Police attitude to cyclist hit by car outside cycle lane

[Maladict]

I think there's rather too much nitpicking on exactly how far out you have to be.  The road there is pretty wide and as PhilO says, taking up the primary pos early doesn't really help you as you'd have to be riding pretty much in the centre of the road (i.e. where the taxi's going, over the right hand turn arrow... which could in many situations then lead to the taxi having tried to pass on the left instead).

This part of central cambridge is familiar to me, and I hate what they have done with the road layout.

I was following a coach in central Cambridge in the PP the other week and the car behind tried to squeeze between the kerb and me to force their way past.  You can over-analyze a cyclist's positioning and ignore the elephant in the room, which is the taxi.

[Sergeant Pluck]

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.

I'll try and keep an open mind.

I make mistakes as a cyclist, and I am sure I do not always do a lifesaver when I should. But I'd almost always do one if riding through a crap road arrangement like the above (cycle lane + prevalence of buses or taxis is usually enough for me), especially if I found myself for whatever reason to be poorly positioned on the road.

[Wendy]

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

You're missing the key point - that the driver is at fault here and has committed the only real error.  Sure, the cyclist could have ridden more defensively, but assuming his account is accurate, then no actual blame can be attributed to the cyclist.  Your statement equating the crappy driving and crappy cycling is thus rather unfair to the cyclist.

[Nienke]

As I said earlier: crappy driving and crappy cycling.

I agree. What really annoys me here is that both parties, instead of questioning their own actions and wondering what they could have done differently, insist on blaming the other. In the process, they shamelessly twist facts (the dodgy diagram, failing to mention the other cyclist) or invent rules ("you should have been in the cycle lane") to support their case, and neither takes responsibility for what they have done themselves.

If the cyclist had been aware of what was happening around him in traffic and made a nice friendly move left to let the taxi pass, this would not have happened. If the taxi driver had not counted on the cyclist moving left and had two seconds of patience, this would not have happened.

I'm not saying the driver of the taxi wasn't legally at fault here, I actually believe that he was. But does that matter? Is doing something dangerous but legal better than doing something dangerous and illegal? I just don't see the point of all the finger pointing, especially in a not entirely clear cut case like this. All it achieves is to create even more road rage (and there's plenty of that already).

[Wendy]

I think it's not very sensible to expect the cyclist to duck left here for such a short space.  As a cycling instructor, I'm perplexed as to why some of you can think the cyclist did something wrong.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

If the cyclist had been aware of what was happening around him in traffic and made a nice friendly move left to let the taxi pass, this would not have happened. If the taxi driver had not counted on the cyclist moving left and had two seconds of patience, this would not have happened.

I'm not saying the driver of the taxi wasn't legally at fault here, I actually believe that he was. But does that matter? Is doing something dangerous but legal better than doing something dangerous and illegal? I just don't see the point of all the finger pointing, especially in a not entirely clear cut case like this. All it achieves is to create even more road rage (and there's plenty of that already).

Can't argue with that. A bit more friendliness on the roads, a bit more mutual respect, would make it all much more pleasant.

I would qualify that by saying the the 'friendly' move left is a potential door opener to cars behind the taxi (if there had been any) which then completely squeezes the cyclist out of the pinch point, although he has the bail-out option of the cycle lane (distasteful though that re-merging with traffic further on is).

If nothing else this matter serves to highlight the hierarchy of the road, and the reasons why either assertive or defensive riding unfortunately has to be applied.

[phil d]

I'm with Sergeant P on this.  Call me cynical, but the diagram drawn is significantly different to the view from the cameras, with the lines and the cyclist's position relative to them clearly different.  And I am intrigued as to why the other cyclist is neither mentioned in the report nor drawn on the diagram.

So yes, the taxi was wrong, but the cyclist's positioning (and I think his attitude) are significant contributory factors.  I cannot see how the CPS might have prosecuted it with any real chance of success.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Thanks phil d.

