Clipping and running

[AlaninWales]

Gven that it is (or appears to be) some sort of club/sports event, in which cyclists have voluntarilly put themselves in close proximity, I'll just have to accept the word of those more experienced in that sort of thing. On the road in general though, we expect motor vehicle drivers to give us sufficient room:

Any cyclist not giving another this room when overtaking (outside of the club/sports events which appears to be being shown in the OP's clip, as noted above) would IMO be at fault.

[beardy]

Rule 163 has those unfortunate words "as much room as you would give a car".

Plenty of filtering cyclists do not give cars anywhere near that much room.
I would give a cyclist as much room as on that picture if I was doing the same speed as a car (around 30mph), I dont when we are both pootling along at 10-20mph.

Also it appears that there is no law against riding two abreast, so is this really overtaking or riding two abreast? The highway code was written because motorists were too stupid to work this out between themselves and kept killing and injuring, it isnt really written with cyclists (or even motorcyclists) in mind most of the time, it is after all a car overtaking in that picture.

I have no objection to a published set of rules which were actually written with cyclists in mind (may be the Dutch have such a thing) but I dont think we have any such thing in the UK. However being a pretty civilised bunch and with a degree of self preservation, such incidents are not a major problem and the need for a specific code isnt that great.
I can not think of any group of cyclists who I have ever ridden with considering what the guy in front did was right and what the guy behind did was wrong, yet others on the forum do think so so doubt is there.
I do think we would have a different viewpoint if the rider was not part of the group and just a "passer by" in which case they should be given a wider berth.

I never ride in formal groups and dont have that background (all those funny masonic handsigns) but have thousands of miles of informal group riding behind me. I have taken out one person's rear light and had one taken out myself. I think there is an unwritten, informal, incomplete agreement amongst such riders about what is acceptable. We are actually using each others close physical proximity for a mutual benefit.

[Tonyf33]

You can't make a comparison to cars changing lanes on a motorway, it isn't the same at all (legally at the very least) compared to the cyclists in the vid. 'changing lanes', right there is the difference, there is no lane change, they are both in the same lane with one very much behind the other. The person behind fails to yield to a clear and dinstinctive signal.
You can bang on about group riding all you like but you'll find legally speaking that the guy behind is as much in the wrong if not more so than the guy in front whom did fail to make an over the shoulder check.
Again..I'll ask because no-one has answered, what if the front rider had to make an emergency stop or swerve, at what point would the rider behind react to that in his position? Because going by the video he wouldn't react at all & as shown he ignores absolutely clear signals (plural).

Riding in a group or not there is an onus on everyone to ensure that everyone is as safe as can be. In this case it is clear what happened, signal given including audible, rider 'behind' ignores it and doesn't give enough space, front rider doesn't check over shoulder and moves across (hence my 50/50 blame). His move across wasn't violent, it wasn't 'sudden' he had indicated what he was going to do so it was expected, yes the move was done swiftly but it would make no difference to the outcome as the rider behind failed to move/slow.

What if the lead rider of a group shouts and signals of an obstruction ahead and needs to move to one side or the other, would you as the second wheel knowing that your front wheel was overlapping by a few cm just ignore that signal..would you fail to leave enough space for the lead rider to manoeuvre, would you eckers like..

[beardy]

The person behind fails to yield to a clear and dinstinctive signal.

Yes he does fail to yield but as any (and every)body knows indicating alone does not give you a right to proceed.
The nearest I can find in the HC is overtaking rules and they say when being overtaken do not deviate from what you were doing.
Similarly when we cycle in the gutter and find our path obstructed by a pothole (or parked car) we have to indicate and manoeuvre in good time. If that good time doesnt exist we have messed up and have to stop and wait for a gap in the traffic (cursing because we didnt get out soon enough).

[Postboxer]

the move was done swiftly but it would make no difference to the outcome as the rider behind failed to move/slow.

Moving across the road with a big swerve like this, means he travels further than if he had gently moved across, which means that the collision is more likely to occur as the rider behind will then catch him up more than if he'd just slowly moved across, even if both are travelling at the same speed. So its possible that moving across quickly did make a difference.

[AlaninWales]

Rule 163 has those unfortunate words "as much room as you would give a car".

