A dashboard camera captured the moment a cyclist and a van collide at a busy junction in Manchester this week

TAGS:

Dashcam footage has captured the moment a young woman collides with a van on a main road in Withington, Manchester.

The footage shows a woman on a bike cycling along in the segregated bike lane as the traffic lights ahead of her turn green.

At the same time as she attempts to cycle straight across the junction, the van turns left and the two collide, with the woman falling to the floor. The woman, who appears unhurt, gets up and indicates to the driver to reverse so she can retrieve her bike.

The incident happened just before 11.30am on Tuesday and was filmed by Michael Macdonald, who films all of his car journeys for insurance purposes.

Macdonald, a 25-year-old recruitment specialist who lives in Withington, told the Manchester Evening News: “I couldn’t believe it when I saw what happened. I thought the woman would be badly injured considering the force of the crash.

“But luckily just after she was back up and seemed OK. I rushed out to make sure, and she asked the van driver whether he could ‘get off her bike’.

>>> New debate over who’s to blame as cyclist and pedestrian collide (video)

“Whether he was indicating before he turned I really don’t know – but the woman was calm and they were polite with each other. She certainly didn’t seem to be blaming him.”

He added: “It’s certainly one of the most shocking incidents I have seen. Thankfully the woman was OK. When we all stopped there was a police car around the corner so they got everyone’s details.”

  • Jon Radford

    Im a car and bicycle user 30+yrs and despite my usual slight bias to support cyclists, this case is clearly the fault of the cyclist.
    The bike was effectively overtaking on the inside across the junction after the cycle lane had stopped. She was also going too fast to expect some one to see her coming. There is also no legal obligation for indicators to be used by the van so the cyclist should have assesed the potential situation ahead at a junction and adjusted speed and position.
    The lights were already green and the van in the junction. The cyclist rode into the junction and drove into a vehicle that was perfectly entitled to turn left.
    Sorry, on this ocassion, and unussually, van 1, cyclist nil.

  • RobTM

    Pepe: that STREET iS NOT in the Netherlands, overtaking vehicle (in this case the cycle) gives WAY!!

  • LaszloZoltan

    this is why bike lanes are dangerous

  • Wear a helmet

    Wish we were more enlightened, both as riders and drivers, we could learn a lot from the NL model. However rider still at fault, she lives in the UK, not NL and doing this kind of riding only ends one way in the UK…

  • Wear a helmet

    Cyclist and van driver at fault. The van driver did not indicate – this is a minor fault and did not cause the accident. The cyclist is mostly at fault – why? she made a number of mistakes:-
    1. Because she attempted to undertake a moving vehicle at a junction – crazy and a good way to get squashed
    2. She exited the dedicated cycle lane when she passed the traffic light – she assumed she had right of way – she didn’t. She should have stopped
    3. She did not ride defensively, and assume the front car in row of traffic might try to kill her (this is a necessary thing for any commuter to learn to survive on roads)
    4. She used the dedicated cycle lane. Basic error, dedicated cycle lanes are actually statistically more dangerous then being on the road. Why? Because as they often start and end abruptly, give a false sense of security, and encourage brainless motorists to make impossible passes at pinch points. In the presence of a hazard (parked cars, junctions, filter lanes) it is often better in slow traffic conditions to take whole single carriageway as is legal right for a time, before moving respectfully over for traffic to pass
    The van driver probably saved her life by driving slowly and stopping quickly on impact, irrespective of whether he should have seen the speeding bullet trying to undertake at a set of lights (which is illegal). If he were to stop to let her undertake he probably would have caused an accident behind him.
    All in all Im glad the cyclist is ok, and hope she learns from her experience. If you undertake and jump red lights, one day this will be you….

  • Pepe

    Situations like this happen all the time in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands the cyclist has right of way in such a case and every car driver knows that. Every car driver would look over his shoulder to the left (right of course in the Netherlands because we drive at the other side of the road) to see if there are cyclists coming. Every cyclist knows that every car driver is looking out for cyclists in such situations.

  • Choddo

    I guess the driver didn’t have a chance because his mirrors have been removed? Total lack of awareness. Absymal driving.

  • joe

    She was going to fast. The van driver should have given way.

