Police attitude to cyclist hit by car outside cycle lane

[Maladict]

Cambridge Cycling Campaign » Newsletter 77 (April/May 2008)

So it's your fault if you are hit outside a cycle lane.  Oh dear.

[Thor]

Thanks for that, though it makes the blood boil.   

Scandalous ignorance by the authorities involved.

[Wendy]

I sent a complaint in via the police website, and got a response about calling a certain Detective Superintendant, or getting him to call me.  I haven't yet, since I'm not sure what to do.

[Jaded]

I had to read that twice to make sure I hadn't misread it the first time.

The most astonishing thing about it is that it is in Cambridge - where 1/3rd of babies are born with a kiddy tricycle attached.

Telford, I could understand.

[Maladict]

I doubt there is anything useful that you can do.  The article does suggest that all the avenues taken by the author were fruitless, even though he obtained expert advice from John Franklin about the incident.

[Maladict]

I had to read that twice to make sure I hadn't misread it the first time.

The most astonishing thing about it is that it is in Cambridge - where 1/3rd of babies are born with a kiddy tricycle attached.

Telford, I could understand.

I don't find it at all astonishing.  It's one of the reasons I'm so vehemently against the installation of cycle lanes as a solution to every problem.

[Pete]

Sickening, but not wholly surprising.  Bad justice is something we have to live with, one day it could happen to any of us.  But remember that the overwhelming majority of motorists won't be so stupid - or dangerous.  They will see the cyclist who is clearly in primary position in good time, they will know that this is an inappropriate place to overtake, they will back off until it is safe to overtake again: probably beyond the constriction.  Even if they think the cyclist is in the wrong: i.e. they think the cycle lane is compulsory for cyclists: they won't set out to kill the cyclist for his 'infringement'.  They may shout, but being shouted at is better than being hit.

I often pass pinch points in primary position.  Mostly without a cycle lane, so I don't have the choice.  If I see a motorist behind me who's playing the game correctly: fine, I'll let him past when it's safe.  If I sense there's someone bearing down on me without room to stop - well it's time to get the hell out of the way!  Which I've had to do on occasion.

But one day it might go all pear-shaped, for me just as it could for anyone.  If so, and if I'm still alive to argue the case afterwards, well I'd like to think the Law will be a help, not a hindrance, to me.

Ho hum.

I don't understand the reference to the 'rising bollard' - is this something which closes the road entirely to traffic at certain times?  Was the taxi driver afraid that this bollard would rise into his path?  Anyone know?

[Polar Bear]

Whatever happened to the vehicle behind taking appropriate measures ...

Can an ossifer of this parish perhaps throw a shred of light please?   I suspect not. 

[Maladict]

The bollard was not operational at the time.  This is one of the reasons why the bypass was closed (forcing cyclists to ride in the manner which was apparently at fault according to the police) because cyclists merging after the bollard would have to merge with traffic travelling at a high speed.

The bollard is now operational, and like the others in Cambridge, restricts which vehicles are permitted to use the road.  In this case, taxis, buses and presumably residents' cars will have transponders to lower the bollard when the vehicle approaches.

A taxi driver used to driving in Cambridge should be used to cyclists going straight ahead through these obstructions, because loads do.

See example of just this (both the cyclist ahead and me using the main traffic lane at such a bollard) here:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ysiHVifIUOU&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/ysiHVifIUOU&rel=1</a> (3mins 00s into the video)

In that case the bollard is stuck down, I think due to a diversion being in operation.

[tonycollinet]

Please don't take this the wrong way - I too am horrified by the attitude of the police - I think particularly telling is the phrase

"The collision enquiry ...................... and a failure to distinguish between actions that threaten the safety of others and actions that delay motorists"

However, looking at the photos - the cyclist does seem to be unnecessarily far out from the cycle lane. He is not keeping up with the traffic (as far as I can tell), but is in primary even in the "non cycle" part of the lane. Would it not make more sense to treat the road as thought there is no cycle path, and to position self in secodary on that basis - which would place him just outside the cycle lane.

I am not wanting to critisise the cyclist - just better understand "best practice"

[Maladict]

The narrowing is 3.1m wide.  The secondary position is 1m to the left of the moving traffic lane (or minimum 18" from the kerb at all times in any case).  A Ford Mondeo's external dimensions, including mirrors, is 1958mm width, so leaving abut 1.15m for the cyclist.  Subtracting 500mm for the cyclist's body width leaves 650mm (just over 20") to be distributed between the three clearances required.  I don't see how can can be considered safe so the secondary position would be bad and wrong.

The only two choices I can see are bypass or primary position in the narrowing.  The bypass was acknowledged to be dangerous whilst the bollard was not yet in use because it placed merging cyclists in conflict with potentially fast-moving traffic which couldn't move out to take avoiding action - so it was closed shortly after this incident and all cyclists were required to use the main narrowing.

[matthew]

Please don't take this the wrong way - I too am horrified by the attitude of the police - I think particularly telling is the phrase

"The collision enquiry ...................... and a failure to distinguish between actions that threaten the safety of others and actions that delay motorists"

However, looking at the photos - the cyclist does seem to be unnecessarily far out from the cycle lane. He is not keeping up with the traffic (as far as I can tell), but is in primary even in the "non cycle" part of the lane. Would it not make more sense to treat the road as thought there is no cycle path, and to position self in secodary on that basis - which would place him just outside the cycle lane.

