- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cycling in London lucky escape.pngVideo: you'll never guess what happens after this cyclist tries to avoid the pedestrians
A cyclist's helmet camera has captured the moment a driver cuts across his path at a junction in Fulham, leaving him with a fractured wrist and bruising.
The video, titled Cycling Accident in London - Lucky Escape, shows some of the challenges of cycling in the UK: Myles Gatherer is riding toward a T-junction in a bike lane, before moving out to avoid two people crossing the road, while at the same time a driver, coming from the opposite direction, is turning right.
The driver proceeds into Gatherer's path, and the moment of impact and cries of pain are captured as he hits the car, rolls across the bonnet and onto the ground.
Myles Gatherer told the Evening Standard: "When approaching the green lights two pedestrians crossed in front of me.
"I took the decision to manoeuvre around the pedestrians, after I cleared the pedestrians I entered the junction.
"When I entered the junction it became clear that a vehicle located at the oncoming side of the road intended to move across my trajectory."
Gatherer was not seriously hurt, fortunately.
Some viewers have expressed the opinion the rider should have slowed down for the pedestrians.
YouTube commenter 95Gabe said: "If he had braked when he saw them...like a motorist would...he would have been going slow enough to avoid the collision. I am not absolving the motorist, but I suspect the cyclist was hidden behind the pedestrians which were crossing the road. Given that they were there the motorist probably thought it was safe to turn."
What do you think?
Latest Comments
- LordSandwich 32 min 2 sec ago
They're doing their damdest to try and rig the election, and they're still going to lose! 😂
- ktache 4 hours 31 min ago
The Cure, 1989 day was fantastic, what little I got to hear. I think the BBC is wonderful, not perfect, but I'm so glad we have it.
- Ride On 5 hours 15 min ago
I ended up using Parcelforce - paying online and printing off a sticker - then drop off at the post office. I came across a couple of things worth...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 22 min ago
Reckless doesn't exist as a charge in the UK, it's either careless or dangerous.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 56 min ago
Australia?...
- mattw 5 hours 45 min ago
First Degree Assault in Maryland is serious - intent to cause serious injury, regardless of whether injury caused. A firearm makes it First Degree...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 53 min ago
Beat me to it. 30mph on gravel for a 75kg rider requires around 680W, so those who can achieve it will be experiencing a 0.4% improvement. I know...
- mattw 6 hours 4 min ago
Good comments on the story in the Sheffield Star.
Add new comment
84 comments
And how can I get an overstocked iPad for $40?
Of course the driver will take the blame, but I'd put at least 50% of that on the cyclist himself.
Firstly, the driver has seen the peds crossing, the cyclist makes a swere around them at a stupidly high speed to be entering a juction in the first place. I'm going out on a limb here, but that speed tells me he doesn't slow down for lights, whether they are green or red.
A touch of the brakes would have scrubbed some speed and this whole thing could have been avoided.
It's remarkeable that a cyclist not doing anywhere near the speed limit should slow down to ensure that he is not doing anywhere near being near the speed limit every time there are obstacles or things which might happen.
Meanwhile car drivers get to drive at a constant speed regardless of consequence or comment.
Personally I think that wearing a helmet has given him a false sense of security, and so he hasn't checked his speed. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet he'd most likely be fine now. So, stay safe, kids: don't wear a helmet.
Good grief. If cyclists cannot see that was 100% the driver's fault, what hope do we have with non-cyclists passing judgement on road traffic incidents (or whatever that are called today) involving cyclists.
If the dude on the bike had been in a car there would be none of this nonsense about it being his fault.
If the dude on the bike had been in a car he would have wiped out two pedestrians first. More likely he would have slowed right down. Bikes aren't cars.
But taking your point. If a driver approached the lights swerved round two pedestrians without touching the breaks and hit something then I'd take the same view.
Road safety is not about everyone standing on their rights: that they had tight of way, weren't speeding etc. It's about people approaching the task of driving and riding with care.
Speed limits are maximum legal speeds, not compulsory speeds. You still have to look at the road in front of you and approach it at a safe speed. You also have to consider even bad drivers i do when I am cyccling just like I consider that not everyone on a bike is a "cyclist" in the way that some people use that here.
