Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[newts]

Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.

Perhaps you should watch the video closer? The first cyclist (of 3) is level with the parked car when the oncoming car passed, over the line at excessive speed for the situation.

 

[Alex321]

No get out or imagination needed. I fully expected resistance to my opinion, I can live with that, and have seen little in the arguments offered that changes my view.

I'm an assertive cyclist, but for my own protection, I would not have moved out from primary as early as those two cyclists did, as there was no need. They would have lost no time had they stayed in primary, and would have met the oncoming vehicle more safely, before negotiating the hazard of the parked car.

One part of your imagination is this concept that they "moved out from prime". No, they actually moved into prime.

It's interesting that people insist on cars keeping their distance when overtaking cyclists, and that cyclists should not be forced in to the gutter, as that part of the highway is generally poorly maintained, and cyclists may need to take evasive action for obstructions or potholes, yet seem to think it's okay for the cyclist to unnecessarily narrow that gap due to an upcoming obstruction in their lane that they had not yet reached, and for cars to remain in the gutter.

Why do you find that part of your imagination (since none of it happened) to be "interesting"?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Perhaps you should watch the video closer? The first cyclist (of 3) is level with the parked car when the oncoming car passed, over the line at excessive speed for the situation.

The car is not over the line when the 1st cyclist goes through. Therefore they have reduced the gap between themselves and that vehicle.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

One part of your imagination is this concept that they "moved out from prime". No, they actually moved into prime.



Why do you find that part of your imagination (since none of it happened) to be "interesting"?

One part of your imagination is this concept that they "moved out from prime". No, they actually moved into prime.



Why do you find that part of your imagination (since none of it happened) to be "interesting"?

The pictures demonstrate that it isn't my imagination.

 

[DCBassman]

I doubt there was any obstruction in the offender's lane, as that would mitigate for them. And then there would not have been a prosecution. No obstruction? No defence.

 

[Alex321]

The pictures demonstrate that it isn't my imagination.

False.

You imagine that the car would have had to "drive in the gutter" if it hadn't pulled across into the other lane, while there is not the slightest indication that might have been the case.

You imagine the cyclists pulling out of prime, when they were actually pulling into it.

You imagine the cyclists "unnecessarily" narrowing the gap, when the highway code recommends doing as they did, and pulling out before reaching an obstacle (and common sense would say the same).

If you are not just trolling, and genuinely believe the driver was not seriously at fault here, then I really hope you don't drive.

The courts most definitely disagree with you too, since he wasn't even given the minimum of 3 points for careless driving, but was given 5 points - only 1 short of the maximum.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

False.

You imagine that the car would have had to "drive in the gutter" if it hadn't pulled across into the other lane, while there is not the slightest indication that might have been the case.

You imagine the cyclists pulling out of prime, when they were actually pulling into it.

You imagine the cyclists "unnecessarily" narrowing the gap, when the highway code recommends doing as they did, and pulling out before reaching an obstacle (and common sense would say the same).

If you are not just trolling, and genuinely believe the driver was not seriously at fault here, then I really hope you don't drive.

The courts most definitely disagree with you too, since he wasn't even given the minimum of 3 points for careless driving, but was given 5 points - only 1 short of the maximum.

Really, so where would the car have been, if not with it's wheels in the gutter?

The cyclist could quite easily have remained in the centre of their lane (not the highway) and lost no time at all, and navigated the hazard safely.

 

[Alex321]

Really, so where would the car have been, if not with it's wheels in the gutter?

In the normal driving position.

There was plenty of room for the vehicle to stay within their own lane. I've rewatched the video several times, and there is no sign of any obstruction in their lane. They could have driven with their nearside wheels 18 inches out from the white line and not crossed the central white line. And that is exactly what they should have been doing.

The cyclist could quite easily have remained in the centre of their lane (not the highway) and lost no time at all, and navigated the hazard safely.

They were very close to the centre of their lane. Much closer to the centre of it than to the centre line.

 

[Baldy]

Yes, I thought that too @SydZ & @BoldonLad . Do you think that he strayed over the line deliberately?

I believe the court decided that he did.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

In the normal driving position.

There was plenty of room for the vehicle to stay within their own lane. I've rewatched the video several times, and there is no sign of any obstruction in their lane. They could have driven with their nearside wheels 18 inches out from the white line and not crossed the central white line. And that is exactly what they should have been doing.



They were very close to the centre of their lane. Much closer to the centre of it than to the centre line.

At the start of the clip, the cyclist in shot moved toward the oncoming vehicle. The camera cyclist was already further towards the white lines prior to that, and appears to move closer still despite the hazard being some distance in front, and the oncoming vehicle having already passed it.

I would not ride like that, as I prefer to take my own appropriate safety measures based on reading the road and timing my approach.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I believe the court decided that he did.

That is indisputable. I'm more arguing that the cyclists could have approached that hazard far better than they did.

 

[Arjimlad]

I agree with the police, the CPS and the court here. The driver crossed the white line at some speed towards the cyclist who would have expected the driver to stay on his side of the road.

I think the big brouhaha is because if people just look at the video & can only imagine themselves driving towards the blue car, they would of course expect to slow down & give way to the oncoming vehicle. Whereas a cyclist can overtake it without causing any obstruction at all to oncoming drivers, on the basis of them staying in their lane.

I have had a driver veer over the white line towards me without any obstruction at all on his side of the road whilst I was riding 2 abreast with my son. The report was accepted by the police & acted upon, outcome unknown.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

as the obstruction is in the cyclists part of the carriageway, the onus is on them to yield if there isn't room.

The cyclists didn't need to leave their lane to avoid the obstruction so had no obligation to yield. On the other hand, the car driver for some reason crossed to the opposing lane and endangered the cyclists. Conviction deserved.

See also:

HC
Rule 127
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off.

The road was not clear.

 

[matticus]

They moved to a position, prior to the obstruction, that brought them closer to the vehicle than the rules suggest are appropriate for cars to pass a cyclist. Had they read the road, and stayed in primary for a second or two longer, they would still be visible, and have taken sensible precautions in case the oncoming vehicle had cause to move.

This applies more so for the camera person.

View attachment 641845

After reading the first two pages - and without even seeing the video - I thought "He's almost certainly talking drivel. It sounds clear-cut"
Now you've posted a screenshot that confirms it - thanks.

 

[Cycleops]

Regardless of what you think about who should have been where and when the message being sent out by the police is take extra care when approaching cyclists or risk being penalised. Simples.