Who's at fault - your views?
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6tzUXM8SGA

The fault for this collision lies with:

1. The car driver

2. The cyclist

3. Shared driver/cyclist = x/y%

Well firstly, one could see that the vehicle/driver was going to do something odd, and the cyclist had clear warning of that and should have anticipated. The driver did not ensure he/she could complete the manoeuvre safely and should have waited before turning in. Therefore down to both.
I have said it before, why do people who have these cameras think they are then in law enforcement?

Cyclist attempting to overtake a car on the nearside when it was clearly indicating a left turn. No wonder so many of these clowns get killed in collisions with HGVs. The way he recited the car registration number after the contact when he was unable to see the number plate suggests that he had pre-planned it.

in this instance, it could only be the cyclist. The car was always ahead of the cyclist, and whilst it indicated late, the car was ahead, when both the cyclist and car were approaching the junction. The car had road position, using the signs displayed by the camera cyclist*, the car has just as much right to be in the centre of the road. A cyclist has to obey the highway code as much as a car driver does.

The cyclist tried to undertake whilst approaching a junction, and subsequently discovered why undertaking is frowned upon. Hopefully the cyclist will be found, and charged with dangerous cycling under the road traffic act 1988.

There is no cycle lane for the car driver to feel obliged to watch for cyclists (and in this instance, the cyclist may have been in the blind spot of the car driver for the entirety of this clip). If there had have been a cycle lane, then the car driver could have been liable, however their positioning, I would still be inclined to lay some blame on the cyclist (due to him being behind the car as the car turned), instances like this are what brakes are for?

(* the camera cyclist seemed to be trying to defend their own poor road positioning, to my eye they are unnecessarily too far to the white lines of the road, to the point they were no longer cycling in the 'centre of a narrow road'. But to be fair he could have been turning right? EDIT:- just watched it again, the camera cyclist has some balance issues when looking over their shoulder or is drunk)

Saw that up in Edinburgh, Transit van approaching a junction with its left indicator on and a guy on a bike tried to undertake it. The van turned into him and the guy on the bike started screaming and shouting at the van driver as if it was his fault :shrug:

New Highway Code precedence now seems to rank cyclists (who pay no road taxes, and no insurance) above car drivers. God help us all!

The alternative was for the car driver to telepathically sense the cyclist, come to a stop in a slow but free flowing road, allow the cyclist to undertake, but crucially allow the camera cyclist to ride into the back of the car, and give him an opportunity to yell at a car driver and also some footage to seek youtube sympathy (i suspect this is what frustrated the camera cyclist lol).

you dont pay road tax (nor road fund licence) either ;). You simply pay for the privilege to own a car (vehicle excise duty).

cyclingmickey does a lot of videos of people using a mobile phone in their hand while driving and sends to police and also at a junction where traffic goes the wrong side of a traffic island. He stands in front of them and wont budge so they have to back up and rejoin the queing traffic, again videos sent to the police.

I dont think the cyclist was going for the undertake but more the undertake was going to happen becuase the car slowed.

The cammers position in the lane is because it is narrow and he does not want an overtaking vehicle to squeeze between him and the white line. He does explain his reason and that both could have done better, indeed both could. I think it is 50/50.

macafee2

....... to which the cyclist should have been slowing also, before the car driver's late indication! The cyclist was not paying attention to the road and its users around and ahead of him. Think of it if it was you in your car behind. You would have slowed, and not driven into the back of the slowing/turning car. Due to the speed/flow of the traffic (ahead of the car), the cyclist had no reason or business to be on the inside of the car at any time. If the traffic ahead of the car was stationary, then the cyclist could have legitimately but carefully passed on the inside.

YES - HERE

NO - HERE or losing balance because of the over shoulder look or drunk.

(ultimately it is irrelevant as the road is too narrow for him to give space to a car for overtaking although, viewing his videos, I do not think he would anyway. But I have seen this kind of cycling - and been guilty of (!), where a cyclist loses their balance when looking over their shoulder and veering towards and even into the opposing lane).