The big question is why wasn't the cyclist looking past his front wheel.

Loading thread data ...

Could have been for a few reasons (+ 'chaos theory'):

1) "A Met police spokeswoman said the unaccompanied car was parked correctly, adjacent to the kerb. However there is a ban on parking in the Outer Circle before 9am."

So he wasn't 'expecting' a car to be there.

2) It looks like it was a dark car and could have been in a shadow (as it was under a tree) and he could have been partly blinded by early morning glare from the low sun? [1] 3) With the above in mind he could have been looking down at a speedo / GPS / trainer for a few seconds. 4) *If* he was riding beside / inside his brother he may have assumed his brother would notify him of any obstacles and would only need to stay parallel with him and the same speed to be safe (normally).

Cheers, T i m

[1] There have been quite a few times when I have been driving towards a setting sun / HID headlights and there could be skip parked in the road and might only see it when it was too late (or from the shadow it cast).
Reply to
T i m

I don't ride a bike but I have a similar issue with wearing photo-chromatic glasses. Although they are generally fantastic, if you drive from bright sunlight into heavy shade, you really can see very little. A similar thing happens when entering a tunnel. On one local hill, popular with cyclists, you have to be very careful until they adjust.

Andy C

Reply to
Andy Cap

Good job it wasn't a pedestrian (careless cycling)

Travelling too fast for the conditions (careless cycling).

Careless cycling.

Dangerous cycling.

Travelling too fast for the conditions.

Reply to
MrCheerful

Then they are unsuitable eye wear for driving. There are legal requirements for motorcycle visors and windscreens regarding tint, it sounds like those glasses would be illegal for road use if they came under the same laws, as they should.

Reply to
MrCheerful

I accept what you're saying but they generally make driving a far more comfortable experience.

Reply to
Andy Cap

So there would be no mitigating circumstances in your world / eyes?

So you can (should) predict all circumstances ... like say cycling (motorcycling / driving) round a corner and being temporarily blinded by the sun?

Possibly ... in the same way glancing at your radio or passenger for a second constitutes 'careless driving' or walking off a pavement in front of a cycle / car / truck is 'careless walking'. ;-)

It only became dangerous when a car was parked there illegally as several other previous instances seem to attest. It doesn't mention how many cyclists have crashed because of other reasons and not just into cars that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

When a roller coaster car full of people crash into one that shouldn't be there the responsibility seems to be landed firmly on those who left it there. Same with an unlit skip left on the road at night or where no approval (licence / permit) was given.

Again, I'll have to bow to your abilities to predict all potential circumstances. ;-)

OOI, are you fully supportive of any driver (often elderly) who drive

*every road* often under even ideal conditions at a speed where even if the corners were covered in ice they wouldn't lose control? Who break at the sign of every oncoming car or corner and stop at every roundabout? I'm guessing they are only driving / traveling at a speed that *they* determine to be 'sufficiently slow not to be too fast' yet do that on your driving test and you will fail?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'm not arguing with you in principle, I'm reflecting a real world situation.

Reply to
T i m

The problem with any tinted eyewear is that it makes your eyes behave in an unnatural way for the actual conditions, which may weaken or damage your eyesight.

Reply to
MrCheerful

There cannot be any excuse for riding at speed into a stationary object. He is described as having been riding head down.

It is quite easy to tell which direction the sun is coming from and drive/ride accordingly, if you have difficulty seeing then you slow down, you do not continue, head down at speed.

The car was in sight for a long time. If you need to glance away from the road for more than a split second then you should stop.

The roads are littered with obstacles, it makes no difference whether the car was legally parked or not, you don't just crash into it.

Roller coasters should be separated by mechanical means, this was a road.

An unlit or illegal skip still does not give anyone a right to drive into it, particularly not in broad daylight, prams appear in the road, you don't drive into them 'because they shouldn't be there.'

No one can predict everything, but the possibility of a vehicle/skip etc. being in a shadowy part of the road is quite easy to expect, It is part of being an experienced driver, it is a skill set that can be learned.

You drive at speeds appropriate to the conditions, you know if it is icy, if you cannot see, approaching a junction, you may need to stop, you don't plough on regardless.

Elderly drivers are a concern and sometimes an annoyance, but they don't tend to be high on the crash lists. I would like to see some serious re-testing of the elderly, most of them will stop driving if they are told to, by authority.

Reply to
MrCheerful

Of course ... by the judgment of 'that driver' though (in some non-obvious cases) I'm guessing [1]? So, are you suggesting you have

*never* been caught out (even if you actually managed the situation) by *anything*? You have *always* predicted an oncoming driver will stay in their lane, not have a blowout or be trying to text or dip their headlights or do you slow / pull over in *all* such (potential) situations 'in case' that happens?

Of course not ... except when 'ploughing on' is something you are forced to do because of the circumstances, like whilst slowing down as fast as you can to avoid a child running out from a blind location. No one can predict or cater for every circumstance, if they could then no advanced / professional driver (Police or otherwise) would ever have an accident or children killed.

I thought they did and their (increased) premiums seem to reflect it?

Agreed.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Daughter failed a driving test whilst driving unknown (to her) roads in Scotland whilst in an unfamiliar car in the wet ... because her examiner said she should have been going faster. He said her (lack of) speed could be considered dangerous because it might encourage others to try to overtake putting everyone in greater danger. She currently drives all sorts of commercial vehicles and rides a Suzuki 600 Bandit and isn't someone who I would normally consider to be a 'slow' driver, unless the conditions dictate such being appropriate.

