him off balance in front of the car... who knows... but the cyclist was unsafe the minute he took a hand off... he was perfectly safe until he looked in the window and decided to get road ragey... probably a female driver an he thought that's someone i can swear at, coz he wouldn't be acting that way if its was a 6'4 roid pumping beast driving it.
As a motorcyclist, and very aware of my frailty compared to cars, vans, buses etc. I will always look for safety, and an escape path. My safety is more important to me than proving another road user is in the wrong. All contact with another vehicle, whether accidental or deliberate must be avoided, because the risk to a motorcyclist or cyclist can be extreme. Be safe not pig headed
Yep, they were both wrong. I'm a cyclist and I also drive. Here in the UK the golden rule in the Highway Code is always avoid an accident. Regardless of whose right of way it is. If by exercising that right you cause an accident, then its your fault. The driver was too close. The cyclist acted like a muppet. Both of them should have recognised the danger. The driver could have simply slowed down. So could the cyclist. Neither did. Double fail. I always tell other cyclists don't get worked up. Ultimately you can easily be squashed. Thankfully this wasn't that bad. I hope they both recognise how dumb their actions were.
The driver was not too close. He was passing, giving the cyclist plenty of space. An arms distance is plenty. If you need more than that to judge distance at low speed, perhaps you should not be using the roads?
Your explanation makes perfect sense in this case, with the cyclist moving directly in front of the car (if not deliberate, it at least looks a bit wreckless). However, suppose he hadn't swerved in front of the car, but just carried on before getting hit and pushed into the kerb by that same car veering even closer. It sounds like the cyclist could still be considered "wreckless" simply for continuing his journey without stopping, knowing there was a car "very close" and driving without due care and attention.
@Fudders, Exactly. At what point does refusal to be intimidated into giving way become contribution to fault? I suspect the answer is in the eloquence and charisma of the barristers involved in the case and the bias of the court.
The cyclist is taking the primary position to discourage another close pass. As a cyclist, I may have just backed off and let this errant driver endanger only himself, however, there was a logic to the behavior of the cyclist. Non-cyclists don't relaise how cycling in the gutter/secondary position tends to invite the kind of close pass in this video.
Sorry, but the vehicle didnt pass the cyclist in the video. Either one could have been passing the other, from the portion of video evidence available. The cyclist was stupid to have continue on the course he was taking, and to wander infront of the vehicle was utterly insane.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
im not a cyclist but if i was i wouldnt be going infront of a driver who isnt giving me enough space while im by his side, id slow down and get behind them, value your life more than your ego.
💯
The highway code encourages cyclists to "take the lane" - riding in the middle of the lane to prevent motorists passing unsafely (by squeezing past and not giving adequate space). Also being directly in their line of sight (straight ahead) means they are less likely to get hit than by the motorist "wafting" from left to right which often happens (could also be to avoid potholes or other road users).
@@lifeisbetterwithj I think this is an instance to show exactly why everyone needs to give each other space. The move over is something like a second and the accident happens maybe a second or two later. This is exactly the range that drivers are also told to keep space wise, temporarily from other cars (3 seconds+) because it normally takes a second to recognize an issue and more to react, and more to actually stop. So while it might be a good idea to pull in front of the car for those reasons, I suspect it's a good idea to rush ahead of the vehicle to get in their view and give them more time to react, here it appears the cyclist pulls in front almost immediately with hardly any space between, fortunately it looks like the car had time to break.
A lot of people on bikes think they own the road. Some are just entitled as hell. I don’t even remember how many times I have seen 4 cyclists side by side in twos taking up the whole road and not letting anything past. Even when there was a path they could have easily went on and let cars past they just sit in the middle of the road inconveniencing every other car user who are stuck behind them at 10 miles an hour. I get the feeling a lot of cyclists think they are morally superior so the road should be theirs based on this.
@@lifeisbetterwithj The question for me is who got to the crossing where they were both stopped first. If it was the car, then the cyclist had no right to the lane at all.
I remember an argument with my mum and dad about her driving. She said “ I was in the right” my dad said “what good is being in the right if you are dead”.
My mum’s words were ‘he was right, dead right, as he sped along and he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong’
Similar thing, my dads motto was 'as long as it's not my fault, I'm insured.' I said once, tell that to a 5 year old bouncing off your bonnet. After the evil look, I did think it made a difference.
Presumably she divorced him after that death threat.
It was the cyclist's fault for cutting in front of a huge moving car. What was the point of that? Is he an ambulance chaser???? Bloody idiot....
@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo You took that as a death threat? ... He's saying being right doesn't matter if the fight results in your own demise. like the turn of phrase, the hill you want to die on. Is it worth defending the hill to the death in a fight of principle? You may even be in the right fighting for the hill, but If it's obvious the fight will end in you being dead, is it really worth fighting for the hill? You may also call it a Pyrrhic Victory.
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, i always wonder why riders "argue" with a larger vehicle. Just let them pass. Enjoy and finish your ride.
Sensible.
They feel the need to enforce themselves upon the road. It isn’t about being safe. It’s about exercising their “right” to ride a bicycle on a road full of cars. The entire hobby is rooted in it.
when a real case of endangerment by negligence, adrenalin
f.e. drivers on their phone who rush by you at an inch, totaly unaware
An explination, not an excuse
@@OkieDokieSmokie No point being "right" when they are lowering you in the grave
@@josvercaemer264 all the more reason to treat everyone else on the road as a total tool and stay away from them
Cyclist appeared to be 'brake checking' the car.
Bicycle v. Range Rover, that’s always going to end well for the cyclist.😂
It almost looks like deliberate action by the cyclist. Unbelievable.
it was deliberate - he knew the driver was trying to bully him out of the way and gave him a FU.......driver should have backed off at that point but decided he would crash instead
@@geoffc4088 The driver applied brakes before collision.
@@geoffc4088 There was no bullying. dont be so sensitive. The driver was set up
Spot on. Arrogant arse of a cyclist
@geoffc4088 you do know that breaks don't immediately stop cars, right?
Just because the law may be on your side, does not mean that the grim reaper will be.
I have been cycling for 50 years and we were taught to cycle defensively. Personally, at that speed I would have been reasonably comfortable with the range-rover that close but would have preferred more space. However, I would have dropped back because he may not have seen me and could potentially turn onto me. Why this cyclist chose to put himself in harms way I do not know - but I see it a lot. I frequently see cyclists "force" bad positions, I presume to get a feeling of righteousness.
No cycle test or instruction legally required.
Funny how cyclists always quote the Netherlands in arguments but omit the compulsory training they do at school.
It’s the cyclist’s fault, for being an ass. And I’m a cyclist.
As am I & I totally agree with you. Its as if he deliberately swerved in front of the car . I would say its a cyclist version of when a car brakes suddenly and gets rear ended so he can make a claim against the driver.
No you're not.
