Police attitude to cyclist hit by car outside cycle lane

[ABlipInContinuity]

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 cyclist attacked the cab driver?

[matthew]

It would appear the driver made the 'perfectly reasonable' assumption that the cyclist would move back to the kerb after passing the parked car and overtook on that basis. When this assumption proved false the driver hit the cyclist. 

Therefore I would attribute fault to the driver, false assumption, but wish to point out to the cyclist that between road position and signals you should want not to leave any doubt about how you plan to ride, e.g. taking the bollarded lane.

Matthew

[Maladict]

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.

What's your argument for the assertion highlighted in bold?

[Regulator]

The simple fact is that the cyclist was in the lane, in front of the taxi.  As the following vehicle the onus is on the taxi driver to anticipate and not to overtake unless it is safe to do so.

As the courts have said, every cyclist is allowed their wobble and if the driver overtook close enought to not allow for such a wobble or deviation, then he is squarely at fault.

[Pingu]

The simple fact is that the cyclist was in the lane, in front of the taxi.

Quite.

[Sergeant Pluck]

What's your argument for the assertion highlighted in bold?

In the second picture, if you project the dotted line (marking the loading bay) straight ahead, to me that puts the cyclist slightly further into the road from the same line as seen in pic 1. That assumes the loading bay is parallel to the kerb of course.

That would fit in with the fact that he is now (in pic 2) further out into the road in relation to, and about to pass, the other cyclist he omits to mention.

Of course there is only so much you can tell from a couple of grainy stills.

I am as against cycle lanes as anyone else, and I am naturally sympathetic to cyclists' problems in traffic. But you cannot cycle around relying on motorists to take evasive action to cover your mistakes. A lot of the time this works - this is what twat RLJs rely on. Once in a while it won't.



 

[Wobbly John]

In the second picture, if you project the dotted line (marking the loading bay) straight ahead, to me that puts the cyclist slightly further into the road from the same line as seen in pic 1. That assumes the loading bay is parallel to the kerb of course.
 

Try putting a straight edge along the loading bay  line in the second picture, to project it - a sheet of paper will do.

Does the cyclist still look as if he has moved out?

Has the taxi moved in? 

[Sergeant Pluck]

Try putting a straight edge along the loading bay  line in the second picture, to project it - a sheet of paper will do.

Does the cyclist still look as if he has moved out?

Yes.

Has the taxi moved in? 

Yes. As I mentioned above, he is moving in a straight line - but not necessarily parallel to the kerb. What else is he going to do, levitate over the traffic island?

I think I'll give this one a rest 

I can easily see why it was thought that there was no fault that could be attached to the motorist.

[David Martin]

Try putting a straight edge along the loading bay  line in the second picture, to project it - a sheet of paper will do.

Does the cyclist still look as if he has moved out?

Yes.

Has the taxi moved in? 

Yes. As I mentioned above, he is moving in a straight line - but not necessarily parallel to the kerb. What else is he going to do, levitate over the traffic island?

I think I'll give this one a rest 

I can easily see why it was thought that there was no fault that could be attached to the motorist.

Because they had forgotten that a motorist has a brake pedal?

..d

[mattc]

Has the taxi moved in? 

Yes. As I mentioned above, he is moving in a straight line - but not necessarily parallel to the kerb. What else is he going to do, levitate over the traffic island?

How about investigate if his vehicle is fitted with a brake pedal?
Or check the highway code to see if overtaking vehicles have any responsiblities whatsoever?

I can easily see why it was thought that there was no fault that could be attached to the motorist.

I can't.

[spindrift]

I can easily see why it was thought that there was no fault that could be attached to the motorist.

So, if there had been a parked car instead of a cyclist, the cabbie would be blameless if he hit the parked car?

Crazy.

[Sergeant Pluck]

As pic 2 shows, my mate the taxi driver   is already braking as your mate the cyclist overtakes the un-named cyclist without checking that it is safe to do so.

I am playing devil's advocate to some extent: isn't the above what the defence would have been likely to say on behalf of the taxi driver?

[spindrift]

As pic 2 shows, my mate the taxi driver   is already braking as your mate the cyclist overtakes the un-named cyclist without checking that it is safe to do so.

I am playing devil's advocate to some extent: isn't the above what the defence would have been likely to say on behalf of the taxi driver?

There's no overtaking at all, the cyclist is still behimnd the cyclist in front, the cabbie's first response when challenged was "You should have been in the cycle lane"- clear acceptance of guilt, he tried to teach the cyclist a lesson and , with help from the cops, succeeded. 

[Sergeant Pluck]

There's no overtaking at all, the cyclist is still behimnd the cyclist in front
[/quote]

Is he? I don't think so. He's part of the way through an overtake.

This is why the "other cyclist" is not mentioned.

[spindrift]

There's no overtaking at all, the cyclist is still behimnd the cyclist in front

Is he? I don't think so. He's part of the way through an overtake.

This is why the "other cyclist" is not mentioned.
[/quote]


He's clearly behind the other cyclist, who is obscured by a lamppost.

[nuttycyclist]

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.

Seconded.

Kind regards,

Mr Angry.

[Wendy]

Sgt. Pluck, you have some very strange interpretations of those photos!!  None of them match what you're saying.

On the other hand, I'd agree with those talking about the cyclist's positioning being quite crappy really.  Of course it's no excuse for the taxi driver's lunacy, but from a defensive riding point of view that's really quite bad positioning.

