Clipping and running

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Postboxer »

It does cut off very quickly, people are still falling in the distance, I wonder why.
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by beardy »

To those of you who feel that the rider behind is responsible for the crash, do you also feel that he is responsible for the ones who then ran into him? Or is that their fault for riding too close?

I can see myself in the position of any of the riders there and it is only as the "guy in front" that I would say my actions caused the crash, I would feel that I had not accelerated into the gap that was there and had instead side-swiped the other cyclist. I would feel quite guilty about having made such a mistake, even though is was a miscalculation rather than being bad.
If I was one of the following riders that crashed into the first downed rider, I would accept my guilt as it is ultimately your duty to stop in the distance you have. However it is a common agreement on these sorts of ride to take that risk for the benefits of drafting.
I just can not see how to blame the rider who was sideswiped.
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 331
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Sum »

The cyclist in front doesn't appear to slow down when he pulls out. In fact he moves to overtake the camera cyclist before the sideswipe occurred. At one point he covers the brakes whilst pulling out and I thought he may have given them a dab but watching the movie carefully frame by frame leads me to think he didn't give the levers a squeeze and again there's no sign of any deceleration that I can tell.

I'm not familiar with the rules of the sportif so I can only apportion blame to either or both cyclists for the part I see they played in the accident and clearly my view will be different to others. Looking at the video again I see the cyclist in front look over his shoulder, indicate to pull out, and wait, at which point the chap behind says "go ahead go ahead" which seems to me a clear indication for the chap in front to pull out. Both misjudged the gap the rider behind had left and whilst I think both cyclists played their part in causing the accident, I'm inclined to think the cyclist behind could have done more to prevent it. However I'm not impressed with the cyclist in front doing a runner like that.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by [XAP]Bob »

I know this looks like it was state-side, but the HC advice still applies:
Highway Code 111 wrote:Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.


The requirement to use your own judgement isn't limited by the signals of other road users.

I hadn't heard the "go ahead, go ahead" on first viewing, but my opinion isn't largely altered - the change of road position was aggressive, and unnecessarily so.
If you change direction like that then you (by definition) reduce your speed along the road (since you are travelling across it). It looked like a very small clip, possibly the gap was there for a gentle cross, but the rapidity of the manoeuvre required a larger gap.

Or maybe the shout was "I'm letting up to let you go through", not "come straight across me"
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Postboxer »

Yes, we don't really know what was meant by 'go ahead' and what he was expecting the cyclist in front to do, there doesn't appear to be a turning so maybe he thought he would just steadily pull out to overtake the camera.
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 331
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Sum »

Bob, apologies for dissecting your post in Reohn-like fashion but in this particular case it seem the easiest way to reply. I hope I haven't responded to anything out of context.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I know this looks like it was state-side, but the HC advice still applies:
Highway Code 111 wrote:Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

The requirement to use your own judgement isn't limited by the signals of other road users.

I’m not certain of what your point is here. The HC rule you quote states that flashing headlights is not a signal to proceed. When read in context with rule 110:-
Highway Code 110 wrote: Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

There’s obviously a big difference between someone flashing their headlamp to alert someone, and giving a clear verbal signal to proceed. However if your point was that the guy in front failed to spot that there was insufficient room to pull out then I’d agree. In fact I've already said that both riders must have misjudged the gap and they are both responsible for their actions.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I hadn't heard the "go ahead, go ahead" on first viewing, but my opinion isn't largely altered - the change of road position was aggressive, and unnecessarily so.

We don't know that but what is clear from the video that the guy indicated to pull out either into or across the paceline and the guy behind told him to go ahead even though there was wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:If you change direction like that then you (by definition) reduce your speed along the road (since you are travelling across it). It looked like a very small clip, possibly the gap was there for a gentle cross, but the rapidity of the manoeuvre required a larger gap.

Only if you don't accelerate to compensate. Again the video doesn't bear that out. The cyclist seems to be accelerating to overtake the camera guy (before he did a runner!) The guy behind may have misunderstood the intentions of the other guy, perhaps not expecting him to pull out as far as he did as you suggest, but if that was the case then that simply means he made an error in judgement when he said "go ahead". The "use your own judgement and proceed carefully" applies equally here.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Or maybe the shout was "I'm letting up to let you go through", not "come straight across me"

No, the shout was "go ahead go ahead" after the guy indicated he wanted to pull out.

Just to make it clear (again) I'm not defending either guy, or criticising the other, but rather that I don't think it's a simple case of saying that only one person is at fault here. I think both riders made an error in judgement.
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by beardy »

If I was in the position of the guy in front and the other said "go ahead" I would accelerate in front of him, checking where he was. If I wasnt able to do it as the gap was too small or I lacked the power then I would say "I cant, I will go behind you" Also I would move over slow enough that he could react to it.