@@nighttrain1236 ???
@@2wheelsrbest327 The motorist was already too close though.
cyclists fault 100%
This looks like the cyclist intentionally put himself in front of
The car.
I have to say it looks like that to me, too.
@@Blacksquareable Look at the Range Rover's brake lights.
The driver braked to avoid a collision but the cyclist had swerved in front of the car.
100%
Just like the driver did to the cyclist without giving a lawful distance.
The cyclist was taking up a more prominent position on the road, as they are advised to. The cyclist did not need to indicate, the driver knew very well where the cyclist was and intentionally drove at the cyclist, in the full knowledge that tge driver coukd have caused death.
@@FredScuttle456
The driver knew very well where the cyclist was, he'd just passed him cutting him up and nearly knocking the cyclist off his bike. The driver hadn't managed it, when a second chance presented itself, the driver made sure not to miss.
If he had actually tried to avoid a collision, the driver would have done an emergency stop.
Yes, that analysis is exactly what I expected. Pleased to have heard your legal view on this. Cyclists need to be more responsible for how they interact with other road users in my view. As a cyclist I would have stopped when the car got too close and let it go ahead out of harm's way.
I don't believe the car was too close if both parties observed sensible road craft. What puzzles me about this is thta the cyclist was initially beside the car, but then got in front before moving into the cars path. If he was going fast enough to move from beside to in front, why did he then slow so the car hit him?
Cyclist was DETERMINED to make it happen !
Noo the car was! Literally ran him over. In uk you need to give minimum 1.5m space to cyclists. The rangey was already breaking the law by being that close them ran him down.
Should be charged with attempted murder
nahhhhhh , cyclist didnt know the car driver would run him over when he placed himself in danger . He expected brakes to be slammed on to avoid him , it didnt happen , stupid wins prizes . Theres a worth to the ego of some cyclists and his was to be sat on his arse nursing bruises next to a broken bike . Of note it was being recorded by another darwin award contender so that ego was super dooper inflated by this .
@@godzillas6301 the car knew the biker was there, he expected the biker to be infront of him, still ran him down, laws on bikers side pal.
If that was a motorbike you'd be saying car at fault.
@@Yeetyeet2154 Unless of course the car was the first to the crossing where they both stopped. If that were the case then the cyclist violated that 1.5m rule.
@@petert3355 Its not the UK . I dont know if the yanks have the same rule , i doubt it , its a bloody stupid rule .
Stupid rules aside, the reality of cycling in a city (I cycled across central London in rush hour for years) is that you need to be happy, confident and talented enough to be close to vehicles. In the real world, that cyclist had plenty of space if he’d focussed on himself and not focussed on the driver of the car.
Totally agree. Yes, the LR was too close, but on my daily cycle commute into London that sort of distance is quite normal, especially in slow moving traffic.
@@bruce6014 he swerved in front of the vehicle to get run over
@@annother3350 not disputing that. That was definitely poor decision making on his part
That makes absolute sense. The cyclist must have slowed, hence the brake lights, the traffic lights were on green. Why did the cyclist move in front and then slow down?
The cyclist was avoiding a dirty great pot hole/drain.
If you were a cyclist you would know this is a constant danger to cyclists.
@@Must_not_say_that A car avoiding a pothole has to balance damaing his car or crashing in to another car. we tend to choose the former because the latter is idiotic, much like this cyclist.
I suppose if you do damage your bike you could just do what we do and take a hit on your insurance, oh, wait a second, thats right you have no insurance, or licence for that matter or indeed any means of identification at all, some of which is probably contributary to this accident.
Had he put his fist through the window of that car, he can most likely get away scot free whilst the driver picks up the tab.
You want equal rights on the road? then take equal responsibility how does that sound?
@Must_not_say_that You simply can't just go swerving all over the road, avoiding potholes and drains without first indicating your intentions or at least checking that it is clear and safe to do so.
The cyclist clearly knew the car was there, deliberately rode in front of a vehicle that had clearly already done a close pass thereby showing the cyclist they were a danger!
Cyclist was on an ego trip, simple as that.
He slowed and moved over to make the right turn, It was a turn right lane and the cyclist has the right to use the whole lane. Cars behind must leave sufficient stopping distance from vehicles in front. As soon as he was in front the car should have backed off. You can't just drive into someone because youre pissed theyre in front of you. When you get your licence you will understand.
@bikeman123 The car war backing off, break lights went on as soon as the bike moved in front. The cyclists swerved in front of the car and braked. Its his fault.
How can anyone think that it’s the cars fault. The cyclists swerved in front of the car giving it zero stopping distance. Clear case of cash for cash?
@@garrycroft4215 Spot on. Cyclist went for it.
This isn't shaky cam footage. This is someone who had a friend who knows how to setup, operate and frame the shot... And it's the camera operators blog who he refers to the fallen cyclist as his teammate.
This has red flags. Especially how there are examples of other Cyclists in London who are catered to and yet they still film misleading footage claiming they are not catered too.
Regardless the cyclist broke the No.1 rule. Don't distract the driver while the vehicle is in motion.
Car was too close to pass safely . Cyclist did not help matters by tapping the car . Both at fault but the car more so .... 70 / 30
It's his fault because you always must maintain adequate distance to the vehicle in front. In this case, I would say fault is split 50-50 because the cyclist clearly drifted in front of the car in an unnecessary manner, cutting him off. But the driver failed to maintain adequate spacing. Even if someone brake checks you and you rear end him, you will still share some of the fault.
@@CristiNeagu if any drriver could react that fast on a 4 inch stopping distance, the car would become a danger to those behind
Look at the brake lights.
The driver operates his brakes BEFORE the cyclist falls.
The cyclist went directly in front of the vehicle, and very close to it.
The driver braked but couldn't stop so quickly as to avoid a collision.
Which means...he was going too fast for the situation, not paying enough attention, and didn't leave enough room by staying back.
@@ManOfMonism you did see the cyclist deliberately swerve in front of the vehicle? Or are you partially sighted? The only way the driver could have avoided the idiot is if he had parked up before it happened.
@@ManOfMonism Are you serious? If a motorbike cut infront of you with inches to spare and imediatley slowed down making you hit it, it would it be your fault for not paying enough attention and leaving enough room? Do you not know that when you overtake , you should leave a 2 second gap when you pull in? The reason for a 2 second gap is to give enough time to react , the cyclist gave the car none.
@@DemiGod.. what you just described is a common insurance scam here in the uk. cyclist is an idiot in this case and if he files a person injury lawsuit I'd say he did it deliberately.
@@TesseractDome yeah lane gets narrower, cyclist was infront, you need to leave 1.5m space for cyclists.
