In the UK we have to take a specific test for hazard perception to see if we're capable of thinking about this kind of situation, before we can take the practical test for a licence.
The cyclist was in the wrong for turning, and legally there is nothing against the car. But the car was also in the wrong for not assessing the situation and preparing to stop, in case the cyclist was daft, which they were.
The car is in the wrong as it should’ve made sure the road was completely clear before executing the turn. I mean it must’ve been a pretty aggressive move to turn that soon after a truck went past…
That or the AIs are ready to start killing people
Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.
Traffic is a complex real-time action game where there are serious consequences if people make mistakes. So the best approach is to be predictable within the traffic rules.
So for a cyclist, don't get in the path of a 'killing machine' when the car has priority and when the cyclist has priority look for clues that the car is actually going to stop.
Like no shit, I never said cyclists shouldn't obey the rules, but motorists should be held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective because of the insane amounts of damage that can be inflicted by jerking around on Instagram while driving, for example.
I've ridden around cities my whole life on bikes and you can obey all the rules you like, you're still completely vulnerable when it comes to dangerous, inattentive driving.
Cars, for the most part, really are a stupid idea, especially in cities.
> held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective
Get yourself a consistent worldview. Anything else is susceptible to the principle of explosion.
Basically, in all cases the cyclist is going to come off first in any encounter with a car.
I dont see a lot of ambiguity here.