The rider looks to be unhurt and the two parties leave with a handshake, but a debate has kicked off as to who was to blame


A video has surfaced of a minor collision between a cyclist and a taxi in London, but it is the nature of the incident that has sparked a debate over who was culpable.

Viewed carefully, the taxi can be seen to be indicating its intention to turn left off Edgware Road into a side street.

The footage was captured by a following cyclist, YouTube user Daz lin, who was hanging back behind the involved rider.

>>> Lord Sugar’s verdict on cycleways: Boris needs a whack

Another cycle commuter undertakes the slow moving taxi before it’s reached the junction, but the next rider proceeds down the inside after the cab after it appears to begin moving towards the junction.

YouTube commenter Stuart Matthews said: “50/50 for me, totally agree the taxi indicated and turned within a second, witch (sic) isn’t enough time for others to react.

“On the other hand the cyclist was in abit (sic) of a dangerous place.”

>>> This video sums up why we cycle to work

Hope Abbott thought the blame lied entirely with the driver: “It’s the taxi driver’s fault, he started indicating so late. The cyclist didn’t get a chance to see that he had indicated.”

The car isn’t moving at great speed so bumps the rider off his bike rather than completely smashing into him. The low speed also means the taxi comes to a full halt before running over the bike or cyclist.

The video ends with the cyclist and taxi driver shaking hands and going their separate ways, with no obvious damage to rider, bike or taxi.

  • Clinton

    They can’t, which is why bicyclists have no business being in the streets. The way Japan deals with it (bicyclists ride on the sidewalks) is the best solution.

  • Seb K

    Well the cyclist doesn’t pay Road Tax….only kidding don’t shoot me !!! No seriously the Taxi driver is clearly at fault for indicating late and then suddenly turning . Regardless what the cyclist didn’t foresee the driver is supposed to look before turning and clearly didn’t . Just as the cyclist didn’t foresee the driver’s lack of intelligence the Taxi didn’t foresee that there could be another biker behind . Totally the driver’s fault and insurance details should have been handed over to the cyclist .

  • avlowe

    Have done for 51 years, not owned a car since 1976, regular city cyclist – and also assisted in writing original handbook for CTUK Cycle Training Course, with inputs to cycle safety debate, & design detail, plus review of crash investigations.

    Very clearly the rider’s failure to observe as he takes no action to avoid the turning cab whatsoever even as it starts to turn – no decrease of speed no change of direction, even when it is blindingly obvious a collision is about to occur. Cyclist shows complete failure to read developing situation – at approx 15 feet (car length) behind taxi brake lights come on and taxi already moving to left (you can see this relative to bus lane white line) but still our hero ploughs in to the slowly closing gap, and then no reaction at all to the left turn indicator going on when still 3 feet behind the rear of cab and the nearside indicator repeater, 10 feet in front and directly in line of sight, also illuminates should he have failed to see the rear indicator.

    Cab driver reaction pretty fast, although whether he would have spotted cyclist passing passenger side a fraction of a second earlier?

  • Geoff Ross

    Do you or have you ever ridden a bike?

  • disqus_kkToYWCExI

    In an ideal world of perfect human beings the taxi driver would have checked properly and indicated earlier. We don’t live in such a world so as cyclists we have to be aware of the potential hazards. Undertaking moving vehicles on busy urban roads is madness. If a 9 year old did that on a Bikeability course they would fail.

  • Sean Hedman

    As a cyclist, I’m sorry to say that I’m with the cabbie. Even though his attempt to signal was ridiculous, the cyclist should follow the rules of the road. Going left? Stay left. Going straight, keep more right, as in stay on the right hand ride of that cabbie or behind him like all other vehicles! These “cycle lanes” are a death trap and I rarely used them when I lived in london. As a cyclist you should expect cabbies and cars to do this, this scenario is the most common way for cyclists to get killed. The cabbie did signal seconds before the turn, so that was wrong, but did signal nonetheless. It’s a tough one, but according to the road rules the cabbie was in the right. Let this be a lesson to all other cyclists who think they’re immune from traffic rules and etiquette.

  • Giles Dumont

    Agreed. We’re not in an ideal world.

  • resu

    +1 for bad cycling. Why bother taking the risk of undertaking by a left turn.

  • Michael

    Overtaking on the left is not “filtering” it’s just stupid.

    As is passing so close to vehicle in the first place – you’re supposed to give room to other vehicles. Ironic that cyclists complain about cars not giving them enough space then they go and sandwich themselves in a gap far to narrow because they are too selfish and impatient to wait.