Plenty of filtering cyclists do not give cars anywhere near that much room.
I would give a cyclist as much room as on that picture if I was doing the same speed as a car (around 30mph), I dont when we are both pootling along at 10-20mph.

Please do if you pass me. As the HC used to say "Remember that cyclists may be unable to maintain a straight line, particularly due to adverse wind conditions or poor road surface".

Also it appears that there is no law against riding two abreast, so is this really overtaking or riding two abreast? The highway code was written because motorists were too stupid to work this out between themselves and kept killing and injuring, it isnt really written with cyclists (or even motorcyclists) in mind most of the time, it is after all a car overtaking in that picture.

If it is two people agreeing to ride together, it is a mutual responsibility to ride so as not to endanger each other (which is why I'm surprised that Tonyf33's responses are not more widely echoed); if they were simply two cyclists (who happened to dress similarly ) passing in the street, then I would expect (well, wish for more like) something more akin to the HC passing distance.

I have no objection to a published set of rules which were actually written with cyclists in mind (may be the Dutch have such a thing) but I dont think we have any such thing in the UK. However being a pretty civilised bunch and with a degree of self preservation, such incidents are not a major problem and the need for a specific code isnt that great.
I can not think of any group of cyclists who I have ever ridden with considering what the guy in front did was right and what the guy behind did was wrong, yet others on the forum do think so so doubt is there.
I do think we would have a different viewpoint if the rider was not part of the group and just a "passer by" in which case they should be given a wider berth.

I would hope so, but my experience with some overtaking cyclists is that they treat other cyclists they encounter as if they were part of the same club peloton (sp?); I find this unnerving and in traffic, dangerous.

I never ride in formal groups and dont have that background (all those funny masonic handsigns) but have thousands of miles of informal group riding behind me. I have taken out one person's rear light and had one taken out myself. I think there is an unwritten, informal, incomplete agreement amongst such riders about what is acceptable. We are actually using each others close physical proximity for a mutual benefit.

Yeah well like I said I dislike riding in groups (actualy I will accept someone slip-streaming if asked, but generally it's not my thing).

[beardy]

If it is two people agreeing to ride together, it is a mutual responsibility to ride so as not to endanger each other (which is why I'm surprised that Tonyf33's responses are not more widely echoed)

There is no formal agreement and no written rules that I know of. However people who regularly ride in informal groups like this (I am thinking mainly Audax and CTC rides here) seem to normally ride quite close without any incidents, even when he have not met before that ride.

In my experience anybody doing what that guy in front did (unless there was a brick in front of him) would be given a wide berth by anybody who saw it for the rest of the ride. We do have a mutual responsibility and most of us see the guy in front rider as being the one who acted recklessly.

There are no rules that I know of, this could be a similar situation to cars using the headlight flash as a signal to go ahead, widely done but not quite right.

If I was going on a ride this weekend, I dont want any like the guy in front in my group and have no worries about sharing roadspace with the one that he "offed".

If I am wrong in this I would like to know it and why, it is rather like riding on the left side of the road, if we are all following the same rules it is safer for all.

[Tonyf33]

The person behind fails to yield to a clear and dinstinctive signal.

Yes he does fail to yield but as any (and every)body knows indicating alone does not give you a right to proceed.
The nearest I can find in the HC is overtaking rules and they say when being overtaken do not deviate from what you were doing.
Similarly when we cycle in the gutter and find our path obstructed by a pothole (or parked car) we have to indicate and manoeuvre in good time. If that good time doesnt exist we have messed up and have to stop and wait for a gap in the traffic (cursing because we didnt get out soon enough).

You make the mistake of using your point as if the rider in front is changing lanes..he isn't.
In front = priority, if you are the vehicle behind you don't try sneaking up on the inside after the vehicle in front has indicated to turn, if you're somehow overlapping by a few cm why would you hold your line and force the pperson/vehicle in front from making their desired move?
Certainly in the UK you would be in the wrong (being the rider behind) no matter whether it was a 'group' ride, which it isn't in any case.

