Police attitude to cyclist hit by car outside cycle lane

[dkahn400]

Apologies then for any upset my deeply sceptical remarks might have caused but nothing I've read convinces me that this collision (which, as the photo shows, Matt, was not a rear-ending) was necessarily entirely the taxi driver's fault. Few if any taxi drivers would risk their careers by deliberately driving into a cyclist because he or she did not "get out of his way" or was "too impatient to wait for a safe gap".

Poor road positioning sent out the wrong messages.

Maladict's videos of the approach have convinced me that Jim's positioning was absolutely correct and he did nothing wrong at all. The taxi "golden ruled" him, plain and simple.

[mattc]

Poor road positioning sent out the wrong messages.

Well, there is never 1 perfect road position. In this thread alone, the rider has been criticised for riding too far left AND too far right!

I prefer to blame the overtaking road user, who also happened to be the only person operating dangerous machinery.

(You're right to be sceptical where 2 parties with different stories are involved, but I haven't seen/read a single fact/comment/diagram that puts any blame on the cyclist. Unless you count "you should have been in the cycle lane", which for me is actually the final straw.)

Few if any taxi drivers would risk their careers by deliberately driving into a cyclist because he or she did not "get out of his way" or was "too impatient to wait for a safe gap".

I would strike "deliberately" and replace it with "through negligence and impatience". This is the point - driving comes with responsibility to the people one might kill or cripple.

[Wendy]

Poor road positioning sent out the wrong messages.

Which, according to you, puts the entirety of the blame on the cyclist?

You've previously said that the cyclist was moving out from the kerb, and that he was overtaking the other cyclist.  Both assertions are self-evidently wrong from the CCTV photos alone, and also from Jim Chisholm's email to me.  You said the taxi didn't move left, which is also wrong, and the photos show this too.  You've said the diagram is "fibbing" or "misleading", and yet it's quite well supported by the photos.  It's not a perfect diagram, but it's not materially wrong either. There's also your assertion that there's an "uncritical automatic acceptance of the cyclist's point of view", which is also wrong.  I myself have criticised his road positioning, as have others, but this doesn't make him to blame in the slightest, legally or morally.

It looks to me like you got a lot wrong and are now unwilling to abandon your clearly untenable position.  I imagine you're both a cyclist and a driver, and I would have thought you'd have a more open mind than this.  I'm not upset, btw, just saddened.

Then there's the view that we're only hearing the cyclist's POV.  Fair enough, but I don't think there's a whole lot of wiggle room to take blame away from the taxi driver from the evidence we have seen.  I've based my opinions on the photos, and hardly at all on the account of the cyclist, for example.

[Gattopardo]

Does anyone know what was the police version of events or report say?

Did the local paper run the story?

[mattc]

Does anyone know what was the police version of events or report say?

Did the local paper run the story?

There's quite a bit from the police in the CCC article.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Which, according to you, puts the entirety of the blame on the cyclist?

Not at all Mikey: as my previous posts make clear, my opinion is that it is likely there is fault on both sides, or to put it another way, I don't believe the taxi driver was entirely at fault.

I'll not repeat my previous posts as they are there for all to read, but to me it is clear that the photographs could show that the cyclist was preparing or postioning himself in such way to allow an overtake of the un-named cyclist. That's as plain as day. OK, so he says he was not in the process of overtaking, fair enough, but the photos can quite easily be interpreted that way. I don't think I've got much wrong and I think your interpretation of what I have said is a little extreme. Don't want to fall out over it though - at the end of the day it is just my interpretation of limited bits of information and as you are in contact with the person involved you may have a different picture of the situation.

Yes I do drive, but very rarely in this country, and I don't own a car now.

[Gattopardo]

Does anyone know what was the police version of events or report say?

Did the local paper run the story?

There's quite a bit from the police in the CCC article.

There seems to be comments from a cctv operator, and the ipcc meeting with an inspector.  But not from the police officerer investigating the report

[Wendy]

No falling out necessary!

No, my take on events is pretty factual and middle of the road.  I see the failure of perfect defensive riding by the cyclist, but IMO the accident is still legally and morally entirely the fault of the taxi driver.  I should point out that I'm a regular driver, and I would think that so many contrary opinions to yours would make you stop and think.  Your points are not at all supported by the independent evidence there, the CCTV photos.

Oh, and I'm not some sort of procyclist anti-driving nutter, I could point out this clip where I think that the cyclist is to blame for the collision, against the cyclist's own view.  I've no idea though, it's only a guess based on what can be seen.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9snA93AFvcg&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/9snA93AFvcg&rel=1</a>

[Sergeant Pluck]

No, my take on events is pretty factual and middle of the road

Naturally I'd say the same. 

...the accident is still legally and morally entirely the fault of the taxi driver.

It certainly would be if you take the view that the driver saw the cyclist and then for whatever reason decided to force him out of the way or indeed drive into him. I don't think that is the case but again I could be wrong.