  • RobTM

    But you know, even if you’re Dutch, when you ride down that street, are you seriously going to do what the cyclist did in that video, or approach slower, rather than over-take on the UK unexpected side? The faster vehicle is meant to give way when overtaking and SPECIFIALLY NOT over take at junctions, so this cyclist is in wrong by highway code. The Van driver, we can’t be sure of.

  • Altimis Nuel

    Green never mean “go full throttle”

  • PWest

    It’s clear to see that the driver is legally at fault due to highway code rule 183 as the cycle lane continues through the junction.

    It’s a shame that cyclists in real life need to be much more careful than this cyclist happened to be on this occasion. The road design needs to better given that good road positioning is hindered by the segregated lane kerb.

    And yes I’ve driven and cycled through this junction

  • Rupert the Super Bear

    Joe – It is indeed a cultural thing. But the Netherlands is close to the ideal – very few countries offer as safe a cycling environment as the Netherlands. Meanwhile cyclists here have to ride safely and defensively knowing that many drivers are more than likely to do the wrong thing. I wonder how many Dutch cyclists would ride as fast as that straight into trouble?

    Read Craig O’s post below.

  • Marky

    So you think that you can cross a cycle lane that has a cyclist in it and hit them under UK road rules?

  • joe

    Meanwhile in a civilized country not far away:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0U-9lig30

  • joe

    Rubbish. It’s a cultural thing. Here in the Nertherlands all drivers are trained to thoroughly look for cyclists in this situation .They would have stopped if there were unsure. You’re comments speak volumes about the primitive mindset of UK drivers. “Sorry I dint see you mate.”

  • joe

    ” Im also guessing your not British looking at your grammer”

    *I am, *grammar.
    ROFL, Epic Daily Fail reader fail.

    Love it when some delusionally uninformed person comments with self assured authority. What nonsense. The driver did not indicate. Here in NL the driver would be 100% at fault and their insurance would pay for complete repairs to her bike and some comp. And that is how it should be.

  • EB

    Yes. Mixed metaphors. I made a mistake there.

  • Mfic

    Ref the earlier commen on the cyclist assuming dominant position at Junctions, that works fine when there’s a bike box, and you r in front of vehicles. If no box, that’s a high risk position to be in . Knowing that when I am in a car and there is no bike box to avoid risks to both cyclists and me, my approach is to dominate the gutter right up to the Stop line. On the RHS a cyclist can only ever legally be beside me, not in front. Safe all round. That’s the objective isn’t it ?

  • Harri

    isn’t it “brightest spark in the box” not match?

  • Harri

    tough one, cyclist should of been slower coming up to a traffic light and use common sense to see the van and potential hazard however the same can easily be said about the driver of the van and how he should of been more observant to see the cyclist and abide by the highway code.
    I am swaying more towards it being her fault purely because of the speed she is going, if she was going a lot slower then hands down van drivers fault

  • CraigO

    I think this raises an interesting question about the rules around cycle lanes.

    Typically when you turn left you are in the left lane or at least in a lane where all traffic to your left is also turning left. This changes when you have a cycle lane that goes straight on.

    I would suggest / assume that in this case it is the responsibility of both lanes (the cycle lane / car lane) to give way to traffic in front. That does not mean you can accelerate past a vehicle then cross their path (either way), but that as you approach each junction you look out for traffic ahead or that you are passing to which you might need to give way.

    Could that work?

  • EB

    No. And I don’t care in the slightest if you think I am nasty. Your opinion is of absolutely zero interest to me. I will argue with anyone who imposes a false dichotomy or makes a straw man argument.

    And it wouldn’t have been highly unlikely that the van driver saw her if he used his side mirror. He was parked next to a cycle lane in an area with lots of bicycles intending to cross a broken white line and cross a cycle lane. I’ve never driven a car, van or motorcycle that I wouldn’t have seen that cyclist in.

    If you think you couldn’t see her in your side mirror you are not safe to drive and should stop.

  • Rupert the Super Bear

    EB – do you think you could please stop arguing the toss with everybody, you’re making yourself look like a really nasty piece of work. We’re all cyclists, we all care about safety on the roads. This lady was not riding in a safe defensive way, she quite simply rode into trouble. Yes, it would have been good if the van driver had spotted her, but also highly unlikely.