Rangey should never have overtook him and stayed back
Thanks again for your great explanition of a legal concept. As this happended in California I feel it pertinant to share some legal information that the cyclist is more likely to be aware of than the Landrover driver; that is that California has very progressive road rules regarding cyclists and pedestrians such that cyclists may move to the left in order to avoid road hazards and that any vehicles behind them must yield the right of way to a vehicle in front of them in the same lane, and on a two way street cyclists must ride as close as possible to the right curb with a few excpetions; the most important in this case being unless if the cyclist is approaching a right hand turn. Other pertinent rules include: vehicles, including other cyclists, must give 3 feet of clearance to any cyclist on the road either ahead or to the side of them, if you can't give 3 feet of space to a cyclist you must yield to them until you can provide that safe space. Another tip for tourists visiting the US is that each state has its own rules of the road and if you are renting a vehicle to do a road trip the rental company is under no obligation to inform you of this, so it is worthwhile to visit the state motor vehicle webiste for each of the state you will be driving trough and look them over for their differences. Source material: www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/laws-and-rules-of-the-road-cont1/
@howardmarkert8150, You are a ray of light in a dark place.
As a cyclist doing well over 1,000 miles a year - this cyclist got what he had coming.
1000 miles a year? That's crap 😂😂 i easily do 200 miles a month
Self entitled cyclist…I would not be surprised if he brake checked the car…..
That's exactly what he did.
Which is an insane thing to do on a vehicle with no brake lights
@@samrowland2816 not mention he has zero protection against a impact.
both at fault.
driver shouldnt have tried to overtake and press the cyclist, cyclist shouldnt have tried to break check.
100% thought he'd be clever and found out his not.!!!
I was always taught that self preservation is more important than being right.
How about having your friend film specifically to attempt to blackmail the driver? Racketeering...
Cyclist's fault. (I am a cyclist.) What a total t*t he was.
He won't be held accountable
Suuure
Totally agree another case of entitlement and bad attitude.
Chariots don't count as bicycles. Claiming to be a cyclist doesn't make you judge and jury.
@@venusfooltrap7371 Peculiar comment. I currently ride a Gazelle e-Bike, a Ducati (1000ss half-fairing), a very special BMW 430D and a Polo run around. No chariots. Ready to give one a go. Might I try yours?
As a cyclist I would consider myself a fool if I did what this guy did. He was an accident waiting to happen. Just because he wanted to shift wide to give the drain cover a wide margin does not mean that all other road users are able to accommodate his wished. This even more profound since he already knew there was a vehicle beside him. Dude was a fool.
car should never have been that close. end of debate. car broke the law.
@@S7Vmv which law? Which country? Tne road narrowed on the cars left, yet the cyclist steered right into the path of an oncoming vehicle. The guy was a fool. I can say this cos i cycled every day to work 5 miles through south London and managed to survive in a hostile environment.
@@conormcmenemie5126 as a driver you are required by law to leave a cars width of space, and if the driver done this. the cyclists could steer like that and not be anywhere near of being hit. that's the point. the car created the situation. why is the car so close?
@@S7Vmv Ha ha! Outnumbered: Many, many to... Zero! So far 12.10.2024.
@@S7Vmvit’s obvious from your comment that you haven’t watched and understood the video. The cyclist, who knew they would swing wide to take the junction, knowingly put themself in closely front of a 2T+ vehicle. Unless I missed something the cyclist doesn’t have brake lights and didn’t signal their intent to turn, just how was the vehicle driver supposed to know the idiot cyclist was going to slow? The cyclist should have put his ego aside and slotted in behind the vehicle.
Point-scoring, entitlement and arrogance by both parties is clearly at work here and that's asking for trouble. One of the best bits of safe driving advice I've ever seen comes from instructor Ashley Neal's YT channel in which he teaches his student to question their role in every situation: 'Am I part of the problem or am I part of the solution?'
That's what I thought, the cyclist moved in front of a moving car. Entirely his fault.
Undertalking a moving vehicle, and without leaving enough space between him and the vehicle when he moved in front of it. IF he had gone forward but NOT in fornt of the car, he might have been fine.
moved in front and then braked. The driver was already braking so the cyclist must have braked harder. 100 per cent teh cyclist looking to cause trouble.
@@thruddedify Hang on. The vehicle did a close pass and when the cyclists refused to be bullied you accuse the cyclists of doing an undertake?
drivers should give them at least 1.5 meters (5 feet) of space when traveling at speeds up to 30 miles per hour. At higher speeds, drivers should give cyclists more space, and at speeds of 30 miles per hour or more, drivers may need to give cyclists the width of their car. so why is the car so close to begin with?
Cars are heavy and can't stop as quickly due to momentum. Basic physics. You do that in front of a car and it cannot stop in time.
100% biker fault
He not a biker he is a cyclists
@@bwoo6223you are not a pedant, you are a semantic fool.
@@bwoo6223 Yeah, both of him
I bet if the driver gave extra space to the cyclist and an accident took place where the car crashed into another as a result, you know 100% the cyclist would ride off like they had no responsibility. Get some insurance and registration papers and past some tests, be it an actual licence to ride a bike and then we can talk about how much you should have the same rights as other vehicles on the road.
Agree totally, the cyclist shouldn’t have moved in front of the car.
It’s a right turn lane. You can’t turn at 45 degrees. You need to pull out a bit to take the corner to hold that position. If you don’t you’re going to veer across the lane once you go round the corner. I’m not saying the cyclist is completely right. But it did all start with a car straddling lanes because the driver feels the need to overtake the cyclist who’s moving at the same speed as the traffic, coming up to a turn. If you’re on a bike you’re vulnerable, being right doesn’t keep you alive.
Car shouldn't have been closer than 1.5 meters pal.
Car was determined to make it happen.
It's called claiming the lane and is designed to keep motorists at a distance, cyclists are encouraged to do so and 100% within their rights to do so. Cars MUST give way to cyclists, the cyclist was clearly in front of the car yet the driver does nothing to slow and give them space.
@@greghart6310 the problem with trying to assert road dominion as a cyclist is that you are the most likely to die in any vehicle collision - Though I do also encourage cyclists attempting to claim the lane especially with HGVs and tractors.
Even to ovoid hitting a pothole?
The moment the cyclist banged on the window, I just thought "arsehole."
Me too.
Unfortunately there's a lot of Jeremy vines on the road.
The asshole is the driver making his own lane by driving next to the cyclist without any intention of overtaking.
Either you overtake or you drive behind, but not next to.
Pathetic. If you were walking next to a road way or parking lot and car came close to you, you wouldn’t react or take action to make sure the driver is made aware of your presence because you’re polite. Give your head a wobble
@@BauregardSenior87 the car could've not illegally overtook the cyclists and this would never happen, but for some reason some drivers feel they should never have to adjust their speed or be responsible for their own road position, almost like they're trying to be professional victims.
Cyclist fault. Crash for cash. Obvious, if you can't see it, go to an optician.
You think he risked having a two tonne vehicle run over his head for a potential financial payout?
