.

[Ian H]

Club Peloton doesn't appear to be affiliated to any cycling body. Part of their blurb states:-
All Club Peloton events allow industry professionals to swap their business suits for Lycra and build much stronger relationships by beating tough challenges together. With marshalled roads, lead cars, support crew and vehicles, sports injury specialists and mechanics, this is the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional.
I have bolded the bollocks bit.

 

[Alex321]

Club Peloton doesn't appear to be affiliated to any cycling body. Part of their blurb states:-
All Club Peloton events allow industry professionals to swap their business suits for Lycra and build much stronger relationships by beating tough challenges together. With marshalled roads, lead cars, support crew and vehicles, sports injury specialists and mechanics, this is the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional.
I have bolded the bollocks bit.

Not that this particular ride had any of those, as it was an "informal" ride according to them. So not really any different to the regular club rides most clubs have.

 

[Ian H]

Not that this particular ride had any of those, as it was an "informal" ride according to them. So not really any different to the regular club rides most clubs have.

No, but statements like that quoted encourage a certain ethos and possibly certain kinds of behaviour.

 

[Drago]

this is the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional.
I have bolded the bollocks bit.

That's indeed of concern. As a retired advanced skills (including road skills) trainer id judge the average professionals, and indeed higher level amateur competitive riders, roadcraft to be utterly appalling, completely incompatible with safe and legal progress on a public highway.

And there they are telling the great unwashed its the closest theyll get to that woeful standard.

 

[mjr]

That's indeed of concern. As a retired advanced skills (including road skills) trainer id judge the average professionals, and indeed higher level amateur competitive riders, roadcraft to be utterly appalling, completely incompatible with safe and legal progress on a public highway.

To be fair, the road closures during typical professional and higher-level amateur races mean that participants don't need roadcraft suitable for safe and legal progress on a public highway.

That probably makes it worse that Club Peloton are suggesting participants can ride in that manner with them. I wonder whether the victim could claim against the club as well as the rider, but it does risk being accused of taking money away from its charitable projects... although it looks like less than 25% of their spending is on charitable projects anyway!

 

[wafter]

As a genuine question with no loading / agenda, at what point are we actually ascribing wrongdoing to the cyclist?

He's passing / filtering past stationary traffic, which is perfectly legal.

He's doing so on the right hand side, which is adviseable in preference to the left as it reduces the chance of getting squashed against the kerb, clobbered by a car turning left or having nowhere to go if a pedestian steps out from behind a vehicle.

He's riding on the opposite side of the road, which presumably is acceptable since we're allowed to do this to overtake other vehicles as long as it's safe to do so.

He's passing on the other side of a pedestrian island; which granted would be a hard nope in a car (possibly because if passing other moving cars the speed involved would make it a lot more dangerous, and there would be little to no mandate for a car to pass other static cars under these circumstances unless they were very badly parked blocking the road). Personally I see no issue in filtering on a bike / motorbike on the other side of an island as long as it's sufficiently well-sighted and done with care - where does the law stand on this?

It seems he plead guilty to riding without due care and attention; which seems reasonable and suggests that intrinsically his actions were justifiable and his failing was his lack of observation / awareness / consideration for the pedestrian involved whist carrying them out; potentially including doing so at an inappropriate speed...?

Thinking about some similar situations on my commute it seems pretty difficult to hit a pedestian under these circumstances as long as you're right in the middle of the carriageway, visibility is good and they're not running at full tilt from behind an obstruction (such as a bus)...

 

[Drago]

As aforementioned, Couldn't Persecute Stalin almost always treat going the wrong side of an island as dangerous driving. The round keep left signs are mandatory. Some of the ones I've put before a court (drifers, not signs) have been banned, even where no one has been injured.

While the laws are different for cyclists the prosecution and court treat the act itself as equally serious, for it is the same physjcal course of conduct.

Those mandatory keep left signs aren't there as some kind of job creation scheme for road workers - theyre there to protect life and limb, and having ignored one such sign and completed one such unlawful manoeuvre a person was seriously injured. Hes lucky he wasn't in a car as he could have been looking at a suspended jail term for serious injury by DD.

 

[Alex321]

As a genuine question with no loading / agenda, at what point are we actually ascribing wrongdoing to the cyclist?

He's passing / filtering past stationary traffic, which is perfectly legal.

He's doing so on the right hand side, which is adviseable in preference to the left as it reduces the chance of getting squashed against the kerb, clobbered by a car turning left or having nowhere to go if a pedestian steps out from behind a vehicle.

He's riding on the opposite side of the road, which presumably is acceptable since we're allowed to do this to overtake other vehicles as long as it's safe to do so.

He's passing on the other side of a pedestrian island; which granted would be a hard nope in a car (possibly because if passing other moving cars the speed involved would make it a lot more dangerous, and there would be little to no mandate for a car to pass other static cars under these circumstances unless they were very badly parked blocking the road). Personally I see no issue in filtering on a bike / motorbike on the other side of an island as long as it's sufficiently well-sighted and done with care - where does the law stand on this?

It seems he plead guilty to riding without due care and attention; which seems reasonable and suggests that intrinsically his actions were justifiable and his failing was his lack of observation / awareness / consideration for the pedestrian involved whist carrying them out; potentially including doing so at an inappropriate speed...?