  • Rupert the Super Bear

    I would certainly agree that both could be in the wrong, that’s absolutely true. However I wouldn’t have wanted to be this van driver – she was approaching at quite some speed, his chances of seeing her coming at the necessary exact moment would have been very slim. This is real world stuff and no driver is perfect – it’s not easy to be checking all mirrors simultaneously.

    Let’s just agree that thankfully nobody was hurt. And that the van driver wasn’t the violent thug we so often see.

  • Rupert the Super Bear

    No problem Mike.

  • EB

    Actually my argument is very good. There is no dichotomy. The cyclist made a mistake and so did the driver. Anyone who can’t use a side mirror should not be allowed to drive.

    And as well as the false we dichotomy now you have added a ‘straw man’ to your ‘armoury’. Well done. At no point did I say cyclists don’t need to be aware what is going on around them and at no point did I say she was faultless. Look up straw man too

    False dichotomy
    Straw man
    False dichotomy
    Straw man
    False dichotomy
    Straw man

    And I will continue saying that until you stop using them

  • Jay Kay

    Hey , you are the one started on the slurs/name calling, because ‘we’ don’t agree with your narrow/blinkered viewpoint.
    A cyclist also has the obligation to keep aware of what is going on around them…so your (again) flawed argument is pure bunk!
    And don’t start rattling on about ‘false dichotomy’ again….your stuck in a groove on that one…….

  • EB

    I can tell you exactly why I am arguing and will continue to argue. Every time something like this is posted someone, or several people, pop up and find a fault in the cyclist and enforce a false dichotomy, where the cyclist is at fault and not the driver. Every time. Enough.

    There is not a dichotomy. Both can make mistakes.

    And we want normal people cycling without helmets, without fluorescent clothing, wearing normal clothes on normal bikes and who have not had to go on special lessons to learn how to cycle safely. And knee jerk fault finding with the cyclist may be easy for us experienced cyclists, but it’s going to put normal people off.

    And that is why I am going to continue arguing.

  • EB

    Oh no. Someone as amazing as you has called me a name. I am going to go and cry. Boo boo. Boo boo.

    A driver has an obligation to keep aware of what is going on around them. They didn’t.

    No one who who lacks the brain power to keep an eye on their mirrors should be allowed behind the wheel of a heavy machine.

  • Jay Kay

    Similarly…you could read War and Peace..it had no bearing on the fact the cyclist did not pay heed and went into the front side of the van at speed…oh I can’t think of a witty name for you in response…you’re such a rapier of the riposte/repartee….wit…yeah that’s it nitwit….oh the scoundrel…

  • briantrousers

    Never assume, it makes an ass of u and me. Or in this instance makes you almost dead under the wheels of a van.

    You’re right though, he’s not indicating left. The junction design is cr*p.

  • EB

    Actually I do know he didn’t. I’ve driven many cars and vans and every single one had a side mirror that would have shown that cyclist.

    And yet another person who wants to impose a false dichotomy.

    This is not a complicated concept. Yes she was wrong, but they can both be wrong. Is that simple enough for you?

    Both the driver and her were wrong. I really can’t think of a simpler way to write this very basic concept.

    You could even argue the street designer was wrong. Look three people all being wrong at once. Amazing….

  • Ben Crossley

    yes you dont know if he used his mirrors but what you do know is that she was undertaking and heading towards a junction at a decent pace not really the best idea especially in a built up area the van was already turning, the only thing you cant make out is if the van driver was indicating or not, but as a cyclist myself i still say she was in the wrong

  • Con Kennedy

    Van driver did not indicate the intention to turn left. It’s clear that
    the repeater is not flashing. Therefore, reasonable to assume they were
    going on straight.

  • Mike Mccarthy

    sry That was ment for ED

  • Mike Mccarthy

    ppl like you make life harder for cyclists you prat

  • Tom Wells

    I don’t know why everyone’s arguing. The van didn’t indicate so how was the cyclist to know he was turning? She appeared to attempt avoiding action by turning around the van which may have stopped her getting seriously injured (since she didn’t face-plant the side of the van).

    There’s definitely an element of her riding too fast and not defensive enough (probably due to lack of experience) but it’s everyone’s responsibility to make sure everyone around you knows what you’re doing.