@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo er yes. convieniently with his mate filming behind
@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo Yes.
Tell us you drive a Range Rover - without telling us you drive a Range Rover...
@wessexdruid7598 a Corsa, actually. What's your mode of transport (apart from a children's toy)?
The chap on the bike had loads of room and swerved in front of the car after assaulting said vehicle , karma indeed.
Assaulting a vehicle?
The car commited rape on the bicycle 😂
"assaulting the vehicle" do you ever read this sort of thing back to yourself? 😂
He prob did, it was meant to make you laugh. Seems like he did that.
@@TheAegisClaw Touching my vehicle is like touching my wife, there are consequences.
@longlowdog Really? It's a lump of metal and glass.
What are you 12 years old ?
Ok, maybe it's a joke. 😊
Range Rover was to close. Cyclist banging on the car was road rage. Maneuvering in such a manner as to cause another road user to brake or change direction is bad. Cyclist is a moron.
Rover had a vehicle immediately on his left. The Rover probably slowed down or the cyclist speeded up. In any event the cyclist pulled in front literally PASSING from the wrong side of the road aka illegal.
Making another road users aware of your presence or of danger is not road rage.
@@alanstewart6895 The rover drove from behind and then side by side to the cyclist. The rover put itself in that situation.
I would go so far as to say ALL cyclists are morons for cycling on the roads
@@alanstewart6895 it didn’t permit the driver to move over and attempt a close pass of the cyclist.
the range rover was so close the cyclist had to lean over AND steer towards it in order to bang on the window...
It was the stroppy cyclist's fault.
Was it Jeremy Vine by any chance🤞🤣
Car was too close to pass safely . Cyclist did not help matters by tapping the car . Both at fault but the car more so .... 70 / 30
@@Interdiction tapping? He had to lean over to repeatedly bang the side of the car, you just know that's one of his favourite tricks. All he had to do was slow down slightly and the car would have been out of his way but he has try to make his point by staying alongside and then eventually veering out and brake checking the car because he wanted to 'beat' the driver. Guy is a total tool.
why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more, if you follow the law you can never be close enough for this to even happen with a cyclist
@@SuperCholdi why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more, if you follow the law you can never be close enough for this to even happen with a cyclist
I'm a cyclist myself, and to be honest I'd feel at fault as there's a lot of drift from the cyclist.
Drift, is that cyclist talk for cant cycle is a straight line ?
@@bertbertoUk As a non-cyclist, you wouldn’t know that a human being will drift on a bicycle when he looks away from where he intends to travel. Call it a limitation of the human brain.
Or deviate from his line is a more precise way to put it.
@@bertbertoUk Surely you can see that it was an attempt of the cyclist to cut in front of the vehicle?
@@paddymurphy-oconnor8255 The art of cycling is not to drift in front of cars!!
I'd accept Daniel's assessment 100% I had a crazy case 2 years ago on a single-track road (with passing places every 100 metres) and a cyclist overtook me (I was doing 9 mph) he caused £1270 of damage but, claimed in court he suffered almost £2000! Cutting a long one short, he lost based on the width of the road (his 'space' to pass was 31") unfortunately, him having no insurance, meant I was the loser financially, as he had no means of paying! My costs went well over £2700!
As a cyclist, I would not wrestle with a motor vehicle. I would have allowed the Range Rover to go ahead irrespective of who is right or wrong. I feel this cyclist was mostly to blame.
Agreed. There’s also a principle that, if a fellow road user is being a nuisance, best to get distance from them. So maybe slow down and let the driver move a few car lengths ahead.
I pay good money to keep my bicycle safe, and stay out of the way out of vehicles - it is a lot easier than trying to cop an attitude with two Tonnes of moving steel.
Well normally if you’re in charge of the two tonnes of metal it’s your responsibility to avoid hitting other people, rather than theirs to avoid being hit by you
@@QiuEnnan WRONG!
@@BrianMartin-ox2ru It’s actually not
@@QiuEnnan So - you understood NOTHING then??????
@@childofthe60s100 Explanation required
Well, the cyclist looked as if he did it on purpose?
interestingly, the video refers to a drain pipe in the road which caused him to have to swerve
If you can't ride in a predictable way, you have no business being on a bike. Period.
I wouldn’t even do that hand off… I would slow down and hold back
So would anyone sensible.
true but most woke individuals these days have a short temper and always think they are right.
With every car that passes 🤔
Fellow cyclist who cycles 20 km every day primarily on roads similar to that. The cyclist is completely in the wrong here. He got caught up by a close pass which sure the driver shouldn’t have done. But rather than think objectively about how to handle the situation safely he got emotional, tapping on the car and getting in front of the car to make a point. It’s about as close to road rage from a cyclist as I’ve seen. One of the things I’ve realized cycling so far is that this concept of right of way needs to stop. We need to do our best to minimize the chances of road incidents. If it means allowing someone to cut us off so be it. Because remember folks, a fender can be fixed. Broken ribs, bones or worse can’t so easily be fixed. And to the Barrister’s point, if you the cyclist can show you took all prudent measures to avoid an accident but still got in an accident, then liability will shift all the way to the driver.
That cyclist did swerve in front quite abruptly with no indication.
I have a suspicion that the cyclist swerved to avoid the raised drain that he almost landed on when he crashed, it looked like he went in front because the Rover braked, which may well have been more courage than sense ?!?
True. He didnt hold out his left arm, or his right arm rotating in a circle. Learn to indicate if you want to use a road.
@@colingregory7464 The "raised drain" was entirely within the width of the gutter (light grey coloured part of the road). The cyclist was not cycling in the gutter and the drain was not (even remotely) in his path so he had no need to swerve into the path of the Range Rover (which he knew was right behind him).
Even were the drain in his path (which it wasn't) and he wished to avoid it then prior to moving out (into the path of the Range Rover) he should have looked and signalled. He did neither.
I am a cyclist and the incident was 100% the fault of the cyclist.
The prior footage (not shown in this video but can be viewed on the UpRide website) shows the cyclist checking over his left shoulder and signalling prior to moving out to pass a parked car. Therefore the cyclist clearly knows what he should do prior to moving further out into the road.
Also, the prior footage shows that, after he passed the parked car, he stayed further out in the road (further from the kerb) than he had been prior to passing the parked car. If the cyclist had returned to closer to the kerb (without being in the gutter) there would have been ample room for the Range Rover to pass.
One last point, in the UpRide description of the video, the guy filming states "He squeezed my teammate against the curb and then when my teammate moved into the road to avoid an old drain pipe and make a right turn."
If (as claimed) he was going to make a right turn then he failed to make a signal. When making a turn (be it on a bike or a car) does not entitle the rider/ driver to swerve out to make it easier to make the turn (at a faster speed). What should happen is to maintain your position on the road and reduce speed to safely take the turn.