And if you are fit and quick on a bike that's great. But you also have to consider that bikes are smaller than cars, less easy to see and that most cyclists are not travelling that fast. It may be the driver's responsibility to assess your speed but in situations like this but but if you suddenly appear from behind pedestrians going faster than most cyclists can manage then you are placing a huge bet that the driver you need to be responsible is actually just pretty ordinary, maybe below average. (On average half of drivers are below average - if you follow my drift). If you are out there driving a car or a lorry or riding a bike and you are travelling in a way that is putting other road users reactions to the test all the time then you aren't driving or riding safely.
If the dude on the bike had been in a car he would have wiped out two pedestrians first. More likely he would have slowed right down. Bikes aren't cars.
But taking your point. If a driver approached the lights swerved round two pedestrians without touching the breaks and hit something then I'd take the same view.
Road safety is not about everyone standing on their rights: that they had tight of way, weren't speeding etc. It's about people approaching the task of driving and riding with care.
Speed limits are maximum legal speeds, not compulsory speeds. You still have to look at the road in front of you and approach it at a safe speed. You also have to consider even bad drivers i do when I am cyccling just like I consider that not everyone on a bike is a "cyclist" in the way that some people use that here.
And if you are fit and quick on a bike that's great. But you also have to consider that bikes are smaller than cars, less easy to see and that most cyclists are not travelling that fast. It may be the driver's responsibility to assess your speed but in situations like this but but if you suddenly appear from behind pedestrians going faster than most cyclists can manage then you are placing a huge bet that the driver you need to be responsible is actually just pretty ordinary, maybe below average. (On average half of drivers are below average - if you follow my drift). If you are out there driving a car or a lorry or riding a bike and you are travelling in a way that is putting other road users reactions to the test all the time then you aren't driving or riding safely.
Right on bro
Agree with all of your post, but this is the nub of it all. The car driver is IMO (ir)responsible, but there are plenty of "them" out there.
Good to see the art of irony is still appreciated. By some.......
Well, everyone involved, pedestrians, cyclist and driver could have done things that probably would have prevented the collision happening. The pedestrians and driver misjudged the approaching cyclist's speed, the cyclist could have been more cautious when going around the pedestrians.
However the fault for CAUSING the collision lies with the driver, as he/she was obliged to give way.
That doesn't mean that cyclists wouldn't be wise to be cautious at junctions and contemplate defensive possibilities as a result of this cyclists unfortunate experience.
To give a parallel, if a driver is tailgating another, and the one in front has to emergency stop. The resulting collision was caused by the driver behind. However, the driver in front could have reduced the probability of being hit from behind by slowing down to allow more time to brake. (This is the advice driving instructor's rightly give on dealing with tailgaters). This doesn't mean that the driver performing the emergency stop is at fault however. Same as when something is stolen, the victim may have been able to reduce the probability of theft by purchasing additional physical security measures. However, they are NOT at fault for the theft, even if the item was left unlocked and unattended. Criticising the cyclist in this incident is, essentially, victim blaming.
The cyclist's helmet light was in flashing mode. You can see this when he's on the ground. IMHO this makes it unlikely that the driver didn't see him unless he wasn't looking at all.
Looking at it again there is a slight left kink to the road just before the junction. This is going to have the effect of putting traffic travelling in the cyclist's direction nearer the centre of the road and making these collisions more likely. I think road design plays a part here as well as incautious speed and crap driving.
I was always taught to slow down when approaching traffic lights. It doesn't matter whether you are cycling, or driving. This guy seems to be racing through the lights. As a traffic cop once 'lectured' me about going through on an amber light- "Your crumple zone is a lot less than the car's".
Start with laughably dated clickbait, end with desperate trolling? Seriously? Is there a FORS-registered truckload of irony here that I've completely missed?
It would seem so, Bez!
Both cyclist and motorist at fault surely?
And the click bait comments are spot on.
The driver is at fault. Clearly. But all cyclists should take heed of the video. If you chose to ride at top speed though urban areas, especially on approach to junctions you are significantly increasing your chances of an accident. You don't get to point the finger at someone else when you're dead.
Despite the comments of others I deeply disagree with most of you.