  • EB

    I can also reference the highway code. Whilst the driver was allowed to cross the cycle lane because of the broken white line they are obligated to check it was safe to do so.

    “If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.”

    More reading for you sparky

  • Internet Pawn

    Had she been filtering then she would have shared responsibility with other vehicles in her lane, but she wasn’t filtering here. She was cycling in a cycle lane, in much the same was as a bus drives in a bus lane. Had this been a bus I’m pretty sure no-one would think the van would be justified in failing to yield to the bus. In terms of who has priority there really is no difference here. Ditto if the van had been trying to turn left from lane 2 across another all-vehicle lane.

    The problem here is that the council is providing Danish standard cycling facilities in a country where drivers don’t get Danish standard driver education. It’s very noticeable that Danish drivers turn right very differently to the way we generally turn left here. There, drivers routinely pause and look before turning, which not only means they stand a better chance of seeing the pedestrians and cyclists they should be giving way to, it also gives cyclists more warning in case they need to take avoiding action.

    It’s true that many of us would have treated the junction differently than this cyclist, but that doesn’t excuse the careless driving by the van driver.

  • Niall Murphy

    I had to wade through some puerile point scoring egotistical rants to get to your comment! I agree with your concise summary of the main points.

  • EB

    No you are wrong. If the driver was not incompetent they would have seen down the cycle lane using the side mirror and not begin the manoeuvre.

    Next time you can safely stop by a cycle lane do so. Look at the side mirror. You can see what is in the cycle lane.

    And you obviously don’t know what a false dichotomy is. Look it up in anywhere you want.

  • Stevie

    I agree the van is crossing the cycle lane. But the she has ample time to stop the bike whilst the van is mid manoeuvre instead of crashing into the front wing of it. She clearly wasn’t aware of her surroundings.

    The main issue that arises from this is that the highway code doesn’t offer clear guidelines on what the cyclist should do here. Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’ Is probably as close at we get. The problem is filtering through stationary traffic is perfectly legal, yet there is a massive grey spot surrounding the legality of undertaking moving traffic. A cycling proficiency course would tell you to adopt a dominant position when approaching the junction. which would render it impossible for you to be in a position to undertake a turning vehicle.

  • Daniel Aaron Turner

    Dichotomy! Dichotomy! They’ve all got it dichotomy!

  • Jay Kay

    Oh look we can reference Wikipedia pages….here is a challenge..without looking up Wikipedia. ..false dichotomy…an oft used phrase in your rather narrow vocabulary….you are simply wrong…in all that you believe and try to convey here on this topic…the argument is weak in this one…a jedi you are not. If there was a bright match in the box there would be no matches left…you sir, lose the Internet. …

  • EB

    I have never said the cyclist did not make a mistake & in-fact have said she did multiple times. This false dichotomy refuses to die. They can both be wrong!

    The idea that the van driver had no chance is however nonsense. I used to live less than a mile from there and have driven on that road many times. If he had looked in his side mirror before maneuvering he would have seen along the cycle path and that a cyclist was approaching.

    It is doubly worse because they were driving across a cycle lane & because he has all the time sat at the red light to look in the mirror and see the cyclist. It is also a student area and bikes are common.

    No driving instructor, police instructor or other good driver would have not known about the cyclist and they all would have waited to see what she did. When she didn’t slow down they would have not maneuvered, not had a crash, lost a few seconds and probably grumbled a bit about bad cyclists.

  • Rupert the Super Bear

    EB – I am a serious advocate for cycling and cyclist’s rights.

    I’ve commented on dozens of clips like this, and I nearly always support the cyclist. Sadly in this case, the cyclist appears to lack basic road sense, possibly she is relatively inexperienced. I would imagine everybody that’s viewed this video could see exactly what was going to happen – apart from the van driver who didn’t really have a chance! He couldn’t see what we see, or what the cyclist should have seen. The lady cyclist needs to do some proficiency training or the like. She was very lucky not to have been seriously injured. Thankfully the driver wasn’t the nasty type we so often see.

  • EB

    Look up false dichotomy. In sure it on Wikipedia or something. Very basic GCSE rhetorical nonsense.

    And as for the rest of your rant, well it doesn’t suggest you are the brightest match in the box so… you know what they say about wrestling pigs….