Stopping and waiting for a gap in this instance would have meant the rider behind crashing into him as he certainly wasn't prepared to deviate from his course or slow down so what was the rider in front meant to do. Force the rider behind to slow/move somehow?
As I said early doors, two wrongs don't make a right and in this the HC is quite clear, you don't plow on regardless because someone has made an error in judgement but in this case the guy in front does everything right aside from an over the shoulder check..the guy behind just ignores/fails to act at all on very clear indication of intent.

I wouldn't want the second rider anywhere near me on the road (car, van, bike whatever) because clearly his understanding of speed/position & hazard perception is negligible and to state other wise is just ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever the rider behind shouldn't have slowed/moved..none at all. To defend him has no justifaction at all IMO.
And if I was the guy in front and had damage, I'd be taking the guy behind for damages..YMMV

[[XAP]Bob]

I'm sorry, the guy behind *did* react.

He slowed gradually.

Then the lead cyclist swiped across stupidly fast - there was no need to move that abruptly - without checking that his way was clear.

[honesty]

I find it interesting that the guy in front looks to have a mirror on his helmet as well, so obviously he judged it as safe.

the guy at the back is just cycling along in the same location, I cannot see how you could possibly attribute blame to him, he basically does nothing. Its not up to him to make space for the person changing positions, and especially not when that change happens so quickly, and without too much notice. As he doesn't react though, you could argue that they both thought there was enough space as you who hope he'd react somewhat quicker to an emergency maneuver happening right next to him. Therefore, my view, both of them misjudged the space needed, but the guy in front is the one who is responsible for the crash.

[beardy]

You make the mistake of using your point as if the rider in front is changing lanes..he isn't.

That wasnt what was in my mind at all. In fact back in the days when I took my IAM on the motorbike we were supposed to indicate before moving position within a lane, it was important enough to be one of the seven parts that made up "the system". The indication for the subsequent manoeuvre, say a lane change, was another separate one of the seven.

Certainly in the UK you would be in the wrong (being the rider behind) no matter whether it was a 'group' ride, which it isn't in any case.

I dont know what you ground that on, if there is any reason why that is so, then I would not like to remain ignorant about it. The "guy in front" was himself making an overtake and again it is in the highway code that he must check that nobody is already doing that to him before making a move.
Now I am not sure that anything in the HC is really applicable to this but what there is doesnt help the "guy in front"s case.
I would agree with your assessment of the situation more if the rider behind had piled into the back of him but he had his wheel clipped from the side. In order for the manoeuvre not to have resulted in collision the rear rider would have to have taken some instant avoiding action.

Up until the wheels hit I would have expected the "guy in front" to accelerate clear of the other rider rather than steer sideways into a collision or wait until the gap was larger. I think it possible that he actually thought the gap was larger but didnt do a "lifesaver" to confirm it.

[Postboxer]

A post under the video on youtube, but not by the poster of the video states it left one person unconscious and one with a broken hand.

I'd also argue that the rear cyclist is already overtaking the front cyclist when the front cyclist indicates to pull out, at the same time as he checks to see if it's clear, it also looks more like an order than an indication, sticking his arm out in front of other traffic to force a gap for himself. It's unclear whether or not he has checked over his shoulder before indicating but he also has a small mirror.

[LollyKat]

The mirror may have been part of the problem - objects in them tend to look further away than they really are.

[MikeF]

We don't know why the front rider needs to move sharply - he gives an audible warning in addition to a hand signal. The second rider shows no response to the first rider's actions and yet he too must be able to see what's ahead, so should he be overtaking at this point and shouldn't he be braking or moving out? However his front wheel does appear to be almost alongside the first rider so by which time it's probably too late. From that video you can't draw any conclusions let alone say it's 100% any rider's fault. You don't have enough information, and shows just how easy it is to jump to conclusions.

[Sum]

It's interesting reading peoples different interpretations of the video. When I watched the Youtube clip (in expanded mode and with the sound on max) I saw the rider in front waiting after he indicates to pull out. The rider behind then responds by saying "go ahead, go ahead" at which point the rider in front ... well, goes ahead and pulls out, taking out the guy behind.

EDIT: I'd say most of the blame falls on the rider behind, although some might fall on there rider in front. Also the rider in front rides off aware that something has happened which seems poor.