One lucky cyclist.

[max 13]

It seems pretty clear to me.

 

The driver is in the wrong for not stopping when he was first on the scene of a RTA---why would you just drive past somebody who has crashed???

 

Its clear that the other cyclist has become aware of the accident and is slowing to offer assistance--the driver ignores the incident and decides to plough on and in doing so creates a danger to other road users.

 

I have a different perspective on why the cyclist looked over their shoulder and that's because he saw the road ahead was restricted by the cones and signs.

 

In that situation, most cyclists would attempt to move into the centre of the carriageway as there was little wriggle room ahead. A half competent driver would also have seen the hazard and been a little more prepared for the cyclist's manoeuvre.

[Cyclone 10]

Sure you didn't mean 'sofa'?

 

I have to "look" like I'm working at least!

[Chelle-82 10]

Well now I suppose theres a point although I hope he's not going to be doing it again.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2016 at 10:31 ----------

 

 

1. Isnt there a cycle path?

2. You think you wont get them in a car? And on a bike you are there for less time to breath them in

3. planes trains and automobiles....

 

I take it you're really not familiar with Penistone Road then?!

 

No there is no cycle path on that stretch of road, was near the wednesday ground heading towards leppings lane junction.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I take it you're really not familiar with Penistone Road then?!

 

No there is no cycle path on that stretch of road, was near the wednesday ground heading towards leppings lane junction.

 

I thought that part of the recent scheme (which included removing the Leppings Lane roundabout, as well as the northbound bus lanes and cycle lanes) had also intended to extend the cycle path on the east side of the road as far as Leppings Lane, ie opposite the Wednesday ground and in front of the old kwik fit garage. Was it just my imagination?

[Cyclone 10]

I don't think so.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4137579,-1.4999303,3a,75y,189.02h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgSUPEffqelq98OXulfEftQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

This appears to be up to date (ie has the Sainsbury's and road changes around there) and shows no cycle lane opposite the football ground.

[Isabelle 10]

I thought that part of the recent scheme (which included removing the Leppings Lane roundabout, as well as the northbound bus lanes and cycle lanes) had also intended to extend the cycle path on the east side of the road as far as Leppings Lane, ie opposite the Wednesday ground and in front of the old kwik fit garage. Was it just my imagination?

 

I'm sure I read that too, but it hasn't happened yet. There aren't any signs, anyway. There was supposed to be an unbroken cycle path from Claywheels Lane into town. Maybe they haven't done due to the proximity to the football ground? On match days it wouldn't be usable due to all the cars that park on the path, and the sheer volume of pedestrians.

I seriously doubt that anyone would stop you for cycling on that pavement as long as you gave way to pedestrians, and hardly anyone walks on that stretch when there isn't a match on anyway.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I don't think so.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4137579,-1.4999303,3a,75y,189.02h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgSUPEffqelq98OXulfEftQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

This appears to be up to date (ie has the Sainsbury's and road changes around there) and shows no cycle lane opposite the football ground.

 

Thanks. Duff memory on my part, then.

[PeteMorris 10]

I have and as we've discussed to death you attempted to overtake dangerously. If you just had a little humility and could admit it this thread could end.

 

It's alleged that I attempted to overtake while the rider was in the narrow part of the island (it's not that narrow actually)...Here's a snapshot of the rider clearly showing he has already passed the narrow section, before I even get to the point of entering the narrow section.

 

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff198/petemorris999/Snapshot%201%2003-03-2016%2011-17.png

 

If you hadn't noticed earlier, I have already said...time and time again, that in hindsight I may have done things differently.

 

And here's a shot sowing he was 'well past' the island before he veered across the road.

 

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff198/petemorris999/Snapshot%202%2003-03-2016%2011-20.png

 

But of course, I'm lumped in with millions of drivers who cause you problems on the road. Is this a routine occurrence for a cyclist?...Cos I'm bloody frightened to death to go near one now!...Cos I'll be labelled by the cycling fraternity as a 'dangerous driver'...Utter poppycock!

 

Oh and here's the same rider the day or so after, who I just happened to be following...You'll note, I don't get 'anywhere' near him and make no attempt to pass...This particular rider scares me!

 

http://vid240.photobucket.com/albums/ff198/petemorris999/My%20Movie2.mp4

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2016 at 13:04 ----------

 

It seems pretty clear to me.

 

The driver is in the wrong for not stopping when he was first on the scene of a RTA---why would you just drive past somebody who has crashed???

 

Its clear that the other cyclist has become aware of the accident and is slowing to offer assistance--the driver ignores the incident and decides to plough on and in doing so creates a danger to other road users.

 

An RTA?...Are you serious?...A bloke fell off his bike because he took the corner too fast and immediately got up!...That's an RTA?...

 

For your information, after the 'incident' the cyclist in yellow, carried on his merry way too, without stopping to assist.

[Cyclone 10]

He wasn't well past, that's quite clear because you had to veer into the hatched area.

You were approaching at speed and could only have been intending to pass him with insufficient space.

 

If you were treating the cycle with caution in the first place, as you should, then you wouldn't have had to swerve to avoid him and you wouldn't be worrying about cyclists.

 

You even saw the other cyclists come off, yet you failed to predict that it might cause this cyclist to slow down...

 

He shouldn't have started to turn without looking, but you were at fault for the way you were intending to overtake.

[RonJeremy 10]

I've changed my outlook on this. The cyclist was almost totally in the wrong. The OP coped with a situation created by the cyclist really very well. No laws were broken (even if they had been avoiding action should still have been taken). If the OP had not taken the sensible course of action in the (cyclist created) circumstances, things could have been tragic for both parties involved.

Cyclone - it is pure fantasy to suggest that the OP should have predicted a cyclist veering into the middle of the road into the path of an oncoming vehicle, he must have at least been able to hear, following an accident which was nothing to do with either of them.

[Cyclone 10]

It's not pure fantasy that he could have been planning a safe overtake maneuver though.

 

He wasn't, and that coupled with the wobble was the cause of the near miss.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I've changed my outlook on this. The cyclist was almost totally in the wrong. The OP coped with a situation created by the cyclist really very well. No laws were broken (even if they had been avoiding action should still have been taken). If the OP had not taken the sensible course of action in the (cyclist created) circumstances, things could have been tragic for both parties involved.

Cyclone - it is pure fantasy to suggest that the OP should have predicted a cyclist veering into the middle of the road into the path of an oncoming vehicle, he must have at least been able to hear, following an accident which was nothing to do with either of them.

 

The OP reacted correctly in that he braked hard and so did not hit the cyclist. But clearly he came very close to hitting him. The OP certainly thought it was close as that is why he started the thread.

 

My questions would be along the lines of "does the OP think he left enough space between himself and the cyclist?" "Would he be confident that in roughly similar circumstances he would always be able to stop in time?" That's every time - 100 out of 100, or 1000 out of 1000. "What if there was more distraction, eg the falling rider looked to have been severely injured and the OP's eyes were diverted for longer, would he still have stopped in time?" Accidents often happen because of a combination of events, any of which on there own would not have been a problem. If he's got any doubt, then surely he should stay further back in future.

 

The fact that he has already decided to drive differently, although its based on distrusting the cyclist and not his own self awareness, is a start.