  • EB

    You still are under the misapprehension that I value your opinion in the slightest.
    You can’t drive. You argue with strawmen. You argue with false dichotomies. You like to victim blame. I find it hard to imagine anyone whose opinion I would hold lower.

    If you don’t like reading, I’m sure you can refer yourself for a drivers’ awareness course. In sure you’d benefit.

  • Internet Pawn

    The segregation may have finished, but the cycle lane continued right across the junction. You can see in the still from the video that the van is half way across the cycle lane. Whatever your mode of transport, if you are crossing a lane of traffic you give way to traffic using that lane.

  • Internet Pawn

    “Im also guessing your not British looking at your grammer, …”

    Who says irony is dead?

  • http://www.cyclechiangmai.com/ ian franklin

    Looking at your grammar, I guess you are not British either.

  • Stevie

    I think you need to spend some time with a book full stop. Judging by your ability to construct sentences the last book you read would appear to be one that contained Biff, Chip and Kipper.

  • Jay Kay

    EB:
    1. Are you the cyclist?
    2. Are you the van driver? (obviously not)
    3. Where you there as the incident happened, or have you even ever driven/ridden across that junction? (I’m gonna say no here…)
    If the answer to any/all of these questions is/are – NO, then you have only an opinion of what happened, you have no factual evidence other than what you can ‘barely’ see from this dashcam viewpoint.
    You don’t know that the van driver didn’t see the bike/wasn’t looking/checking his mirrors.

    The cyclist probably thought (…conjecture m’lud) – the lights have changed – I do not need to temper my speed…and (obviously thought they were in the right) had the right of way… so the cyclist is to blame on that front.

    To then say that the only other option was that it was a deliberate act, then you are indeed a troll.
    As for the skirt/rape comment – well not sure what (rather pathetic) attempt at a point you’re trying to make there…

    To quote you: I drive and have done so for 18 years. I would have seen that cyclist because I can see and check mirrors.
    That statement is utter tosh…by that reckoning I am a ‘vastly superior driver’ to you as I have held a full license for 28 years…and I can and do use my mirrors so I WOULD have seen that cyclist…bunk!
    She more or less drove INTO the van because she didn’t pay proper attention, she neither slowed or attempted to brake as she approached the junction.
    …oh and I’ve been cycling for about 45 years, so I must be the (nearly) best(est) cyclist in the world of my age too!
    I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way….
    Stop prattling on about failing driving tests for not using mirrors…a pass on a driving test does not a driver make! Road craft comes after (is learned/learnt) once you have that licence…and reading a book on driving makes you no more a driver than reading an article about nuclear fission makes you a scientist…!
    It’s fairly plain to see 96% of respondents don’t agree with your opinion….

  • Nick

    If the cycle lane was raised up and the cars etc had to go over it and there were give way markings in the road it would help. And separate lights for cars and bikes

  • Nick

    The problem is simple, van driver just assumed no one was in the cycle lane and turned without looking properly. Who’d of thought there would be a cyclist in the cycle lane. A visual reminder on the floor somewhere would help drivers remember to look and give way. You cant see if the driver indicated or not

  • JC

    Both wrong according to the Highway Code.

    “Rule 160 states that road users should ‘be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic’ and Rule 88, in relation to manoeuvring, states that road users should take care and keep speed low ‘…when filtering in slow-moving traffic’. Furthermore, rule 211 says that ‘it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are filtering through traffic’.

    Although Rule 211 states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’ which could be taken to mean that drivers have responsibility for looking for riders before performing a manoeuvre, it is important for cyclists to anticipate the actions of other road users and avoid risks at all times. There is no specific guidance in the Highway Code about when it is or is not safe to filter through traffic, however there are some basic pieces of safety advice that cyclists should have in mind when on the roads.

    Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.”

    http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

  • EB

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that the sort of person who can’t use wing mirrors holds an opinion I would even slightly value.

    You need to spend some time with a book on how to drive.

  • EB

    Accusing someone of trolling is beyond pathetic.

    I do know the driver didn’t check their side mirrors because I have driven lots of cars and vans and they all would have seen that cyclist.

    Again with the false dichotomy. Again with the straw man argument. Any other GCSE rhetorical trickery you want to play?

    And if you couldn’t have seen that cyclist in your side mirror you can’t drive and should not be allowed behind the wheel.