What really annoys me here is that both parties, instead of questioning their own actions and wondering what they could have done differently, insist on blaming the other. In the process, they shamelessly twist facts (the dodgy diagram, failing to mention the other cyclist) or invent rules ("you should have been in the cycle lane")

Couldn't agree more. My main motivation for replying to the thread, in fact, was to counter the uncritical automatic acceptance of the cyclist's point of view despite the obvious omissions and, let's face it, fibbing - for that is what the diagram amounts to.

Cycling is about sharing the road, not riding in such a way that motorists have keep their distance while you meander about on the public highway.

[PhilO]

...fibbing - for that is what the diagram amounts to.

Steady on! 

The diagram is clearly marked 'not to scale', and the other cyclist's presence wasn't relevent to the incident, as s/he was ahead of the cyclist hit, so how are either of those misleading, never mind 'fibbing'? 

As above, I have some sympathy for the view that that he should have been able to avoid the impact, but I see no justification for assigning any blame to the cyclist beyond that.

[Sergeant Pluck]

Perhaps I am mistaken but would you say that the diagram reflected the location of the collision as seen in the second photo? Taking, for example, the cycle path markings as one reference? Not to scale is one thing but...

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree as to the relevance of the second cyclist.

[Maladict]

I've taken some video of the approaches to the narrowing - from the line taken by the cyclist and the line taken by the taxi (starting level with the right turn arrow in the case of the taxi, and just outside the loading bay as the cyclist was).

If the cyclist did that, and cycled in a straight line, parallel to the kerb, then the cyclist would enter the narrowing exactly in the centre.  Fibbing would be describing the cyclist moving right and the taxi moving in a straight line.  To get into the narrowing from the right turn arrow the taxi has to veer left.

This is the worst kind of victim blaming. 

[Sergeant Pluck]

Fibbing would be describing the cyclist moving right and the taxi moving in a straight line.

Sorry, no. As is very clear above, my "fib" remark is because the diagram simply does not depict what is visible in the second photograph. It alters the relative positions of the taxi, the bike, and the road markings. Plain as day.

I'll withdraw "fib" as it is obviously emotive and involves intent, and substitute "mislead".

Of course the discrepancies could be due to the cyclist making the sketch at the time of the incident without having the advantage of viewing the video. However, he's had plenty of time to fix it since

My main thrust here has been neatly summed up by nienke's remarks about responsibility:

...both parties, instead of questioning their own actions and wondering what they could have done differently, insist on blaming the other. In the process, they shamelessly twist facts (the dodgy diagram, failing to mention the other cyclist) or invent rules

Hence my interest in the accuracy of the cyclist's description: it is pointless debating the merits of a particular course of (cycling) action on the basis of inaccurate reports.

[Maladict]

Two different approaches to the narrowing.

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

[Sergeant Pluck]

Very good of you to do that, Maladict.

I'm not sure how it clarifies things though: the video of the two vehicles involved is the only way to know how the two interacted coming up to the impact.

[drossall]

Is there an element here of the subconscious assumption that a line of motor vehicles constitutes a lane of traffic, and a bike to their left is therefore weaving in and out of the traffic lane? Of course that's not the position - the bike actually defines the traffic lane with the cars in front and behind, while those overtaking at any moment are moving out of lane to do so.

However, it seems to me that society has so much forgotten that not all vehicles are motor vehicles that we sometimes assume that only motor vehicles can be in traffic lanes.

[Maladict]

Very good of you to do that, Maladict.

I'm not sure how it clarifies things though: the video of the two vehicles involved is the only way to know how the two interacted coming up to the impact.

I think it demonstrates that the cyclist was aligned with the narrowing from an early stage, and the taxi wasn't.  So we know that the cyclist had no reason to move right and that the taxi had to move left in order to avoid hitting the central island, and they had to go through the cyclist in order to get there, even if the cyclist was cycling in a perfectly straight line.

[Sergeant Pluck]

I accept that you've shown that if he continued in the same direction (from the pic 1 stage) then he would occupied the primary position close to the narrowing.

