Dan Walker Hit By Car On Sheffield Roundabout

[Bargepole23]

5 hours ago, Ghozer said:

Maybe, but if that was the case then he was in totally the wrong lane and position, he should have been on the right of the car -middle/inner lane-) for turning right from the direction he came...

He looks to be in the centre of the middle lane, correctly placed for following the lane around the roundabout and heading towards St Mary's Gate, assuming he entered at Ecclesall Rd.

[geared]

56 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

He looks to be in the centre of the middle lane, correctly placed for following the lane around the roundabout and heading towards St Mary's Gate, assuming he entered at Ecclesall Rd.

The lane he was in allows for an exit down Moore Street or to continue round and down St Mary's Gate.

There was a Volvo in the left most lane, which only allows travel down Moore Street.

 

The car that hit him was in the centre most lane, which does not allow for exit down Moore Street.  Hence carving across the roundabout and ploughing a cyclist down in an attempt to make their exit.

 

 

[Bargepole23]

15 minutes ago, geared said:

The lane he was in allows for an exit down Moore Street or to continue round and down St Mary's Gate.

There was a Volvo in the left most lane, which only allows travel down Moore Street.

 

The car that hit him was in the centre most lane, which does not allow for exit down Moore Street.  Hence carving across the roundabout and ploughing a cyclist down in an attempt to make their exit.

 

 

The centre lane allows for an exit down Moore St or to continue around to St Mary's Gate.

 

Other than that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, it seems to me that Dan Walker was not at fault here in any way. Just poor observation and attention by the driver at best. I cycle that way regularly and always go via the underpass but it's a very poor cycle route. I'm perfectly entitled to go via the roundabout and perfectly entitled to expect to reach the other side of it without incident and to expect consideration from other road users. Much like I give when driving or cycling.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Bargepole23

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Ghozer said:

Maybe, but if that was the case then he was in totally the wrong lane and position, he should have been on the right of the car -middle/inner lane-) for turning right from the direction he came...

Even if that was the case,  and I don't know because I haven't seen it,  The law doesn't say that if a cyclist is in the wrong lane, then it's ok to run into him.

The driver is still at fault.

 

 

[cuttsie]

3 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Even if that was the case,  and I don't know because I haven't seen it,  The law doesn't say that if a cyclist is in the wrong lane, then it's ok to run into him.

The driver is still at fault.

 

 

Thats what the new law in the highway code says it apply to pedestrians crossing on junctions as well , do car and commercial vehicles obey it , do they hellers like , just like the mobile phone law 

[Findlay]

6 hours ago, Ghozer said:

Maybe, but if that was the case then he was in totally the wrong lane and position, he should have been on the right of the car -middle/inner lane-) for turning right from the direction he came...

I guess you did not refer to the Highway code before making this statement. 

 

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/roundabouts.html#:~:text=You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout.,they travel around the roundabout.

 

As an experienced cyclist, I would not feel safe going around a roundabout in the left lane to take the third exit, effectively turning right.

I would instead take the lane that other road users are familiar with to exit the junction without changing lanes. I have cycled around many busy roundabouts in this manner and most of the time drivers are happy to slow down a bit and have more control.

[Resident]

18 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

That's the law as it stands.

Dan was doing mothing unlawful and the driver is at fault.

If you say otherwise  prove it.

And yet again, you fixate on one singular event whilst claiming that it applies to all. 

Quite literally last night I was almost involved in a collision, very similar to my example.

Just Eat cyclist on an electric bike, travelling at speed on the pavement decided to jump into the road because he wanted to cross. 

Cyclist: No lights, no reflectors, earphones in, riding illegally on an illegally spec'd e-bike (keeping pace with 30mph traffic, 10mph over legal max) made a dangerous maneuver across the nose of another road user.
Driver: Driving LEGALLY within his lane at/just under posted limit. 

So forget about Dan Walker, come on, this REAL world example, who would have been at fault in the event of a collision?

 

[HeHasRisen]

31 minutes ago, Resident said:

And yet again, you fixate on one singular event whilst claiming that it applies to all. 

Quite literally last night I was almost involved in a collision, very similar to my example.

Just Eat cyclist on an electric bike, travelling at speed on the pavement decided to jump into the road because he wanted to cross. 

Cyclist: No lights, no reflectors, earphones in, riding illegally on an illegally spec'd e-bike (keeping pace with 30mph traffic, 10mph over legal max) made a dangerous maneuver across the nose of another road user.
Driver: Driving LEGALLY within his lane at/just under posted limit. 

So forget about Dan Walker, come on, this REAL world example, who would have been at fault in the event of a collision?

 

He wont give you a sensible answer, he will just put you on ignore instead.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

And yet again, you fixate on one singular event whilst claiming that it applies to all. 

Quite literally last night I was almost involved in a collision, very similar to my example.

Just Eat cyclist on an electric bike, travelling at speed on the pavement decided to jump into the road because he wanted to cross. 

Cyclist: No lights, no reflectors, earphones in, riding illegally on an illegally spec'd e-bike (keeping pace with 30mph traffic, 10mph over legal max) made a dangerous maneuver across the nose of another road user.
Driver: Driving LEGALLY within his lane at/just under posted limit. 

So forget about Dan Walker, come on, this REAL world example, who would have been at fault in the event of a collision?

 

Take a look at the name of this thread.  I think you will find that we are discussing Dan Walker and not  fictitious episodes that you  declare.

You obviously don't like cyclists and you are not on your own in that respect but your likes and dislikes don't decide what is legally right, much as you would like that to be the case.

I am a very experienced driver and was a very experienced cyclist and stated what I believe is common sense and not prejudice.

I will NOT forget about Dan Walker because it's he who I am discussing and I fixate on one single event for that same reason.

 

I am not the slightest bit interested in your road adventures so you will have to discuss those with others who share your views.

The bit I wrote about road users and the wording I used still stands and I feel sure that the law would support my view.

 

I suggest that you look at the highway code (link provided by Findlay in post 59# which relates to these exact circumstances).

This supports what I have said from the start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Organgrinder

[HeHasRisen]

56 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

He wont give you a sensible answer, he will just put you on ignore instead.

Or, post some pathetic deflection.