  • Stevie

    You seem to be taking this very personally and I think its clearly clouding your ability to see this video for what it is. If your old enough to of been driving for 18 years, you should be old enough to know using a statement about rape to try and get one over on someone on the internet is infinitely childish and I think you need to have a quiet word with yourself.

  • Dan Kenyon

    I know the basics of driving.

    ‘No doubt you think if a girl goes out in short dress and gets raped that it is her fault. You are just desperately trying to blame the cyclist so as to be able to ignore the incompetence of the driver’

    That’s just wrong a vile and am going to say no more on it.

    Im not desperately trying to blame the cyclist, you could show this to the police or driving instructors and the cyclist would still be in the wrong. Your the one desperately clinging on to this he did check his mirrors which you dont know, even though you think you do. Now leaving your trolling.

  • EB

    Looking at all your posts it is clear you are incompetent at using side mirrors and should not be allowed to drive.

  • EB

    You are desperately trying to enforce a false dichotomy. Both driver and cyclist can be wrong. Fortunately the courts will be able to see that.

    However wrong she is, the driver is not excused from knowing what is going on around him and the driver should be prosecuted.

  • James Heath

    This is the problem with cycle lanes. If the motorist doesn’t have to overtake you, they don’t register that you are there – you are practically a pedestrian. The bike lane should integrate with the lane before the junction so that the cyclist can safely use any exit. How do you turn right from that?
    Also, what a naff idea to have traffic turn across the cycle lane. If the lights are on green, then a cyclist going straight on and a vehicle turning left could enter the junction at the same time, with neither being particularly aware of the other, particularly if the cyclist is in the vehicle’s blind spot.
    Cycle lanes like this are dangerous. I see the idea behind completely separate cycle lanes, but when they are merged with the road, they become a danger to everyone, and it is safer for the cyclist to ride in the road with the rest of the traffic – at least motorists know that they are there.

  • Gary Jogela

    Grammer?

  • EB

    The priority is irrelevant. The law says a driver of a motor vehicle needs to be aware of what is going on around them.

    Any competent driver would have seen the cyclist and not had that collision. Ask any driving instructor or police driver.

    Mirror-signal-manoevre: basic driving.

    No doubt you think if a girl goes out in short dress and gets raped that it is her fault. You are just desperately trying to blame the cyclist so as to be able to ignore the incompetence of the driver.

    It is clear you shouldn’t be allowed to drive either.

  • Dan Kenyon

    Looking at all EB’s posts im starting to think he’s either a troll or a zealot that thinks cyclists can do no wrong.

  • Stevie

    A bike lane never continues across a junction it becomes a broken line meaning vehicles are allowed to cross that line. At that stage the lane requires you to give way to traffic that’s turning ahead of you as you would in a car as the lane is no longer just for the use bikes when the lane has an un-broken line.

    She crashed into the van, I fail to see how you think she is not in the wrong.

  • EB

    Wow all you like. The speed of the cyclist is irrelevant.

    I drive and have done so for 18 years. I would have seen that cyclist because I can see and check mirrors.

    When I was learnt aged 17 I learnt to check my side mirrors before indicating or manoeuvring.

    If that can had been driven by a driving instructor or a police driver it never would have happened either.

    If you are too incompetent to see things in your mirrors you a dangerous driver and shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It sounds very much like this is the case.

  • Dan Kenyon

    You cant know that 100% though. Im also guessing your not British looking at your grammer, but in the UK a cycle lane doesnt give you priority, the vehicle had all ready started to make its move, the cyclist wasnt paying attention and went through at speed and had a collision.

  • Dan Kenyon

    Wow, just wow. The cyclist doesnt get auto right of way and as i pointed out to you in a previous comment the speed the cylist was going it wouldnt have mattered if driver checked the mirror.

    I bet you think all car vs cyclists accidents are the cars fault….. they arent!

  • EB

    I can easily know he didn’t check his mirror. If he had done so he would have not turned across the cycle lane. The only other possibilities are that he did it deliberately or has too poor eyesight to drive.

  • EB

    You need to research the video. The cycle lane continues across the junction. There is even a bike symbol by the van’s rear tire.