But selecting a line from a distance away that would gradually bring you to the primary position, without regard for your position at that earlier stage, gives out confusing signals. At the pic 1 stage he was not in any definite position and I think this is when the problems arose.

[Maladict]

I agree - but there's enough room on his left for a car, and enough room on the right for a car, as he approaches the narrowing.  He *can't* position himself such that he can avoid being overtaken just before the narrowing.  The further right he goes, the greater risk of being passed on the left as well, and he also creates the problem that he is now cycling on a right turn arrow yet intending to go straight ahead (except as my video clip shows, he will have to veer left shortly before the narrowing after having given the strong impression by road positioning that he intends to turn right).

[Wendy]

Well, having chatted by email with Jim, the overtake assertion is, according to him, this: rubbish.  He was riding with the chap ahead of him.

[Wendy]

Looking at the diagram, it's actually surprisingly close to what I see in the pictures.  It shows the taxi moving left and colliding with the cyclist, which is borne out by the CCTV photos, and it shows the cyclist cycling straight ahead a little to the left side of the pinch point.  One bit that isn't accurate is the alignment of the cyclist with the loading bay markings.  I'm not sure how that changes anything, or puts any blame on the cyclist.  It certainly can't be described as misleading.

I don't think that the cyclist being further right, and thus more assertive, would invite an undertake from the taxi.  That's because of the relatively short distance from the parked car to the pinch point.

I'm with Maladicta - I'm quite disappointed, nay disgusted, with the level of victim blaming going on here.  The taxi driver is, IMO, completely to blame for the collision, and no blame, legally or morally, can be attributed to the cyclist.

[iakobski]

Is doing something dangerous but legal better than doing something dangerous and illegal?

By itself, that comment is a truism.

However, applied to this case it sounds scarily like the taxi driver's comment: "he should have been in the cycle lane" (for his own safety). How many times have you heard non-cyclists say "that cyclist is mad: it's so dangerous to cycle there".

I also disagree with your assertion that his position was "legal but dangerous" - holding primary is far less dangerous than the other options. Yes, occasionally you will get some complete tosser who wantonly drives into a cyclist in primary, but for every one of those there are loads of inattentive drivers who knock of the cyclists not riding assertively.

[Nienke]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested in any way that the cyclist should have been in the cycle lane. Judging by that second picture, the cyclist could have moved left quite a bit before ending up in the cycle lane. I'm not saying that his position was dangerous, I'm saying that it may very well have been from the information we have. This information appears to be rather biased. The cyclist does not seem keen to think about what he could have done to prevent the accident.

I think we don't have enough information to decide if the cyclist did anything wrong, and as I said before it seems pointless (and even counterproductive) to squabble about it.

I might have had more sympathy for the cyclist if his article hadn't sought to blame the police for saying that the cyclist should have been in the cycle lane (which they didn't say). Instead, he could have focused on the taxi drivers ignorance of this issue, and the lack of awareness of it in general, rather than on his own side of his own case and just making everyone more annoyed with each other.

[mattc]

If the cyclist had been aware of what was happening around him in traffic and made a nice friendly move left to let the taxi pass, this would not have happened. If the taxi driver had not counted on the cyclist moving left and had two seconds of patience, this would not have happened.

I'm not saying the driver of the taxi wasn't legally at fault here, I actually believe that he was. But does that matter? Is doing something dangerous but legal better than doing something dangerous and illegal?

Ok, for a moment, let's ignore what is or is not legal. The facts of the case are this:
the taxi driver DROVE into the back of someone on a bike. He did this due to:
- expecting the cyclist to get out of his way, AND/OR
- being too impatient to wait for a safe gap.

I think this matters a lot - what he did was very dangerous, and selfish. It seems only right to find him at fault, EITHER morally OR legally - you choose.

[Nienke]

I agree. I'm only saying that there's a chance that the cyclist was at fault, to a degree, as well. We don't know if he was, because we only know his side of the story in which some things may be omitted.

[Sergeant Pluck]

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.