One last thing, if he was intending to make a right turn (as claimed by his filming teammate) then he would have his left leg (not right leg) extended and his right leg bent. When cornering, it should be the inside leg that is bent.
@@rogerexcell249 He didn't hold out his left arm, no... Because he was in a right turn only lane.
Read the Highway Code, specifically rule 213. It is the car driver's responsibility to give other vulnerable road users room to react suddenly to poor road surfaces.
Before you even say it. Im saying its the cyclist fault he deliberately pulls infront of a 2.5 tonne vehicle which can’t stop as quickly as a smaller vehicle.
This reminds me of a time when I was a young 6 year old lad. I couldn't cycle very quickly, and as I approached a right hand bend with a left turn into the local quarry works, I heard the lorry on the road behind me. I thought "I bet he's not going to stop, and will go left, into the quarry". I slammed on the anchors, and the truck ploughed straight on, going left into the quarry. It still gives me a cold sweat thinking about it now.
It would be good if you could cover the accidents caused by delivery "cyclists" on overpowered/ illegal electric bikes. Thank you.
Even at 6 years old you had more sense than the cyclist in this video.
Cyclist here, the rider caused it intentionally.
I presume he thought he was further ahead of the car than he actually was - or maybe he swerved out into the road without thinking. I doubt he intended to get crashed into, but he was negligent for sure.
@@stevenrix7024 He rode right in front on purpose. I didn't mean to infer he wanted to get hit, he was acting like a bully or a narcissist.
Fool
@@flightographist the car should have never been that close? Always leave a gap for those infront of you.
Car is clearly at fault here
@@Yeetyeet2154if he gave anymore room he’d be in a different lane. Cyclist caused the whole mess
Cyclist moved in front of the car. It's obvious the cyclist is at fault.
Cars are supposed to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance.
The Highway Code states that you should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide: leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds.
@@caparn100amazes me more people aren't pointing this out.
Cars clearly at fault.
I couldn't hit a car infront of me and say aww he was too close.
You rear end someone your at fault.
Driver should be banned
@@caparn100 And look up where a vehicle is too close.
So if a car moves in front of a truck the driver should expect to get several tons of metal encroaching on his ass?
@@caparn100it’s not in this country Highway Code probably not applicable here, cyclist twat pulled in front and moved out in front of a 2.5 ton vehicle cyclist was making a point and came of worse which makes him a complete twat
The cyclist clearly wanted a darwin award.
While the driver was too close, to qoute starwars some times it better to let the wookie win.
Worse, his 'teammate' is filming this. It is a set up for clips and crash cash.
even as a cycalist that was the cycalists fault, he got in front gave the driver no stopping distance
If you can't stop it's your fault for driving too close.
The car basically travelled a straight course, about a foot inside the lane markings that you see from time to time. If the cyclist got rear-ended it was due to undertaking then moving out in front of the car. That said, both of them could easily have made it a non-event (trademark for Ashley Neal pending) but didn’t…
@@vatsmith8759car was going straight. Only one erratic was the cyclist.
Thank you for a logical explanation of why the cyclist bears more responsibility for the accident than the car driver.
The cyclist is at least a metre from the kerb, causing the RR to pass more closely to begin with, and there's at least another 80cm between the RR and the cyclist when he banged on the window, so he had a 'lane' of about 1.8m to cycle within - which is perfectly adequate. He then swerves in front of the RR at the junction - "to avoid an old drain pipe", extravagantly, by at least another metre and either brakes or slows down to make the turn, causing the RR to run into him.
This is 100% the cyclist's fault - he was seeking confrontation.
Spot on. Excellent summary of the key facts.
The cyclists fault..... He banged on the window while he was a mile off the curb....... Total attitude....
@@chamatsprayart2283 The cyclist had all the space in the world; the driver was as far left in his lane as was safe.
If a vehicle is close enough for you to touch, it's way too close!
@@archivist17 yes, cyclists dont move over enough to share the road but he swerved in front of the vehicle to get run over
@@archivist17 Cyclist moves left in order to reach vehicle. Q.E.D.
Yes exactly. The cyclist was out on a jolly ride looking for trouble. Cyclist has the “cyclist chip on shoulder against all drivers and is a member of the Lycra Club, with tight crutch. What an arse
It’s the cyclist.
All he had to do was slow down.
I say that as a cyclist.
All the car had to do was slow down? Cyclists have right of way. 1.5m car should've gave the cyclist? Did that look like 1.5m?
Clearly a fat car driving moron
Yes,slow down & keep away & it's dangerous. Cyclist was a drama queen.
@WilliamLaverick-wo1nb, time to give up cycling and admit you favour four wheels. Your analysis applies equally to the driver. All he had to do was slow down.
insurance scam
He did slow down, he just chose to do it in front of 2 tons of rolling steel ;)
As a cyclist I have to agree with your conclusion, the cyclist contributed to his own downfall. Foolish to move in front of the Range Rover.
A robber pulls a gun on you - and you try to wrestle the gun out of his hand and he shoots you in the leg.
Should YOU be considered at fault?
You would just play along with bullies and criminals? Just lay down flat... like a doormat?
Well explained, my biggest gripe is that these cyclist knowingly undertake vehicles on the inside and then blame the driver, this is an action that should be legislated against.
The cyclist was in the lane. The driver failed to respect that he was in the lane and tried to bully him off the road.
@@paddymurphy-oconnor8255 we didnt see who was there first, silly billy
@@annother3350 The fundamental issue of the Race River driver is not staying behind the cyclist and respecting his occupation of the lane.
@@paddymurphy-oconnor8255 thats because the cyclist is being a twat and bashing the sie of his vehicle -- he doesnt deserve respect. Most importantly, the cyclist may also have come up alongside the vehicles blind spot
@@paddymurphy-oconnor8255so just sit behind all cyclists now in busy one lane of traffic? just move over eh.
Let's think critically. If i was in lane 2 and merged back into lane 1 without giving enough room to the car behind me i would likely be held liable for causing an accident. I see no reason why this circumstance is different
It's not
It's only one lane, any part of which should be available to any road user. The Range Rover driver appears to feel the need to share it with a more vulnerable road user who indicates that it's not a good idea and then gets rear-ended when he establishes something approaching prime position. It's difficult to judge the clearance between his back wheel and the Range Rover as he moved across, or whether he braked before being hit but it's certainly possible that he misjudged. Assuming no brake-check (which would be unlikely for any but the insane), the onus would usually be on the vehicle behind to avoid a collision. I would have dropped back after the tap on the window if I'd been driving.
Essential the cyclist brake checked the car in the end, but as cycles dont come with brake lights or indicators (legally required on all other road legal vehicles) nor gave any cycling hand actions to indicate intention of turning or slowing down, the car has warning of their actions and no chance
I don’t see how this is anything other than 100% the cyclists fault. It’s in the USA!
he was lucky the rangy wasn't a F150 or bigger things.....with big wheels etc.....
why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more
Yeah, thanks. I posted that it might be Europe. I definitely knew it wasn't the UK.