    In the UK we overtake on the right.

  • avlowe

    WRONG – in DK and NL there is no automatic fault on the part of a driver. There is however a liability arising from having a large motor vehicle which can cause substantial damage and it is the duty of care incumbent on a driver that makes them responsible for any damage or injury arising because they were present with a motor vehicle. You lot confusing civil with criminal law, are as bad as the drivers shouting the odds about paying road tax.

  • avlowe

    The repeater indication on the front nearside wing of the taxi would be clearly visible yet rider makes no attempt to stop or veer left as the taxi slowly begins to turn. Rider failure to be fully observing the road.

  • Phil Whitehurst

    Taxi driver indicated after second cyclist had passed the rear of taxi, he then started his turn immediately. He should have waited after indicating, checked his mirrors again, before turning.

  • Vertigo

    Cyclist wasn’t riding defensively – it was a poor decision to undertake across the face of a junction.

  • Sam Hocking

    He’s not technically undertaking, because he’s filtering according to the law and Rule 160. 211 later states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’. Therefore it is technically the motorists’s fault, although common sense says neither is really to blame. In an ideal world we would be on separate highways.

  • Paul Tuohy

    Alans answer better than mine above. Thanks..

  • Paul Tuohy

    geoff is right, so the driver was not CLEARY turning left! dont signal and manoeuvre at the same time.

  • Paul Tuohy

    No one has mentioned the cyclist 3 seconds ahead of the one in the accident. He passed the front near side of the taxi as the driver intends to go left so got through. You’d think this would alert the driver to check his mirrors which he CLEARLY doesn’t do. On closer observation the first indication is when the cyclist is at his bumper so how would he know of his intention. You cannot just indicate and then think you’re covered. Verdict – due care and attention. Good that no one was hurt and the out come was correct. A handshake. But will the driver learn from his mistake?

  • Geoff Ross

    The indicator only went on as the cyclist was parallel with the rear corner of the taxi.

  • Houlie

    The taxi first indicates to turn left when the front wheel of the bicycle is overlapping the back wheel of the cab. The rider has no opportunity to avoid a collision, which occurs on the second flash of the indicator. The collision is the fault of the taxi driver, who has not driven carefully or considerately.

  • Tim Ott-Jones

    Very late signal by the taxi……

  • boboposter

    Cyclist at fault. Basic common sense: don’t pass on the inside lane.

  • Bartek Bursa

    I’m not really experienced in cycling on London streets but in Poland and Germany driver ALWAYS has to give way when turning right (equivalent of left turn in UK) to a cyclist going straight (and passing on the kerb side). It’s written in their highway codes and there’s no doubt who is guilty in such case. Wouldn’t it solve this problem if this law was introduced in UK, too?

  • Bob

    Cyclist 60% blame
    Driver 40%

  • briantrousers

    When did I say it was the Law?

    This is all getting a bit Pirates of the Caribbean, “It’s not so much of a code as guidelines”.

    The problem with this is that in a civil case, even though it’s not the law, the balance would tend to weigh against you if you fail to follow the accepted guidelines.

    One’s duty of care is to other road users, the cyclist would do well to bear that in mind.

    I’m really sorry but having cycled on the road for 38 years, holding a driving licence for 30 and a motorcycle licence for 20, I would never in a million years do what the cyclist did in that instance.

    That said, and to concede your point, had I had been in the taxi, I would have checked over my left shoulder in that situation. That however stems from my defensive motorbike training and not car driving.

    Correct training all round would help to alleviate this type of incident along with a massive dose of common sense. If cyclists immediately stopped undertaking lines of moving traffic what effect do you think this would have on related injuries and deaths:


    The same question could be posed of course to taxi drivers to ask them to look over their shoulders. The difference being that the cyclist shouldn’t be there.

    If cyclists want to be treated as if they were cars then they should start behaving as if they are. Stop undertaking, it’s silly, dangerous, inconsiderate and downright arrogant. Motorcyclists don’t do it, why should cyclists?

    Rocket science it is not.

  • Jason Brogden

    Clearly the cyclist was at fault here.
    The taxi was ahead, in the left lane, left indicator clearly indicating he was turning left at the junction he was approaching.
    Cyclist attempts to ‘undertake’ just like the cyclist ahead, who was also in the wrong.
    Had the cyclist moved to the right side of the taxi and ‘overtaken’ in the correct manor as a road user should, this would not have happened.
    Title of video should be correctly named as ‘Taxi hit by cyclist’.
    I don’t care what anyone says, the cyclist is wrong and should be thankful he was lucky to get away with a bruised ego. Whenever I have ridden that road, I have never undertaken vehicles at junctions like that.