    And even if she were wrong and even if he had right of way he still was obliged to check his side mirror. Either he didn’t, his eyesight was poor or he decided to hit the cyclist. Mirror-signal-manoevre. Basic learning to drive stuff.

    If the driver lacks the ability to monitor mirrors whilst driver should not be allowed behind the wheel.

  • Stevie

    Sorry to reply in two post but ‘I do know they didn’t check their side mirror as if they he they would have seen a cyclist and waited to check they were going to stop before crossing the bike lane. Assuming their eyes work, but if they don’t then they shouldn’t be driving.’

    The bike lane ends at the traffic lights, she crashed into the front wing of the van after the lights.

  • Stevie

    the cycle lane had ended when she cross the junction in front of the van. she wasn’t in front of the van before it was going to turn thus she should wait for it to turn and continue when its safe. As for mirror-signal-manoeuvre he has the right of way as the lights are on green and he is in the junction making a turn. He didn’t cut her up she didn’t anticipate him turning and adopted the wrong position on the road to proceed straight across the junction.

    I live in Manchester currently and I commute 30k through the city and back every weekday. I haven’t experienced any abuse for not using a cycle lane as I tend to avoid the brompton army in the segregated cycleway between deansgate and castlefield.

    I’d like to add I didn’t ‘Victim blame’ She technically isn’t the victim here if we were to play that game. In as much as she was at fault for the collision, if you cant see that your as bad as the other people who are wrapped up in the ‘us vs them mentality’.

  • EB

    Cyclist wasn’t driving a ton of machine.

    I do know they didn’t check their side mirror as if they he they would have seen a cyclist and waited to check they were going to stop before crossing the bike lane. Assuming their eyes work, but if they don’t then they shouldn’t be driving.

    Hopefully they will be convicted and sent on a drivers awareness course.

  • EB

    I can know he didn’t check his mirror. If he had done he would have seen a faster moving bicycle and not crossed the cycle lane.

    If he did that in a driving test that would have been an outright fail and the tester would have walked home.

  • Dan Kenyon

    Seems like the cyclist was the one ‘with little clue what was going on around them’ lights just changed to green vehicle probably indicating its intentions to make the turn. You dont know the driver didnt check before the turn, if the driver did check the cyclist may not have been there, the speed the cyclist approached the junction the driver would have had to be looking in the mirrors throughout the manoeuvre. Id rather drivers pay attention to whats ahead like the cyclist should have.

  • Dan Kenyon

    You dont know that he didnt check his mirror, he could have checked it and it was clear and made the turn. You cant expect every to constantly look behind and not look whats going on in front of them. The cyclist could see the lights had just changed, should have seen the van starting to turn as she approached it and should have slowed.

  • EB

    Use of an indicator does not give you right not to check your side mirror.

    She was in a cycle lane. I’ve lived in Manchester: you get abuse from drivers if you don’t use the cycle lanes. I prefer better road positioning but the abuse gets tiring, particularly if you ride daily. And Manchester drivers are particularly fond of yelling abuse.

    She should have riden more defensively and expected the driver to not check his side mirror before crossing a cycle lane, but no need to engage in victim blaming. The driver should have checked side mirror. Not doing so is a fail on a driving test. Ask any drive I my instructor. Mirror-signal-manoevre…

  • EB

    Van driver was at fault. Did not use side mirror before turning. That is a clear error on a driving test, even if it wasn’t to cross a cycle lane.

  • EB

    Whilst she should have stopped seeing the indicator and expected the driver to be incompetent, the driver clearly didn’t check his side mirror before turning. Very basic error that they would have been tought for their license.

    She needs to have better anticipation. The council should redesign the junction so the bike lane ends more safely and the Driver should be sent on a driver’s awareness course. No one with that little clue what is going on around them should be behind the wheel, particularly a van.

  • Stevie

    Bike lanes tend to give people a false sense of safety at times and in this case a terrible road position when leading into a rather large junction from the looks. Thankfully she wasn’t hurt or didn’t arrive a tiny bit earlier in which the van would have hit the whole of her bike and not just her front wheel. As for the van indicating he seems to be when you watch the video at half speed.

  • Dan Kenyon

    Lucky it wasnt worse than it was. Van driver not at fault in this, if cyclist had slowed a bit she would have seen the van turning and not just appearing there quiet quickly