[Wendy]

If the driver didn't see the cyclist, then he shouldn't be driving.  If the driver did see the cyclist, then he is completely to blame.  That was an utterly unacceptable overtake, and should not have been attempted.

There is no excuse for that accident.

[spindrift]

No falling out necessary!

No, my take on events is pretty factual and middle of the road.  I see the failure of perfect defensive riding by the cyclist, but IMO the accident is still legally and morally entirely the fault of the taxi driver.  I should point out that I'm a regular driver, and I would think that so many contrary opinions to yours would make you stop and think.  Your points are not at all supported by the independent evidence there, the CCTV photos.

Oh, and I'm not some sort of procyclist anti-driving nutter, I could point out this clip where I think that the cyclist is to blame for the collision, against the cyclist's own view.  I've no idea though, it's only a guess based on what can be seen.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9snA93AFvcg&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/9snA93AFvcg&rel=1</a>

I can't make head or tail of that clip.

[Regulator]

I think everyone is getting bogged down in the detail.  We need to go back to basics as I posted earlier (below).

The simple fact is that the onus is upon the person behind not to hit the person in front, irrespective of what sort of vehicle they are on or in.  If a driver can't overtake safely then s/he simply shouldn't overtake.  It's as simple as that and clearly laid out in Rules 162-163 of the Highway Code.

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.

[Maladict]

Pretty useless clip.  I can't even work out where the car he hit is.  The camera seems to be at a funny angle.  And going up the left of someone to turn right?

 

[Wendy]

Oh, and there's no possible way that an overtake could be interpreted from those pictures.  Not only does JC continue in a straight line parallel to the kerb and the loading bay line, but the relative positions of both him and the other cyclist remain largely unchanged from photo 1 to photo 2.  If anything the other cyclist is slightly further ahead, further nixing the overtake theory.

[spindrift]

Pretty useless clip.  I can't even work out where the car he hit is.  The camera seems to be at a funny angle.  And going up the left of someone to turn right?

 

I think she said a bad word as she realised she'd lost him.

[mattc]

Yes I do drive, but very rarely in this country, and I don't own a car now.

well I guess we should be grateful for that ...


  <--- note the smiley !!!

p.s. I think we've done this issue. Nothing new is being said. I think we agree that AT LEAST MOST of the blame is on the cabbie, we're just splitting hairs about the positions/velocities of the 2 vehicles, and what the intent of the participants was/were/might-have-been.
And I think we're agreed that the police are idiots for implying any blame was due to not riding in a cycle lane.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Yes I do drive, but very rarely in this country, and I don't own a car now.

well I guess we should be grateful for that ...

 

I was waiting for it...

And I think we're agreed that the police are idiots for implying any blame was due to not riding in a cycle lane.

Totally and utterly in agreement with that.

[dkahn400]

Oh, and I'm not some sort of procyclist anti-driving nutter, I could point out this clip where I think that the cyclist is to blame for the collision, against the cyclist's own view.  I've no idea though, it's only a guess based on what can be seen.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9snA93AFvcg&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/9snA93AFvcg&rel=1</a>

I don't think you can tell anything at all from that clip except that the motorist is incensed.

[nuttycyclist]

You can't tell anything at all from that clip.  All I can see is a pedestrian running down the pavement.  Can't even see the "point of deliberate impact" - the camera just moves slightly, could be anything.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

You can't tell anything at all from that clip.  All I can see is a pedestrian running down the pavement.  Can't even see the "point of deliberate impact" - the camera just moves slightly, could be anything.

I know that bit of road well, and to be honest I'm not sure I would ride it that way.

Have to agree, can't tell anything at all from that clip (bloody stupid camera angle).

[Wendy]

Yes I do drive, but very rarely in this country, and I don't own a car now.

well I guess we should be grateful for that ...

 

I was waiting for it...

And I think we're agreed that the police are idiots for implying any blame was due to not riding in a cycle lane.

Totally and utterly in agreement with that.

LOL!  More seriously, I'm sure your driving would be of fine quality.

[Maladict]

Few if any taxi drivers would risk their careers by deliberately driving into a cyclist because he or she did not "get out of his way" or was "too impatient to wait for a safe gap".

Funnily enough, I got to the CCC article via a posting in cam.transport about a taxi in Cambridge deliberately rear-ending a cyclist in primary position, and the police refusing to do anything because the cyclist was not in the cycle lane.  Witnesses supported this version of events.  This incident was also taken to the IPCC to no avail.

IOW: It happens, and the police think it's fine.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Funnily enough, I got to the CCC article via a posting in cam.transport about a taxi in Cambridge deliberately rear-ending a cyclist in primary position, and the police refusing to do anything because the cyclist was not in the cycle lane

Sobering reading. 

[Jon P]

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

It's a pity he didn't get someone competent to write it for him - it's a load of mumble-jumble as is.