  • Frank

    being Dutch, in the Netherlands ALL traffic going straight ahead has right of way above turning traffic when they share the same road (pavement and cycling lanes belong to the same road) This counts for pedestrians, cyclists and cars that go straight ahead. How about this rule in the UK?

  • TRT1968

    Hoon along, no. The cyclist was going too fast for the situation but that doesn’t excuse the taxi driver from turning without due care and attention and without sufficient indication.

    Rules 88 & 211 were given to indicate that there are circumstances, even on a single carriageway, when you might expect vehicles to be on your left passing you. The rules for cyclists are IN ADDITION to the later rules, excepting the rules for motorways, and the Highway Code says that!

    Both are to blame, but the taxi driver more so due to the very late indication and insufficient observation. Is there a reasonable expectation that a cyclist will come “hooning” or “tooling” up on the left? Yes, I’d say that’s reasonable for a city street and a taxi driver should have encountered or observed the behaviour countless times before. Even if you disagree with that then I’d still say the driver of a vehicle has higher duty of care due to the increased potential for causing injury. The taxi driver had a duty to indicate his intention to change direction. He failed to do so in a timely manner. He had a duty to ensure he wasn’t going to turn onto a cyclist or a pedestrian.

    One’s duty of care is to other road users, including pedestrians; it is NOT a duty to uphold the Highway Code as you interpret it. The Highway Code is an accepted code of practice to mitigate risk on the road. It does so with respect to, and referencing, the law where applicable. It is NOT the law.

  • Alan Newman

    Actually no, the driver was at fault as he was against Rule 160 of the highway code which states that drivers should be aware of other road users filtering through traffic.

    As a cyclist I don’t want special treatment and I don’t want to be treated like a car, I just wanted to be treated as a road user within the constraints of the law and the highway code. The highway code and the law both allow filtering in slow moving or stationary traffic.

    If the taxi didn’t indicate in adequate time or check their mirrors/blindspots before turning then they are in the wrong, it’s as simple as that.

  • briantrousers

    Rule 65 – “Be very careful…when leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busy traffic lane”.

    Rule 88 is for motorcyclists not cyclists. Filtering is not the same as undertaking. It’s overtaking a slower moving queue of traffic.

    Rule 160. Same point re filtering.

    Rule 163 – Only overtake when it is safe to do so. Only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right and there is room to do so.

    Rule 211 – Filtering again.

    By what interpretation of the above is it correct to hoon along the inside of a line of moving cars particularly when coming up to a junction on the left and then blame the car driver for not seeing you in a position where they would not reasonably expect you to be?!

  • jmccabe

    People saying “it’s all the driver’s fault” should read rules 103, 104, 151, 163 and 167 of the highway code and take note of the fact that all of those rules use the term “should” or “do not”, not “must”, so are not mandatory.

    In particular (see 103) it isn’t mandatory for the driver to signal at all to turn left so whether he did it late or in enough time for the cyclist to see the signal isn’t particularly relevant.

    Rule 104 suggests that, even if the cyclist did see the signal, he shouldn’t necessarily take it for granted that it’s ‘real’ and about to be acted on. There’s an old question “what does it mean when a vehicle’s indicator is flashing?”, the answer being “the indicator works”!

    151 says that, in slow moving traffic, you need to be aware of the potential for cyclists to be overtaking on both sides so; we can’t see how much effort the driver put into looking for cyclists at that point – he may have used his mirrors, he may also have checked over his shoulder, but it’s not impossible that, despite those checks, the cyclist was in a position where the driver didn’t see him.

    Rule 163 however says you should “Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so” and, in particular, “only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so”.

    Rule 167 goes on to say “DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example….approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road”

    The driver’s faults are therefore that he signalled late (even though, legally, he didn’t need to signal at all) and he appeared to not have seen the cyclist (we have no evidence that he didn’t make the expected checks).

    The cyclist, on the other hand, is passing a vehicle on the left even though it’s not signalling to turn right, without appearing to make any effort to slow down and be cautious about it but, more importantly, is passing a vehicle across a junction without being totally sure that it is safe (in other words, without knowing for definite that the vehicle he’s passing isn’t going to turn into the junction.