@@S7Vmv Thing is, that passing closeness wasn't the cause of the accident. If the car had left enough space at the side it still would have been an accident when the bike swerved in front of it and stopped.
@@Paul_Y_T no it wouldn't have. at a safe distance it would never touch the bike. I know it hurts but your wrong
Driver of course drove too close to the cyclist, but the second the cyclist decided to move in front of the vehicle, he was 1000% at fault. 0 survival instincts on the man.
Ye, that’s not how it works.
You don’t understand percentages.
not sure about uk but in sweden what the car did is legal
@@lordcurre39 this incident didn't happen in the UK, you're forgetting we drive on the 'wrong' side of the road 🤣
At a guess I'd say this was in America.
Still, I agree with you, the car driver did nothing wrong here.
@@Galerak1one-way roads?
I am 100% cyclist, commute every day in Greater Manchester and this is 100% cyclist fault. What a bell end. Like he did it in a purpose. I always "care" about safety of a car more than of myself if you know what I mean. In case of error, mishap, accident... they will have a dent in the body and I may have dent in the skull. I always trying to have footprint on the road as small as it's possible and give a way to driver even if code favours me in particular situations. I think drivers appreciate this, didn't have any accidents so far.
Basically the cyclist should not have put himself in the path of the vehicle, he should have stayed on the Near side of the car. Near side being nearest to the curb!
He shouldn't have touched the car either.
As a cyclist, don’t get yourself killed or injured for the sake of being right, your ego or making a video to post online. As a driver remember that every time you get behind the wheel you have the potential to seriously injure or kill someone and it’s your responsibility to look after them, even if they’re being silly, like in this case.
This. 💯. This is exactly what I always say. I don't know if this is what is taught these days at driving schools, but it should be.
You also need to look after yourself. You can’t hope that a car driver will have the same mentality for your own safety as you should have
Thank you for the upload Brother! The driver is NOT too close according to USA standards! The cyclist is clearly an idiot!!!
Peace & Love!!!
Driver not leaving enough space is a separate issue to cyclists moving in front of the driver and break checking them.
He did not break check him but tried to take a corner. Should not have done so, but did not break check either
@@CobisTabaif he was making a corner turn then he would be slowing down, slow down wile pulling in front of another vehicle is a break check!
@@robgilmour3147 there is a difference between a break check and slowing down. I’m not saying the cyclist was right here, let’s be very clear there. I am Dutch, the cycle nation of the world, and this was silly from the cyclist. But that does not make it a break check.
@@robgilmour3147 Wikipedia definition;
A brake check, also known as a brake test, occurs when a driver deliberately either taps on the brakes several times or slams hard on the pedal when moving in front of another vehicle, with the intention of causing the behind driver to either collide or take evasive action
@@CobisTaba With respect, just because something is written on Wikipedia does not mean that it is the gospel truth or fully accurate.
The citation for what you've quoted from Wikipedia is taken from an article from a New Zealand website (DT - Driving Test) and this is what that article states:
"Brake testing or brake checking is a phrase often heard in motorsport, but can be applied to the road, too. A brake test is when a driver ahead of you deliberately and unnecessarily brakes hard in order to force you to take evasive action or to cause you to run into the back of them. It is used in road rage incidents or when the driver in front is trying to commit insurance fraud."
Notwithstanding what else I say below, the cyclist was clearly suffering from road rage, which evidenced by him recklessly (and dangerously for himself) banging on the side of the car. Also, it is possible that the cyclist was attempting insurance fraud. He had his perfectly placed teammate cycling behind him to capture the incident on camera.
It is worth noting that the Range Rover passed the following cyclist (filming) just seconds before he started to pass the cyclist (that fell off his bike). The Range Rover passed the following cyclist with a similar width gap and there was absolutely no negative reaction/ comments from the following cyclist so he clearly did not consider the car to be too close. The gap to the the cyclist (who banged on the window) was not in contravention of California law and the Range Rover, prior to the banging on the window, had not interfered with the safety of the cyclist.
As an aside, the cyclist was cycling too far from the kerb (curb) in contravention of California law and, even if he thought the car was too close (even though it wasn't), he had ample room on his right to move further away from the car (without going into the wide gutter, which is part of the road). In order to reach the car (to hit it), he had to lean way over to his left (evident by how far to the left his head is from the centre of his body).
Returning to the New Zealand website article, it goes on to say the following:
"Brake testing is *dangerous driving,* but that doesn’t tell you why the driver in front might be doing it. There are a number of reasons:
*The driver thinks you did something wrong, e.g. you cut them off, but you didn’t actually do something wrong*
*The driver thinks you did something wrong, e.g. you drove inconsiderately in some way, such as tailgating, aggressive overtaking, driving too slowly, etc*
*The driver is mentally unstable and has issues that are either psychological or drug-induced, and you don’t have much control over that.*
*The driver wants you to run into them so that they can claim on their insurance.^
At least one (or more) of the reasons could easily apply to the cyclist.
The facts of the matter are that the cyclist was intending on turning right at the junction but failed to give any signal that this was his intention (in contravention of California law as he was obliged to give a right signal from 100 feet before the turn). He knew that the car was very close to him (and the driver could not be aware of his intention to turn right as he had not given any signal) yet he deliberately moved directly in front of the car (also without any indication or signal) then immediately applied his brakes, which caused the Range Rover driver to take evasive action (perform an emergency stop) and collide with the bike.
Therefore there seems to be pretty strong evidence that the cyclist did break check the Range Rover. What the cyclist did was clearly dangerous (not least to himself).
Afternoon Dan 👋A nice breakdown of events that will hopefully deter less vulnerable road users from putting themselves into extra risk. Having not gone through the comments where this may have been already said there is an added point that I just need to mention. It looked as though to me the cyclist was going to turn right, which was the reason for them moving in front of the vehicle. They didn't slow much, but they did slow a little just a few moments prior to impact which in my opinion contributed towards the collision also. As normal, two poor road users battling for the same space.
You two should do a vid together. Thanks for all your work 👍
Looks like plenty of space between the car and curb.
All schools should make it compulsory for all children to complete a Cycling Proficiency Test at 12-15 years old...
We did ours in junior school, (after hours, non compulsory in the 80's)
Wouldn’t have stopped that car passing to close though would it
The problem isn't Training it's a collapse in civil society, it's not just bicycle riders either
Unfortunately the schools don't do it now. I had to pay privately to do it for my kids
@@ownyourworld true, but the cyclist would be more aware of his surroundings.. It was beaten into us as a kid...
we had one in the 60s and the 50s
Cyclists fault, he deliberately went in front of the car.
Driver's fault, he deliberately went into the cyclist's space.