The driver did not attempt to stop to let the cyclist through the junction. The driver, if they had been competent, would have seen that the cyclist was still moving forward after the second pedestrian in the red jacket had cleared his path. The car continued forward assuming wrongly that the cyclist should be the one to take action to avoid the collision. The rider did in fact turn to his left to try and avoid the collision but the driver continued forward anyway and hit the rider. Teaching a rider how to ride defensively is like trying to teach a woman how not to get raped.
Most drivers, as we all know, are not out to kill us and most do anticipate our manoeuvres. If I ride constantly thinking about how every single driver on the road will potentially kill me then I won't ride at all, I'll either jump back in my car and drive to work or jam myself in to already overcrowded trains. Which would you prefer?
Dafuq?? Has road.cc fianlly turned into Buzzfeed with shitty clickbait titles like this?
If its come to this, I'm pretty much done here.
what i see is he is way too fast on a busy road with lots could happen at anytime, also did not seem he grab any brake when he make the move to pass the crossing people, another point he did not check his back when he move out of the cycle lane to see there is any traffic behind him, so he is taking his chances.
the right turning car may be wring but himself is more to blame, this could all be aviod easily if he goes slower and use the brake to slow down enough to let peopl cross and he will be able to stop before crash into the car.
He's going way less than the speed limit there and the speed of the motorised traffic in his lane...
The car should not have turned across him - I don't buy that the driver's vision was obscured, he had plenty of time to see the cyclist and at least stop.
However, as cyclists we sometimes forget that rule one of the road is that you must be able to stop in the space you can see to be clear. Given the hazards, the cyclist failed to moderate his speed coming up to the junction and therefore was unable to avoid the collision.
Get well soon, take care in traffic folks.
He could see a clear space. The driver turned into it. There's no speed so low that someone can't move into a space where you can't avoid them. In the limiting case, you can be completely stopped when someone steps off the pavement into the side of you.
If he'd been going across the junction even more slowly and a driver not looking where they were going had turned slightly later, the driver would still have hit him. I've had a driver pull onto a roundabout when I was already in front of them because they were looking sideways to see if a car was approaching.
It's no use the driver being able to stop in the distance they can see is clear if they aren't looking to see if it is clear. This driver apparently wasn't; if they were, then it was the driver breaking "rule one".
Unquestionably the driver 'broke rule one' as you say. However, stopping in the "space" you can see to be clear isn't "space that's clear now", it's "space that will be clear when you get there". By the time the bike reached the crossover point, the driver of the car had had time to make the mistake of entering that space.
So while the driver was in the wrong, the cyclist's failure to assess the hazard correctly and adjust his speed appropriately to take account of the potential hazard - and give himself a safe option - is why he ended up on the floor instead of proceeding on his way, shaking his head about a near miss and cursing stupid drivers.
Nope. It was the driver's failure to look or to care about what he might hit that is why the cyclist ended up on the floor...etc. (Also the general tolerance of poor-driving by the authorities and society, and a lack of decent road design)
It really is quite remarkable, the human compulsion to victim-blame. Its fairly clear where it comes from, I think, psychologically-speaking, but I still find it a curious thing to behold.
But the road _was_ clear. The vehicle moved into the road he could see to be clear.
The question is whether you can see for sure it is going to remain clear. And in making that judgement I think you unavoidably have to make some assumptions about what others will do, if you are to be able to move at all.
Generally the law seems to excuse drivers who drive too fast to stop when a cyclist moves in front of them (to avoid a pothole or just to take the lane).
It would be difficult for a motorist to see an object as slim as a cyclist travelling at that speed in a built up area. Either the motorist did not see the cyclist or the motorist did see the cyslist and made a split second decision there was time to make the manoevre. Either way it was the wrong decision. But the blame must lie with the cyclist for travelling at that speed in a built up area without being able to brake in time and therefore without due consideration for others.
What???
He was turned into, but because he couldn't stop in time to avoid someone else's careless driving he is to balme for the incident.
Bonkers argument.
What???
He was turned into, but because he couldn't stop in time to avoid someone else's careless driving he is to blame for the incident.
Bonkers argument.
Not at all. It happens all the time. I see it every day. Ride like a nob, expect to die like a nob. The motorist made a split second decision. It was the wrong decision under the given circumstances. Had the cyclist been travelling at a sensible speed on that type of road he would have had time to brake and/or swerve to avoid the vehicle. He didn't therefore he was travelling too fast to be able to react in time. The fault is with the cyclist.
Pages