Thinking about some similar situations on my commute it seems pretty difficult to hit a pedestian under these circumstances as long as you're right in the middle of the carriageway, visibility is good and they're not running at full tilt from behind an obstruction (such as a bus)...

Cyclists must obey traffic signs in general. And islands like that on two way streets almost always have arrows indicating you must pass on the left. So passing the wrong side of a traffic island is usually illegal.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I would have thought that being in a place where you would not normally be
in this case the opposite side of a central reservation
would require the vehicle (bike in this case) to take extra care and take responsibility for what happens and be aware of the increased possibility of making an emergency stop

and if there is a bus there or something then allowing for the possibility of someone coming out from behind it


this is basically what I was taught when learning to drive

the fact that it was a bike measn that chance of death are lower - but not zero or even close to it - but the responsibilities are the same

 

[Webbo2]

Cyclists must obey traffic signs in general. And islands like that on two way streets almost always have arrows indicating you must pass on the left. So passing the wrong side of a traffic island is usually illegal.

A pedestrian crossing a traffic island is probably only going to look left so a cyclist coming from the right is not going to be seen.

 

[wafter]

As aforementioned, Couldn't Persecute Stalin almost always treat going the wrong side of an island as dangerous driving. The round keep left signs are mandatory. Some of the ones I've put before a court (drifers, not signs) have been banned, even where no one has been injured.

While the laws are different for cyclists the prosecution and court treat the act itself as equally serious, for it is the same physjcal course of conduct.

Those mandatory keep left signs aren't there as some kind of job creation scheme for road workers - theyre there to protect life and limb, and having ignored one such sign and completed one such unlawful manoeuvre a person was seriously injured. Hes lucky he wasn't in a car as he could have been looking at a suspended jail term for serious injury by DD.

Cyclists must obey traffic signs in general. And islands like that on two way streets almost always have arrows indicating you must pass on the left. So passing the wrong side of a traffic island is usually illegal.

Cheers both - hadn't considered the signage.

A road local to me is potentially another great example of how the infrastructure screws us in a relevant context to this thread. It's long and straightish with cycle lanes to the inside of each side painted on the road which simply disappear at the pinch points created by the pedestrian islands. This inevitably invites conflict between cars and bikes; especially if a car happens to be mid-way through passing at the time and has to brake to pull back in behind the bike.

As such it feels safer to pass on the right - as is usually the case, since this is convention everywhere else on the roads. I can symapthise with drivers not checking their inside mirror before turning left; even if this was the cause of the only major off I've had on the bike.

Further to that the need to rejoin the traffic and squeeze back over to the left when approaching an island seemingly invites more danger than pushing out wider and passing on the opposite side of the island; assuming it's well-sighted and with no opposing traffic so you can position yourself right in the middle of the road.

I would have thought that being in a place where you would not normally be
in this case the opposite side of a central reservation
would require the vehicle (bike in this case) to take extra care and take responsibility for what happens and be aware of the increased possibility of making an emergency stop

and if there is a bus there or something then allowing for the possibility of someone coming out from behind it


this is basically what I was taught when learning to drive

the fact that it was a bike measn that chance of death are lower - but not zero or even close to it - but the responsibilities are the same

This was my thinking as well; however good points about signage above suggest that we shouldn't be there in the first place..

A pedestrian crossing a traffic island is probably only going to look left so a cyclist coming from the right is not going to be seen.

True; although it seems an increasing amount of peds round here look in neither direction before crossing the road

 

[Ming the Merciless]

This inevitably invites conflict between cars and bikes; especially if a car happens to be mid-way through passing at the time and has to brake to pull back in behind the bike.

Not really, the driver should have anticipated this and not tried to overtake at a constriction. It’s an example of dangerous driving.

 

[steveindenmark]

How can driving round an island on the wrong side of an island, because of a build up of traffic, be used as a defence?

Its like a car driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway because of a build up of traffic.

I am a little confused about the compensation she was given. For the injuries she revieved, the amount is pantry. I got more for a dislocated thumb.

It sounds like the court has really screwed her over. This is a perfect example why all cyclists should have 3rd party liability insurance.

 

[Alex321]

How can driving round an island on the wrong side of an island, because of a build up of traffic, be used as a defence?

Its like a car driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway because of a build up of traffic.

I am a little confused about the compensation she was given. For the injuries she revieved, the amount is pantry. I got more for a dislocated thumb.

It sounds like the court has really screwed her over. This is a perfect example why all cyclists should have 3rd party liability insurance.

"Compensation" awarded in criminal cases is rarely as much as would be awarded in a civil case - which can still be brought (the amount awarded in the criminal court will be deducted from the total award in a civil court). Partly because the criminal court must take into account the ability of the offender tro pay. Also because the criminal court cannot award compensation for some things, such as psychological injury.

And third party insurance generally won't cover you for payments ordered in a criminal case, but only for payments ordered in a civil case.

 

[KingstonGraham]

I don't understand why there isn't a claim for damages separate to the charged offence if she isn't happy with the amount she has got. Director of a seemingly successful architecture firm probably isn't going to be on the breadline.