I studied law and agree with you totally. Thank you for your teaching, which is something for all to be aware of and informed. ❤
The car was initially at fault, but then the bike chooses to undertake then pull out and brake test the car.
The bike rider is part narcissist, part Lemming and will eventually succumb to Darwin’s Law if he carries on like that.
The bike riders stupid actions should legally override the car drivers negligence.
Spot on Nigel 👍
How much fkn space does a cyclist need??? See what looks like the gutter by the pavement? That's where these clowns need to be, that's where we were expected to be when we rode our bikes back in the 70's/80's, as far to the side as possible.
i hope he has to pay for the rover drivers scratched bumper
At no point does the bicycle _undertake.._ The car is undertaking the bicycle. This is a RHT road (and a right turn only lane), not the UK. And he's not 'brake testing' - he's slowing down for the corner and the massive pothole.
The car simply needed to back off, but kept right up behind him. _That_ was the unsafe action.
@@wessexdruid7598 you need to watch it again. The car is too close as he passes, then the cyclist goes from the rear of the car to just past it and swerves in front of the car while slowing down. The cyclist is just as capable as the car of braking, but chooses not to. Was he a safe distance past the car when he swerved in front of it? The evidence would suggest not. Riding a bike does not excuse you from using good road sense, it was a stupid manoeuvre.
I will say cyclist's fault, Range Rover had a tight fit if you look at the line on the road on his left, and we don't know what is coming towards him on the left...
I will say driver's fault, Range Rover had a tight fit if you look at the line on the road on his left, he should have kept back and not overtake the cyclist at that point.
Why is the cyclist hogging the road?!
Perhaps, shouldn't have tried to overtake?
Bike thought he was being clever though, trying to cut in front.
@@Addlibsdriver didn't have a crew filming for racketeering mate.
As a cyclist, I know I'm going to come off worse if I put myself in danger. I think this is a good break down of the situation.
just imagine if the cyclist was driving the car instead and did what he did. there would be no doubt he was 100% at fault. the cyclist lacks common sense and his ego made him go a little crazy
why is the car that close to begin with? they broke the law passing so close. end of debate. driver fault. cope more, if you follow the law you can never be close enough for this to even happen with a cyclist
@@S7Vmv clearly didn't watch the vid did you?
@@Metro6am how can a car following the law over take a cyclist and the cyclist has the ability to touch the car?so they law was broke. and the cyclist reacted. stop defending criminal scum
@@S7Vmvhe gives about 2m to the kerb, that is generous in my view.
I’m currently studying a law (conversion) masters and I’m finding tort so interesting…pleased to say that contributory negligence was my first thought!
Not all Cyclists are like this! I hope people realise .. but also car drivers need to leave at least a metres width when passing .. and also not get too close behind...
It takes two to tango in this instance, IMO. The driver should have backed off from a potentially dangerous situation. The cyclist was just an idiot: cars are harder than people! I had a similar situation where I backed into a cyclist and knocked him off. I was in a van with restricted view, and had no idea he was right behind me. The police took no action against me.
cars/vans/motorbikes back off when a lorry/bus driver is about to do a potentially dangerous situation (which they do all the time if you spend any time on the road). its like... there's this thing called a pecking order on the roads... infact... just in life... don't fuck around with shit that's bigger than you coz if you can get hurt... you probably will get hurt. lorrys just gona pull out or keep going on my side of the road is he? oh well better stop or move the fuck out the way... dont want to crash or hurt myself.
then god gave us this cyclist.
Agreed, but the law still places more responsibility on the driver of the larger vehicle. So the driver may end up, for example, with 80% of the blame even if it was only 50% his fault .
Different countries have different rules and this ain’t in Blighty!
True, but the UK and America have very similar legal systems especially as it pertains to civil or common law, so many legal principles such as reasonable duty of care ect still stand up.
@@normiedeathsquad40 and a british car, and right hand traffic
As a cyclist and a driver I can see both sides of this.
On the drivers side there is the distance they are from the centre of the road to consider, as well as the distance from the cyclist while at the same time ensuring good positioning for the upcoming junction.
From being a cyclist there is also the condition of the road to consider. - Cyclists often have to maneuver around potholes and drain covers etc, as well as being in the correct position on the junction.
I feel that in this case it has to be 50/50 as neither party seemed to consider what the other party would do and compensate for it.
the most important thing here is the law of whichever country it is in.
Bingo! 🙂
It's in America (look at the script accompanying the video) which means a)the motorist doesn't have to give the cyclist space and b) 'filtering' is not legal the way it is here in the UK which means that the cyclist should never have been in the Range Rover's lane in the first place.
The most important thing is to consider what the end result could be if there is an "accident", Car - Worst case scenario Minor damage, Cyclist - Worst case scenario death! So in conclusion the Cyclist has to stop because its common sense regardless of any other factors, obviously "they" are entitled!?!
Not really, it's an exercise of legal principles.
The motorcycle police have a saying: it’s not who is right but who is left.
Looking at the video, it seems to me that the cyclist pulled out infront of the Range Rover and then SEEMS to have braked hard, - basing this on the fact that the Range Rover brakes so hard that they LOCKED the back wheels - as shown by the skid marks - and then hits the cyclist. Now if the cyclist was turning right, why did they not give some sort of indication to warn the car ?
Also, realistically, the cyclist had no need to swerve out to "avoid an old drain pipe" (I think they mean drain cover actually as there is no pipe there) but they had PLENTY of room to stay where they were (on their own line of travel) without the need to swerve out especially bearing in mind they were (apparently) going to be turning right but had given NO INDICATION AT ALL.
Cyclist fault
yep.....
Cyclists should not overtake on the inside.
We didn’t see enough video from before the crash, hence we don’t know if that is true.
This is USA.
In the first frame, the car's front tire was next to the bike's rear tire, so it does look more like the car was tailgating instead of the cycle attempting to overtake on the inside.
It's called undertaking, aptly so as the undertaker places people in coffins
Range Rover should not overtake so close to a bike rider -- it works both ways. In the start it was the Range Rover that decided to overtake the bike rider who was riding 1/3 in the lane and moved out into the second lane. When the Range Rover got level it edged towards the bike rider and pushed them into the gutter --- this is an very aggressive driver who no doubt thinks they own all of the road . From then on its 50 /50 fault , but the event was started by the driver of the Range Rover.
Not saying the cyclist did the right thing but the counter argument is that if all cyclists just dive out of the way of cars forcing their way through then this encourages idiots like this Range Rover driver to think it's an acceptable practice. This is what the new UK highway code rules try to tackle by giving cyclists the right to ride defensively & in the middle of the lane when they feel is necessary as ultimately they are the vulnerable road user.
That said I wouldn't put myself in harm's way just to make a point. As the old saying goes: 'He was right, they cried, he was right all along. But now he's as dead as if he was wrong'.
In short, I'm not sure what the answer to the correct outcome is. All I know is people shouldn't be t***s to each other in the first place & that driver should have held back & waited to overtake to give a car's width of space.