    I do a lot of cycling and the behaviour of car drivers is a constant pain in the neck but, to me, the cyclist should never have put himself in that position so has to accept the majority of the blame.

  • TRT1968

    I have to agree – they would have avoided the collision if they had stopped or slowed to a reasonable speed. Given the circumstances I would have slowed down and only passed once I was certain that the taxi was not going to turn. Actually, if it was me, I’d have stopped in the lane about a foot to the right of the taxi’s nearside rear tyre; I’m one of those annoying cyclists who will assert their right to a bit of the road so that a vehicle doesn’t overtake and turn onto them at a junction. However, to return to the point, passing on the left doesn’t make it the sole fault of the cyclist. Passing on the left is permitted in certain circumstances, and drivers who hold a steadfast view that it is never permitted should think again, revisit the highway code (which has changed considerably several times over the last 20 years causing a few flame wars as a result) and be aware that vehicles may be approaching from behind on either side, and be doing so entirely legitimately.

  • Mark

    Top and bottom of it is if he hadn’t of undertook he wouldn’t of got hit. People need to use there heads. I drive a van,car motorcycle and ride push bikes and wouldn’t of undertook in that position.

  • TRT1968

    One should also treat the pavement as another lane, because pedestrians are road users as well. All too often cars turn onto pedestrians crossing the road. My driving instructor told me to signal even if I couldn’t see another road user to whom I would be signalling, as “just because you haven’t seen anyone doesn’t mean that there’s nobody there. At least if you’ve indicated they have had a chance to see you.”

  • TRT1968

    Backed up by the position of the camera bicycle’s wheel at the end of the video. You can quite clearly see that the taxi indicates at the last moment and after the collision cyclist has passed out of sight of the indicator. That the camera cyclist stops level with the rear of the taxi rather than further back is an indication that they would only just have avoided a collision as well if the taxi had made the turn without stopping.

  • TRT1968

    Your belief is incorrect. “undertaking” or “passing on the left” is permitted in restricted circumstances. See The Highway Code rules 88, 160 & 211. Often quoted is rule 267, but that only applies to motorways and isn’t relevant to cyclists who are prohibited from such a carriageway. See also rule 163 which deals with slow moving traffic and requests that you stay in lane if moving in queues, but states that you can pass on the left if the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are. There seems to be confusion about what is a lane and what is a queue.

  • Michael Green

    You don’t have to stop when turning left unless there is a stop sign which there clearly is not.
    The cyclist should never attempt to undertake a motor vehicle near a junction.

  • TRT1968

    It is not a requirement that you come to a standstill before executing a turn. The fact that the taxi was driving on the brake caused confusion as to his intentions. It wasn’t clear if his braking was due to an intention to stop, to turn or to creep forwards. It would be reasonable, given the behaviour of traffic in other lanes as well, to assume that the taxi driver was slowing to a halt because of the traffic conditions and that traffic was moving slowly in queues. As the cyclist, I would have been cautious that the taxi appeared to be stopping clear of the junction, possibly to allow another vehicle oncoming to turn right into the joining road.

  • Paul Livsey

    The taxi appeared to be passed the normal angle you would use if you turn left and no indicators flashing, he then signals and manoeuvres as if he’s had a change of mind about his route.

  • TRT1968

    The Highway Code implies that cyclists and motorcyclists are allowed to filter through slow moving or stationary traffic in rules 88, 160 & 211.
    Late indication is far from irrelevant. The more likely your vehicle is to cause injury or damage, the greater your duty of care in its operation. The cyclist did fail to filter slowly, but the taxi driver obviously didn’t double check for the presence of cyclists, pedestrians or other obstructions before turning left. It is possible that he had seen that cyclist but mistook him for the one (also in yellow hivis) that passed safely a second or two earlier. If this had come to court and there were claims for damages, I would expect a judgment of 75% fault to the taxi driver, 25% to the cyclist. The cyclist was travelling too quickly for the manoeuvre he was making, but the taxi driver failed to indicate in a timely fashion and failed to make effective observation of the road and other road users. 2 strikes to the taxi, 1 strike to the cyclist. That the taxi driver had a greater duty of care would make up the other “strike”.

  • RDP

    In Holland, the cyclists are like the ‘holy cows’. You can’t touch them, especially when the cyclist over turns a car that wants to go left or right: car drivers in Holland must use mirrors and the flexibility of the neck. If you don’t turn your head as a car driver, you won’t pass your driver’s license exam.