If the guy behind made an error of judgement then it was about the proficiency of the guy in front.

These sorts of manoeuvres are frequent in loose group rides and we manage with complete strangers even. I would have no difficulties sharing space with the guy behind but the guy in front I would keep well away from.
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 331
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Sum »

Yes, but that's not we're debating here is it. We've already said the guy in front is partly to blame. We're discussing the actions of the guy that told him to pull out even though there wasn't room.

If you was in the position of the guy behind, would you still tell the guy to pull out even if there wasn't room for him to do so. If you did, and caused a pile up, would you still expect others to ride with you? I wouldn't. I wouldn't ride with either TBH.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Sum wrote:Bob, apologies for dissecting your post in Reohn-like fashion but in this particular case it seem the easiest way to reply. I hope I haven't responded to anything out of context.

:)
I'll try to keep it together on the reply...
Sum wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:I know this looks like it was state-side, but the HC advice still applies:
Highway Code 111 wrote:Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

The requirement to use your own judgement isn't limited by the signals of other road users.

I’m not certain of what your point is here. The HC rule you quote states that flashing headlights is not a signal to proceed. When read in context with rule 110:-
Highway Code 110 wrote: Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

There’s obviously a big difference between someone flashing their headlamp to alert someone, and giving a clear verbal signal to proceed. However if your point was that the guy in front failed to spot that there was insufficient room to pull out then I’d agree. In fact I've already said that both riders must have misjudged the gap and they are both responsible for their actions.


The point is that the onus is always on the person making a manoeuvre. (We'll return to the verbal signal at the end)


Sum wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:I hadn't heard the "go ahead, go ahead" on first viewing, but my opinion isn't largely altered - the change of road position was aggressive, and unnecessarily so.

We don't know that but what is clear from the video that the guy indicated to pull out either into or across the paceline and the guy behind told him to go ahead even though there was wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:If you change direction like that then you (by definition) reduce your speed along the road (since you are travelling across it). It looked like a very small clip, possibly the gap was there for a gentle cross, but the rapidity of the manoeuvre required a larger gap.

Only if you don't accelerate to compensate. Again the video doesn't bear that out. The cyclist seems to be accelerating to overtake the camera guy (before he did a runner!) The guy behind may have misunderstood the intentions of the other guy, perhaps not expecting him to pull out as far as he did as you suggest, but if that was the case then that simply means he made an error in judgement when he said "go ahead". The "use your own judgement and proceed carefully" applies equally here.

I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though.
The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.

Sum wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Or maybe the shout was "I'm letting up to let you go through", not "come straight across me"

No, the shout was "go ahead go ahead" after the guy indicated he wanted to pull out.

I know what the words were - I was questioning the meaning behind them. "Go ahead" could mean: I'm letting a gap open up so that you can go ahead in a few seconds, or it could mean: there is already room for you to go ahead, or it could mean something else entirely.
The onus is on the person making the manoeuvre to ensure that it is safe, and he didn't even look - it's a couple of seconds between looking and swiping. Interestingly his hand also comes over the front of a brake lever - doesn't look like he touched the brakes though.

Sum wrote:Just to make it clear (again) I'm not defending either guy, or criticising the other, but rather that I don't think it's a simple case of saying that only one person is at fault here. I think both riders made an error in judgement.

The rear rider makes an error of judgement - either in terms of space or in terms of word choice...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Sum
Posts: 331
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Sum »

[XAP]Bob wrote:The point is that the onus is always on the person making a manoeuvre. (We'll return to the verbal signal at the end)

We've already said that the guy in front is partly to blame, and this is yet more repetition on that. I guess what I'm saying is that once the rider behind tells the guy in front to go ahead then his actions resulted in an assumption of duty as well i.e. part of the onus is now on him as well.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though. The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.

Well you wouldn't see any acceleration/deceleration if he was maintaining road speed, would you!? However to me he looks as if he's moving past the camera guy at the time of collision. He certainly doesn't look as if he was pulling back.
Again part of the onus is on the rider behind once he tells the rider to go ahead.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I know what the words were - I was questioning the meaning behind them. "Go ahead" could mean: I'm letting a gap open up so that you can go ahead in a few seconds, or it could mean: there is already room for you to go ahead, or it could mean something else entirely.
The onus is on the person making the maneuver to ensure that it is safe, and he didn't even look - it's a couple of seconds between looking and swiping. Interestingly his hand also comes over the front of a brake lever - doesn't look like he touched the brakes though.