How long would you happily follow a driver making their own personal judgment as what speed is considered safe before being frustrated by them when you felt the conditions allowed any/everyone to travel faster?

Reply to
T i m

I don't find any problem with my photo-sensitive glasses whilst driving. They only darken appreciably when outside the car, but I would expect a problem when cycling in the circumstances you describe.

Reply to
Gordon H

They don't normally have high speed fatal accidents, but when they do kill someone it makes headline news. The reckless, immortal 18-24 year olds cause fatal or potentially fatal accidents week after week, and the local paper becomes full of "tributes" to a wonderful fun-loving guy. ;-)

At 82, I am considering a voluntary assessment by the IAM, but my daughter is my keenest monitor, and she will tell me if and when she thinks I'm a danger on the road. ;-)

I watched the 100 Year Old Drivers on TV recently, and was horrified that some are still driving, even those who were given the ok by the assessors. OTOH, a couple of them were as sharp as knives, so it would be unfair to impose a retest on all of them.

I watch people walking with a stick, getting into a car, and wonder how they could brake in an emergency. One common remark when they crash is that they "pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. I suspect that an automatic is involved in many of those cases...

Reply to
Gordon H

I think she should have challenged this.

If you had been driving unknown roads whilst in an unfamiliar car in the wet, would you have driven that slowly?

If you had hired that car and driven away from a foreign airport I hope you would have taken a few minutes to familiarise yourself with the car, but other than that, what else could you do but to drive slowly and carefully?

Reply to
Graham J
[...]

There's one huge difference; the unfortunate folk on the roller coaster had no way of reacting to the obstruction, either by steering around it ot attempting to stop.

Chris

Reply to
Chris Whelan

Simple solution. Retest EVERYBODY periodically. Shorter periods for the young/old/new drivers.

Reply to
Adrian

and iiuc the safety/fault alert system was being deliberately ignored. This has nothing to do with the situation under discussion.

Reply to
MrCheerful

I do not get frustrated by slow drivers, I just give them extra room and if safe I will overtake them if it will help.

As I said earlier, it is impossible to predict every possibility, but simple ones, like watching where you are going is perfectly possible. Judging speed and distance to useful effect is more difficult. Noticing stuff like which way the road goes, whether other vehicles are wet, and whether the sun will be a problem is more advanced, but not abnormal. Anticipating the loon that drives into a brick wall, overturns their van and hurtles toward you, roof first, on a normal road is practically impossible to predict and cater for.

Reply to
MrCheerful

You could be right but I wasn't up there (Scotland) at the time.

I'm not sure about 'that' slowly because I wasn't there but when driving my mates SL63 AMG for the first time the other day I know I was taking it very easy and insisted it wasn't in the wet!

Well, I think 'experience' would have possibly determined what the potential maximum speed is / was for any conditions and then you drop back below that to give yourself a bit of a safety margin. So, I'm not sure if that matches your 'slowly' or not ... it might depend on what the locals thought I guess?

I often found (find) what the limits are by pushing them (when and where approppriate etc) and I wonder how many 'ordinary' drivers ever do? If you don't know / test the limits, how will you know if you are close to them or not?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. After Mum was blasted round the grounds of Knebworth House by Pentti Airikkala in his works rally Chevette on a Vauxhall open day ... Mum just took off the helmet and thanked him kindly. He, slightly taken back by her complete her complete non-pulssedness, asked 'if she had done this sort of thing before'? 'No' she said, 'just my son drives like that all the time ...'. ;-)

I didn't because all I had was a MM Van, it must just have felt like it to her after being driven about by Dad ... ;-)

Reply to
T i m

But what if you can't (overtake, miles of twisty B roads with double white lines), don't you get frustrated when they don't keep up a semblance of what most would consider 'acceptable'? I know the Police don't like it and are nearly as likely to pull someone over for travailing 'too slow' (for the given conditions) as too fast, in case they are drunk or on drugs etc.

Of course, but *even* watching where you are going isn't that easy OR predictable. You come round a bend on a county lane and are blinded by someone failing to dip their (HID especially) headlights. Now, you knew they were there because you saw their lights over the hedgerow, however, you would have *expected* them to dip them as (or before) they saw yours and until they blinded you (unexpectedly) you *were* driving safely and to the conditions.

Agreed. But I didn't think we were discussing those things (thing that 'most people' deal with safely) but the things that *are* unpredictable and unexpected.

Quite, or the guy that pulls out right in front of you in the wet at

2am on Boxing day ... unless there happens to be an escape route and you are quick / ready enough to take it [1]. Then you just compose yourself and carry on your day. It's when 'luck' (as that is what that is, not skill or any 'prediction') isn't in your favour it can all end in tears.

OOI, I wonder how long said cyclist had been cycling and potentially (skillfully?) avoided many potentially fatal instances (with good observation and skills) previously?

Cheers, T i m

[1] Again, back to knowing your and your vehicles limits for any given conditions.
Reply to
T i m

Indeed ... but the point was that there *are* instances that can work out the same as that ITRW and without the drivers being 'negligent.

I'm not saying that was the case in this case, just that it happens. ;-(

In fact, given how busy the roads are these days I'm surprised 'humans' are as capable and generally manage to avoid things and each other as much as they do. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.