    I’m surprised to see all the Lycra speed racers in London: ‘ relax, enjoy the wind going through your hair, leave 2 minutes earlier and stay behind large moving objects and arrive without sweat at your destination’.

    So in case this incident happened in Holland: taxi driver has to be blamed!

    Btw, who designed the ‘new’ Cycle-Super-Byways’ crossings and ’roundabouts’ with traffic lights?? This is going to create more confusion and more accidents in the future.

  • alan hughes

    Firstly, I don’t think that taxis should be allowed in Bus lanes, that aside I think both are to blame ( the taxi driver for not using mirror etc and the cyclist for not anticipating and being aware of the increased danger at a left turn. As cyclists we need to remember that ‘right of way’ doesn’t offer protection from being flattened by two ton of metal. Don’t want to see ‘but I was in the right’ on anyones headstone.

  • Ethan Sloss

    The cyclist was at fault. If you had an sense of self preservation you’d realise that undertaking at a junction is stupid.

    The problem is that cyclists want to be treated like cars when they’re on the road but they don’t want to act like a car. They take the whole lane when it suits them but then insist on undertaking cars and cutting through traffic.

  • Neil Vickers

    Firstly it’s illegal to overtake on zigzags so it was illegal even if the taxi wasn’t turning. The second thing is never undertake at a junction. Most drivers (and cyclists) rightly or wrongly do not pay the same attention to left turns as right turns. The best thing to do is stop or ride around the right hand side of the vehicle. Riding down the inside of vehicles is inherently dangerous as you can get squeezed into the pavement. In the motorcycling world people are taught defensive riding which basically comes down to – assume everyone is trying to kill you. If you assume the vehicle will turn act appropriately and don’t put yourself in a position where someone will get you.

  • Eric Blais

    Being there is a junction every 400 feet in London, cyclists should never undertake….

  • Eric Blais

    IMHO, it is the taxi’s fault. The cyclist had already overtaking him hen he indicated to turn left. The taxi realised he as stuck behind the bus and was in a hurry to get out of traffic. He obviously did not look into his blind spot.

  • briantrousers

    Erm, there is no debate surely? The Highway Code states that you are not allowed to undertake. The only times you can are on multi-lane roads when there is slower moving queued traffic in the outside lane or when traffic is turning right at a junction, there will be similar circumstances as well. It’s an absolute no-no on single lane roads. The reason the rule exists is perfectly illustrated in the video. The bus lane had come to an end and the taxi driver can’t be held liable for some clown who comes tooling up on the inside. Late indication is irrelevant.

  • Taxi 100% at fault, you stop before you turn which he didn’t, and you look before you turn which he didnt either. Cyclist should sue him

  • Matt Hallett

    Ultimately it was the driver’s error – likely lack of observation and very late signal – but the rider was also putting himself in a dangerous position by undertaking any vehicle near a junction. Would have been much more sensible to overtake the taxi, especially as there was a slowing bus right in front…or was he planning to undertake that as well?

  • Tim Beasley

    The taxi driver did not indicate until too late and he is therefore, in my humble opinion as a personal injury lawyer and a cyclist, primarily liable for the collision. However, the cyclist has an obligation to take care when overtaking. In this case he is overtaking on the left and should proceed with extreme caution. I’d say liability is 75/25. The motorist is 75% to blame and the cyclist is guilty of 25% contributory negligence. Some judges would be less generous to the cyclist though.

  • Parker

    Its actually a mixed use bus lane, which the taxi is allowed to be in. What you are not allowed to do is undertake vehicles in the same lane. Cyclist at fault.

  • Parker

    Good comment, left hand turn, go round not under the vehicle…I agree,

  • Parker

    Seriously…come on, forget they are a cyclist. You approach a vehicle from behind, then try passing on the left (Undertake) that vehicle turns into you. Its your fault. You are trying to pass in the gutter and not slowing. Sorry but I would consider myself totally in the wrong here and its conversations like this that give us a bad name….its actions like this that get people killed (undertaking buses and trucks in traffic at junctions) Simple common sense and self preservation.

  • Gavin Patterson

    The taxi signalled too late when it was not possible for the cyclist to see it. Totally the drivers fault.

  • Victoria Riddehough

    I’m a cyclists but this definitely looks like the cyclist was not paying attention. I could see the taxi indicating.
    As a cyclists you have to be more aware of your surroundings.
    I am glad this was worked out cordially with the cyclist and the driver though.

  • Ray Burns

    I would have to agree with most on this that it’s mainly the fault of the cyclist as the taxi was out in front and did signal before turning. The cyclist had time and room to manoviour round the taxi but chose to undertake. Thus could have been a lot worse than a little bump.