[Sergeant Pluck]

you have some very strange interpretations of those photos!! 

My interpretations are perfectly valid. They are no more strange or debatable than other posters'.

I'd agree with those talking about the cyclist's positioning being quite crappy

That's basically my view of it.

My point is that if you look at the very limited information available and apply a healthy degree of scepticism to the cyclist's assertions (in line with his rather dodgy diagram and incomplete version of events) it is easily to see why the police did not feel in this case that there was a need to prosecute, never mind a realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

[Wendy]

Interpretation is fine, but what you're saying doesn't actually match the photos at all.  The photos do not support your assertions:

You said that the cyclist overtook the other cyclist - not shown by the photos.
You said that the cyclist moved out, in a straight line, moving further away from the kerb.  If you look at the road markings, it's obvious this is also wrong.  The taxi has however, moved slightly closer to the kerb.

Interestingly, the chap involved wouldn't share the footage with me, which leaves me wondering what it is that we're missing, if anything?

[Sergeant Pluck]

Interpretation is fine, but what you're saying doesn't actually match the photos at all.  The photos do not support your assertions:

You said that the cyclist overtook the other cyclist - not shown by the photos.
You said that the cyclist moved out, in a straight line, moving further away from the kerb.  If you look at the road markings, it's obvious this is also wrong.  The taxi has however, moved slightly closer to the kerb.

Interestingly, the chap involved wouldn't share the footage with me, which leaves me wondering what it is that we're missing, if anything?

I haven't said anywhere that the cyclist overtook the other cyclist - more that an overtake is in progress. I cannot see how it can be seen any other way. He is approaching the other cyclist and (IMO) is moving out to overtake.

Let's put it this way: I don't think the un-named cyclist has deviated from his straight course (why should he?). Now compare pic 1 and 2 in terms of the position of the aggrieved cyclist in relation to the un-named cyclist. Sorry but that's an overtake in progress. Sadly he did not do his "lifesaver" which is rather unfortunate as there is a car passing at that moment.

[Wendy]

Que?  There's no overtake in progress, because the front/rear distance between the two cyclists doesn't change significantly, and because JC doesn't move out.  Neither cyclist seems to change their position much wrt the kerb.  JC appears simply to be following the other cyclist.  I am assuming that the second cyclist is hidden behind the pole, which seems fairly certain.

It's pretty obvious from the loading bay lines that JC doesn't change his line at all, and remains the same distance out from the kerb.  I suspect you haven't realised that the second picture has been digitally "zoomed", and are basing your judgement on this, rather than on the relative position of all the useful markers in the images.

The taxi, however, moves in a little, as can be seen from the right turn arrow painted on the road.  In the first photo, the left wheels of the car line up with the arrow, and in the second, the middle of car is over the arrow, showing the taxi driver moved left.

[mattc]

Let's put it this way: I don't think the un-named cyclist has deviated from his straight course (why should he?). Now compare pic 1 and 2 in terms of the position of the aggrieved cyclist in relation to the un-named cyclist. Sorry but that's an overtake in progress. Sadly he did not do his "lifesaver" which is rather unfortunate as there is a car passing at that moment.

Why should the onus be on the CYCLIST here? The cabbie has a better view of the situation (because he's behind both cyclists:
IF* bikeB is overtaking BikeA, the cabbie should take this into account, and if there isn't room,

DONT OVERTAKE !

Is overtaking another cyclist dangerous? NO! Not unless there is a thoughtless individual trying to overtake both of them, without bothering to avoid a needless collision.

(*And this appears to be a VERY big if ... )

[Sergeant Pluck]

I suspect you haven't realised that the second picture has been digitally "zoomed"

I have managed to grasp that, thanks 

Why should the onus be on the CYCLIST here?

Sharing the roads is a shared responsibility. The onus is not solely on the cyclist or the driver but on all parties. Would the collision have occurred if the cyclist had done his lifesaver??

As I said earlier: crappy driving and crappy cycling. Ride like that with no road awareness and you will get knocked off.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

If the cyclist who was hit was going in a straight line, and the cyclist he was 'passing' had moved left (as the images seem to suggest) then the cyclist going in a straight line was not moving out to perform an overtake and therefore a 'lifesaver' check would seem inappropriate? I generally don't do one every 20 yards ehen travelling in a straight line...

Yes, if he was moving 'into' the path of the car, but the images seem to suggest the car moved into the path of the bike rather than the other way round.

I may be reading it wrong, but I'm going to be trying to get a copy of the CCTV coverage to get a clearer picture.

[PhilO]

The road layout does appear to be analogous to the situation where an outside lane merges with the inside one. Only one lane in this case, but that lane does effectively dog-leg left as a result of the island.

The cyclist is (quite correctly in my view) holding a line parallel with the kerb, but it's true to say that doing so carries him further into the effective traffic lane. In that situation, you have to expect drivers to do stupid things, and taking the primary position early is ineffective because there's too much space on approach to the island for a cyclist to successfully herd the traffic behind him...

So.... I agree that the collision was entirely the driver's fault, and he should have been charged.

But, I also agree with SP, insofar as the manouvre was completely predictable and the cyclist could easily have avoided trouble by being prepared for it. And yes, a Lifesaver would be entirely appropriate there. You don't need to do them constantly, but any bottleneck justifies it.

For instance, I often cycle eastwards here, and where the bus lane ends, traffic will pull in on you. I always perform a Lifesaver here, and am ready to take evasive action if necessary.