I am not wanting to critisise the cyclist - just better understand "best practice"

No

The cycle lane terminates and forces the cyclist to merge back into the traffic immediately after the bollard and traffic island, this merge is highly dangerous. Therefore the cyclist has chosen not to use the cycle lane. However the width restriction is not wide enough to allow a safe overtake so the cyclist has tried to position himself to discourage it. In this case this means the cyclist has not moved back to the kerb after passing the parked car in the loading bay. 

Here in lays the problem the taxi driver it would appear has assumed the cyclist will move back to the kerb after the parked car and has committed to an overtake before the width restriction and runs out of space.

Personally (and I do not know the road) I would want to pass the parked vehicle in such a road position so as it was obvious I am not going back to the kerb and the cycle lane, also I would rather claim the whole lane than only part. I would wish to be in a wide primary for a restriction like this normally preceded by a half arm right signal. The very rare driver who glances you with his wing mirror may think there was enough room but misjudged, the driver who hits square on your rear wheel is even rarer and has no excuse.

Matthew

But then I have never lacked self confidence on the road and have grown up on main roads with pinch points and was taught to 'herd' cars from a young age.

[Wowbagger]

However, looking at the photos - the cyclist does seem to be unnecessarily far out from the cycle lane.

If anything, I would say that the cyclist is not far enough out!

Again, nothing excuses the stupidity / selfishness / outright dangerousness of the driver, but it seems to me that the cyclist's position there does not make it clear what his intentions are. The pinch point is one vehicle wide. Why not occupy the exact middle of the lane?

I was driving in Cambridge a few weeks ago and as we were leaving, a cyclist in front occupied the centre of the lane every time a pinch point appeared.

I think the police's actions and comments are totally inexcusable.

[tonycollinet]

Thanks for the explanations - seems I need to learn to ride more assertively.

[hatler]

Surely this is one for Russell Jones and Walker ?

[Sergeant Pluck]

Surely this is one for Russell Jones and Walker ?

It would be interesting to know what they thought of it.

The diagram in the article is not representative of what the photographs show.

From what I can see in the photos, IMO the police were correct in not considering charges against either party. Poor driving and worse cycling: the cyclist moved into the path of a car already overtaking him.

[Maladict]

Surely this is one for Russell Jones and Walker ?

It would be interesting to know what they thought of it.

The diagram in the article is not representative of what the photographs show.

From what I can see in the photos, IMO the police were correct in not considering charges against either party. Poor driving and worse cycling: the cyclist moved into the path of a car already overtaking him.

Are we looking at the same photos?

The cyclist is shown at two instants, one where they are just outside the parking bay dashed line, and the second photo shows them still approximately in line with the extension of that line.  They appear to be cycling in a perfectly straight line.

Look at the line taken by the taxi, they clearly have moved in on the cyclist in the second pic.  In the first pic the taxi's nearside is about as far out from the loading bay as the right turn arrow, and in the second pic they have clearly moved so that the right turn arrow is now central to the taxi.  The only criticism of the diagram is that it shows the cyclist further to the left than they really are.

If the taxi had continued in a straight line they'd have driven into the central island.

[rae]

It does seem extraordinary that they didn't nail the cab driver.  The cyclist appears to be moving in a straight line rather than swerving.    This certainly isn't consistent - the bloke that took me out near Heathrow tried the same argument and was told  (politely) to fuck off by the magistrate.

[ABlipInContinuity]

Surely this is one for Russell Jones and Walker ?

I certainly think the CDF should take a look at it.

[Sergeant Pluck]

The cyclist appears to be moving in a straight line

He is - in a straight line that is taking him further away from the kerb.

If the taxi had continued in a straight line they'd have driven into the central island.

If the taxi had continued in a straight line (which is not necessarily a line parallel to the kerb) it would have gone into the taxi lane as intended.

Either overtake the cyclist in front (see pic 1), or don't.

Either take the primary assertively, or don't.

Not some in-between option.

The diagram is inaccurate, especially in regard to the position and angle of the taxi at the time of impact. It seeks to exaggerate.

Why the failure to make any mention of the other cyclist that he is possibly in the process of overtaking at this unsuitable spot?

[iddu]

?Um - who's the (black) blob?

AFAICS Jim's stayed out to overtake/avoid A N Other BSO/Ped (which is not noted anywhere), whilst the taxi driver misjudged it in thinking they can get past both before the narrowing; breach of rule 167, but not necessarily actionable.

Be interesting to know if there's a "No overtaking" order in place on that approach - #165 applies in that case.

[GruB]

Whatever happened to the vehicle behind taking appropriate measures ...

Can an ossifer of this parish perhaps throw a shred of light please?   I suspect not. 

I know not. 

[spen666]

Surely this is one for Russell Jones and Walker ?

I certainly think the CDF should take a look at it.

Why?

The cyclist does not need defending do they? No one is prosecuting the cyclist or sueing them are they?

Or is the CDF no longer a "defence" fund and now an attack fund?


The position was simple- the cyclist if he thought driver should have been prosecuted should have laid an information before the mags court within 6 months of the incident. No need to accept police view of case.

Alternatively if there is a civil claim, then this can proceed within 3 years of accident.


I am somewhat suprised at police "comments", but not having all the information, it ishard to be certain their view is as wrong as it seems

[Wendy]

Poor driving and worse cycling: the cyclist moved into the path of a car already overtaking him.

I don't think we are looking at the same photos - the cyclist is clearly riding in a straight line.

[Wobbly John]

If you look at the line marking the parking bays, Jim does not seem to have moved out into the road, whereas the cab is about 2' nearer the kerb in the second photo.

Surely the the driver should make sure it is safe to overtake before making a manoever, and even if the cyclist in the cabbies opinion, should have been in the cycle lane, that is no reason to collide.