  • Ciaran Carroll

    50/50 for me too. The cyclist should have made sure the taxi was going straight ahead before he came in the inside. The taxi driver could have had a better look in his mirror but I wouldn’t imagine the visibility from the driver’s seat of a London taxi to be the best.

  • J1

    Who said it was perfect? It’s a pile of crap on these matters.

  • Andy Young

    Oh God!!!!

    Do I really have to engage in this conversation again?

  • Michael Davis

    The way the lanes are set up, it’s an accident waiting to happen. We need to rethink how bikes and cars can safely interact in traffic.

  • Nige

    and that is the cyclist fault? ..Mirror signal Mirror manouver. Motorist have to realise they are crossing another lane to turn left they would not do this when turning right even though they are crossing another lane

  • Nige

    Taxi driver turning right makes sure the way is clear? he should do the same when turning left when he knows there is a cycle lane there

  • Marc Tufano

    The cyclist should have claimed on the taxi drivers insurance, most experienced cyclists would have made a claim.

  • Alan_Peery

    There were multiple cyclists for him to spot and distinguish from his mirror check. From a side mirror the first cyclist (the one who made it through) would have mostly or entirely obscured the second cyclist.

  • Alan_Peery

    I don’t think the mirror check was omitted, because of the additional slowing so the first cyclist could the intersection. What I think wasn’t seen was the middle bicyclist of the three, exactly because he was in the middle and therefore more difficult to spot visually.

  • Jan Pierrel Mikkelsen

    Change the legislation. In DK and Netherlands, driver is always at fault unless proven otherwise. Also put in rules about cycling. on left hand turns cyclist should always go around the taxi. Learn from other countries instead of thinking that your precious island is perfect

  • @chivers67

    The Indicator came on just as the cyclist undertook him so he missed it, that said i don’t undertake cars unless completely stationary it’s stupid. I’d say both were at fault for different reasons

  • David Williams

    Its the cyclist for me all the time on this one. There is never an excuse to undertake vehicles of any size on the inside near a junction. Its a tight squeeze between the taxi and kerb anyway which would prompt the sensible rider to look for the overtake in this situation. Taxi are potentially pulling in the kerb at any point on the road and being that close to any vehicle you are likely to be in a blind spot, I doubt the cyclist is even looking at the indicators.

  • Chad

    Taxi did not start indicating until the cyclist was already level with his rear wheel and began turning immediately as he indicated.
    There was also no mirror check, where the cyclist would have been clearly visible.

    Remember that it’s: mirror, signal, maneuver
    Not: signal, good luck everyone else!

  • factor41

    My initial reaction was that the cyclist was a bit reckless to have gone screaming up the inside, but watching again, the taxi driver clearly didn’t check mirrors and barely indicated.

    Signal your intentions, not your actions!

  • Texas Roadhouse

    That one was mostly down to the cyclist – the taxi was indicating, but maybe a little late. However – overtakers vs undertakers – well we know what that profession is……..

  • David

    Definitely the taxi, has already had another cyclist undertake it and indicated when the second guy was level with it’s rear bumper so out of line of site and no chance to brake and stop, to repeat what has already been said mirror, signal,MIRROR, manoeuvre.

  • Toby

    On slow viewing, the indication does come quite late. Still a pretty idiotic place to undertake.

  • Alan Newman

    The fault lies with the driver for indicating late, turning quickly and obviously not adequately checking his blind spot. Particularly as other cyclists were in front of the one which was hit.

    Personally from the video I think most cyclists would’ve spotted the intention to turn before the taxi even signaled but when you’re keeping an eye on the cyclist in front, the cars waiting to pull out, the road surface and the taxi turning left it is easy to miss something. Another example of why drivers need to be taught to be more aware of cyclists and cycling lanes in general.

  • Toby

    Cyclists fault. Don’t undertake a vehicle, which is clearly turning left. This would be different if the taxi had overtaken and then cut up the rider, but they were there first.

  • Crydda

    All I would say is that self preservation should be the priority for any, particularly, urban cyclists; so undertaking at a rroad junction should be a no-no, simply because in any collision with a, much larger, lump of moving metal, no mattter who’s at fault, the cyclist will inevitably come off worst.

  • racyrich

    Mirror, signal, manouevre. I suspect mirror was omitted and signal and manouevre were concurrent.

  • David Ritchie

    50/50 I’d say