Driver - Cyclist Near Miss - Who's At Fault? 

"This is now no different to a vehicle pulling out of a junction with give way line failing to give way." not correct, as there's no underlying legislation backing up these rules. There's no "MUST" in the code for them. Rule 140 is the main one the motorist broke here.

@@shm5547 still the same. Both will be charged with careless driving.

@@roadbiker8333 you may think that, but I for one will not be satisfied until there is legislation backing up these rules.

@@shm5547so you would not be satisfied that the traffic inside a roundabout has priority over anyone joining?

@@roadbiker8333 I think the rules on roundabouts really need updating in the highway code, especially mini-roundabouts. There is legislation for mini-roundabout, but it's poorly conveyed by the HC. As for normal roundabouts, it is only advised that traffic joining the roundabout gives way to traffic already on it. So, if you are on a roundabout, you do need to be aware that traffic could emerge in front of you and try to help that flow by being predictable.

What to expect with most motorists in the UK? Most of them only knows the traffic lights.

Actually it is the fault of the Highway Code itself, the conflict between H3 for motorists and 74 for cyclists.. The guidance is misleading. On one hand Rule 74 asks cyclists not to overtake vehicles signalling to turn left and on the other it asks vehicles not to cut across cyclists Rule H3 which should be "must" when turning left. It needs to be one or the other. H3 should be a "must" not a "should", and 74 should inform cyclists that even if H3 is a should (which should be turned to a "must") they should still be careful for motorists not respecting rule H3. The black Mini should be reported for not respecting the "should" of H3 because the cyclists was right alongside.

@@vfclists I sort of agree, but I understand why the conflict exists. H3 should be a MUST, but there are many places where there are fully segregated cycle lanes between the left most lane of traffic and the kerb and therefore any left turns. In this case the cyclist isn’t really overtaking anyone they’re just carrying on down their own designated and segregated lane, and the onus is and should be on the motorists not to cross that cycle lane to turn left until it is clear to do so.

​@@squicker Rule H3 should be a "must". It is only proper that Rule 74 is couched the way it is as it is intended to keep cyclists safe, but there should be no doubt at Rule H3 needing to be a "must". Vehicles turning left from in inner lane know to check for motor vehicles coming up on the left side, so why don't they check for cyclists as well? Is it because of the feeling that cyclists will come of worse in the case of a collision? Is it just plain bullying?

@@squicker “If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). “ This sentence is clear enough.

Is it, I certainly don't drive like that.

One is correct. The other is not. It's apparent that you need to go back and should not be allowed to drive until you show that you know the traffic rules.

Neither of them gave way to cyclists in the lane proceeding ahead, therefore they are both in the wrong

The highway code states that cyclist in cycle lane would have priority over the car. The car not turning would have prevented this incident. And by leaving the cycle lane, the cyclist would be doing a lane change, possibly into the mini, and also, taking primary would mean that the cyclist lost their priority while remaining inside thee cycle lane.

@@roadbiker8333 the cyclist would not lose their priority by taking primary. Silvio was correctly positioned for passing this junction.

@@shm5547so if the cyclist takes primary and is directly behind the benz, where would that priority go??

@@roadbiker8333 you take primary _before_ the benz

@@shm5547 RIGHT, and the benz still does the same thing, passing the cyclist and turn left. But this time, using the right lane to overtake, then turn left across cyclist’s path.

The Highway code is not at fault. It is purposely written to put the onus on all road users to stay safe. It only needs one road user to follow the rules that apply to them, to keep everyone safe. Making the rule a MUST would encourage dangerous cycling.

@@TheMirrorGuy So you believe that discouraging dangerous cycling is more important than discouraging dangerous driving when in the vast majority of road deaths are the result of dangerous driving? Why the F don't you get your head cleared out? Are you a sociopath or do you only become one when cyclists are involved?

@@TheMirrorGuy “If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). “ This is already clear enough. No need must. Cyclist going straight have priority. Car needs to give way. And cyclist will not be found at fault if collision happen, simply because it’s already clearly written cyclist have priority there.

Separate infrastructure doesn't change anyhting at junctions though, as cyclists and vehicles still have to cross paths, unless you build a bridge or tunnel for cyclists at every road junction or introduce separate cycle and traffic lights.

@@southwirralcyclist1986 yup. That's why it's so hard. If cyclists pay for tunnels etc thru tax then OK let's do it

​@dontgetscrewed we do pay taxes. All the taxes the same as anyone else. So what are you on about?

@@dontgetscrewed Roads and cycle infrastruture are paid for through general taxation, so every taxpayer pays for them. Cycle infrastructure encourages people to cycle rather than drive and that saves the councils/government money in reduced road wear, congestion, consequences of air pollution etc. and so is actually cost effective. I wouldn't actually put the cyclists in tunnels, as vehicles can cope with the slopes in and out of a tunnel more easily than cyclists. Ideally I'd put the vehicles permanently undergound in cities and leave the surface free for pedestrians and cyclists, but that would be hugely expensive. Holland has examples of cycle bridges over major roads to avoid cyclists and vehicles crossing paths, but only for major roads. Realistically, in the UK we have to accept that cyclists and vehicles will frequently have to cross each other's paths. The change to the highway code a few years ago, to a rule that exists over most of Europe does help, although some drivers (like the ones in the video) haven't understood it. In simple terms, any road user (pedesrian, cyclist or vehicle) making a turn shoudl give way to any road user (pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle) going straight ahead. Drivers generally do this correctly when turning right, but often not when turning left.

Cars are a danger to everybody.

@@grisflyt especially if there's a cyclist at the wheel

Doesn't matter. You can't turn left just because you are ahead. If that worked, every car could speed up before turning and insist "they were ahead."

@@grisflyt u suck cucumbers

He did give way to the cyclist and your comment about those with the most risk bare responsibility, is pathetic beyond belief. Please don't have children and pass on your stupidity.

Those at most risk are in need of the most care.

You wouldn't last long in that model David. You're so at risk crossing the road, you'll get splat on day 1

You sad sad person.

Belial? are you the old Belial? have not heard from you in a while... what happened to you?

@@SilvioDiego You must be mighty lonely to miss a troll.

@belial2347 - Cool! So because she was planning to commit all those felonies, the motorist gets a retroactive pass. Wonder if that will with a trooper around here.

@SilvioDiego I've been busy..kids started university etc..new job...lol