You can't say that the guy didn't even look. The guy looked twice; as he was indicating and when the rider behind said “go ahead go ahead” just before he pulled out. The brake lever thing is interesting.
The rider behind clearly said something and if "go ahead" didn't mean go ahead then he has to accept responsibility for that. The fact that he said go ahead means that part of the onus is upon him as well. I certainly wouldn't wave someone out if my safety was dependent upon them waiting until the gap got bigger, or having to suddenly go much faster. As it it I suspect the rider behind meant go ahead and he didn't spot the wheel overlap.
[XAP]Bob wrote:The rear rider makes an error of judgement - either in terms of space or in terms of word choice...

Agreed, the rear rider and the front rider as well. Fundamentally we seem to be agreeing (I think!)
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Sum wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just rewatched the video and can see no evidence of a strong acceleration (as would be needed to maintain road speed). However it is very difficult to see any acceleration anyway. His cadence doesn't seem to increase at all though. The onus is still on the person making the manoeuvre.

Well you wouldn't see any acceleration/deceleration if he was maintaining road speed, would you!? However to me he looks as if he's moving past the camera guy at the time of collision. He certainly doesn't look as if he was pulling back.[/quote[

Sorry - I was unclear. In order to maintain speed along the road, whilst travelling diagonally, he would have to increase his speed over the tarmac. I'm not sure he does this, so his sideways manoeuvre inevitably adds a "backwards" component relative to the riders around him.
It is this component that is exacerbated by the rapidity of the manoeuvre.

A more gentle change of direction would have reduced this component (which is possibly/probably what caused the collision) as well as allowing time for the component to have been observed and accounted for by the other riders.

OT: Had it been me behind then the rider in front might have been in a world of pain - since his rear wheel would have been caught by my feet/pedals which can't "give" sideways, so he'd likely have been down, with me completely unable to stop before running him over.

Poor judgement by both, but only one of the riders actually caused a collision.

Additionally we don't see long enough, but the forward rider certainly stops pedalling, but then starts again, implying that he didn't stop. Note that this is speculation.

EDIT: Just read the description on the video:
"The guy in the silver and blue Pinarello cut-off in front of a rider and took his front wheel out. He saw the accident he caused and sped away."
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Clipping and running

Post by MikeF »

[XAP]Bob wrote:
EDIT: Just read the description on the video:
"The guy in the silver and blue Pinarello cut-off in front of a rider and took his front wheel out. He saw the accident he caused and sped away."
We don't know that from the video. That's just an opinion.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Clipping and running

Post by MikeF »

Although I've listened several times it's not clear to me who says what and to whom. It appears the camera is attached to a cycle. Was it in the ride as part one of the participants or just to film? It's speed seems to be erratic. The second cyclist appears to catch up with it quite rapidly as he then freewheels, and slows. Why doesn't he overtake as he's going considerably faster? The camera vehicle then overtakes the first cyclist and is going noticeably faster, but then it appears to slow relative to the first rider, causing the first rider to overtake. The first rider starts to overtake but the camera cycle maybe slows more than he expects - hence he has his hand on the front brake as he is about to overtake. He then makes a sharper turn than he was intending.

Unless we are shown a video with a forward facing camera we cannot conclude anything. I might even conclude that the cyclist with the camera caused the crash. :wink: No-one has suggested that yet!
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Clipping and running

Post by [XAP]Bob »

MikeF wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
EDIT: Just read the description on the video:
"The guy in the silver and blue Pinarello cut-off in front of a rider and took his front wheel out. He saw the accident he caused and sped away."
We don't know that from the video. That's just an opinion.


It was the description, so made by the video uploader. Now it's possible that someone else has reuploaded the video, but it'd more likely that the person posting is the camera man, and therefore has the following minute as well as seeing the guy cycle off... And he has clearly had interest in cycling videos before.

So it's a little more than a simple opinion from the video - the person making it is likely to have had access to much more information than we do.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Edwards
Posts: 5982
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Clipping and running

Post by Edwards »

Some very interesting comments but I wonder how many of the people saying the guy in front is at fault have ever ridden regularly with a fast passed cycling club.

Some of the first things I was told by the people I was ridding with was, never ever overlap the front wheel without telling the person in front that you are doing so.
Also do not respond to a hand signal to change road position unless you are certain that you are clear and the person can do as they indicate.
Keep your eyes forward do not look back otherwise you will run into the person in front if there is a problem.
Your brakes will not stop you in time if you are not concentrating on the bikes further forward.
Do not make any sudden movements without clearly indicating your intentions. If you get a response then the way is absolutely clear.

Unfortunately these lessons are not learnt by riders doing sportives and or charity rides. They just simply do not have the race club etiquette.
We all knew the Highway Code did not apply with regards to the other riders but the club rules did. But we road to those rules to stop this sort of thing happening.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar
Post Reply