I was 3 years old when I realised that you shouldn’t play with your toys on the road!
You want to ride a toy? Either go where there aren’t any cars, or ride as though your next peddle is your last…..because it could be.
The only thing to add (and I don't think it made a difference to the outcome) is that the RR was closing the distance to the kerb until just after the cyclist hit the RR window. He/she then straightened up. Perhaps indicating a lack of observation from the RR driver. Agrred the cyclist shouldn't have put himself in front of the RR.
The RR driver would have been totally distracted by the cyclist banging on his vehicle.
It's just been explained to you..."Contributory Negligence"
As ever on cycling videos we don't see the start. Is the car overtaking the bike or is the bike undertaking the car?
The cyclist didn't drift out he deliberately turned left into the vehicle ( like all road users appear to do now as thay don't appear to be able to turn a corner without using more than one lane usually 3 & the footpath)
Banging on window is distracting driver contributing to risk. He went in front way to close and despite green light slowed down 100% at fault by trying to be an activist
I’m a road cyclist like the one in the video and have countless experiences and close scrapes. One thing I’ve learnt is I waitlist like to keep my limbs and skin and the risk is a hit or accident and run. Personal responsibility even if you’re in the right, not worth it because a cyclist will always come off worst
'Spite' was in operation by both sides.
The cyclists manoeuvre was suspicious, unnecessary, unless to make a point which he certainly did, I'm no lawyer but I know logic and emotion don't mix and they're both guilty of being clowns.
And then the American way of being when it comes lawsuits and all - Any reason to launch a lawsuit.
I don't think there was any spite from the car, the driver was correctly looking to the left when entering a junction to check for red light runners when the cyclist made a totally unpredictable move.
@@theashenfox 👍🏽
The cyclist removed a hand distracted the driver and lost control of the cycle
Cyclists have a duty to their own safety to ride defensively.
A Range Rover is much bigger than a bloke on a bike.
Stay away from the vehicle. Don't ride directly and closely in front of the vehicle.
@blackbeltbarrister Excellent analysis. Would be good to know if it did in fact end up before a court. I also noticed the cyclist could reach out and hit the car, but could not signal that he was overtaking and moving in front of the vehicle. My understanding is cyclists should use hand signals, maybe not in that cyclists jurisdiction, but definitely here in Australia. On that basis I would push your 80% to 85 or 90%.
While I'd like to blame the cyclist, the RR wasn't making a safe pass. Even if the cyclist was antagonist in the situation and being a terrible road user, the RR never had enough safe space to pass. Therefore I would argue that his manoeuvre was dangerous.
If you are not slowing traffic hold the centre of the road. People do not look in their mirrors. Cyclist was asking for trouble.
In England and Wales the driver has immediately committed an offence by passing the cyclist in a dangerous manner.
Cyclist clearly thinks he own the entire road. You’d have thought given his vulnerable position on the road, he’d have a little more self preservation!
I'm a cyclist. Firstly the written commentary below says they're in a team.At no point does he signal his team mate behind to slow down,stop or point to the potential hazard so he plainly didn't give an F about his team mate.2nd..Slapping the range rover was stupid,he could've(and probably did)put himself off balance,hence the slight swing away to the right and then over-compensating in the opposite direction,thus swinging out in front of the car. The slapping probs distracted the driver too and made him/her to swerve slightly to the right(you move to the side you're leaning to,to see). 3rd..I don't drive but that range rover couldn't change lanes,so was giving him as much room as he could afford,plus in my opinion wasn't going very fast.
90% the cyclist's fault. Learn a bitta respect for other road users and yer bloomin' team mates-learn how to signal them!
The only thing I'd disagree is that the Range Rover had nowhere else to be. Yes it did: Behind the cyclists. If there isn't space to be beside a cyclist safely, you shouldn't be beside them. Simple as that.
@@KindredBrujah but they were safely side by side and the car could have easily passed but the cyclist didn't want that to happen... it was unsafe the instant the bawbag took his hand off his steering and braking mechanism to reduce the space some more to slam on the windows... then speed up to pull out in front of the car. maybe putting his own hand back on his bars threw him off balance in front of the car... who knows... but the cyclist was unsafe the minute he took a hand off... he was perfectly safe until he looked in the window and decided to get road ragey... probably a female driver an he thought that's someone i can swear at, coz he wouldn't be acting that way if its was a 6'4 roid pumping beast driving it.
@@KindredBrujah Fair,though they were beside each other when the vid started,who came from behind who...
As a motorcyclist, and very aware of my frailty compared to cars, vans, buses etc. I will always look for safety, and an escape path. My safety is more important to me than proving another road user is in the wrong. All contact with another vehicle, whether accidental or deliberate must be avoided, because the risk to a motorcyclist or cyclist can be extreme. Be safe not pig headed
Yep, they were both wrong. I'm a cyclist and I also drive. Here in the UK the golden rule in the Highway Code is always avoid an accident. Regardless of whose right of way it is. If by exercising that right you cause an accident, then its your fault. The driver was too close. The cyclist acted like a muppet. Both of them should have recognised the danger. The driver could have simply slowed down. So could the cyclist. Neither did. Double fail. I always tell other cyclists don't get worked up. Ultimately you can easily be squashed. Thankfully this wasn't that bad. I hope they both recognise how dumb their actions were.
The driver was not too close. He was passing, giving the cyclist plenty of space. An arms distance is plenty. If you need more than that to judge distance at low speed, perhaps you should not be using the roads?
Cyclist is at fault
Your explanation makes perfect sense in this case, with the cyclist moving directly in front of the car (if not deliberate, it at least looks a bit wreckless).
However, suppose he hadn't swerved in front of the car, but just carried on before getting hit and pushed into the kerb by that same car veering even closer.
It sounds like the cyclist could still be considered "wreckless" simply for continuing his journey without stopping, knowing there was a car "very close" and driving without due care and attention.
@Fudders, Exactly. At what point does refusal to be intimidated into giving way become contribution to fault?
I suspect the answer is in the eloquence and charisma of the barristers involved in the case and the bias of the court.
The cyclist is taking the primary position to discourage another close pass. As a cyclist, I may have just backed off and let this errant driver endanger only himself, however, there was a logic to the behavior of the cyclist. Non-cyclists don't relaise how cycling in the gutter/secondary position tends to invite the kind of close pass in this video.
Yes, took the primary position by placing himself in point blank range to a car, and then stopping without allowing the vehicle it's braking distance
Sorry, but the vehicle didnt pass the cyclist in the video. Either one could have been passing the other, from the portion of video evidence available. The cyclist was stupid to have continue on the course he was taking, and to wander infront of the vehicle was utterly insane.
@@eliaspanayi3465 Sure but the car had already unlawfully positioned itself too close to him. The cyclist was unwise but legally in the right.