Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[Cycleops]

Some have criticised the police for prosecuting the motorist. What does the CC jury think?
https://mol.im/a/10750323
DM link.
Sorry I can't find the video on YouTube.

 

[SydZ]

The driver crosses the white line. Had he stayed in lane I think the story would have been different.

 

[BoldonLad]

Seems fair to me. Cannot see any reason why he/she had to cross the white line, there was no obstruction on his/her side. Slowing down wouldn't have hurt. Pity they didn't prosecute the owner/driver of the blue car parked half on the footway too.

 

[classic33]

@Cycleops, perhaps the video isn't on youtube to allow the case to go ahead.

 

[Cycleops]

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

 

[BoldonLad]

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

Who knows, except him/her?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Had that been a car rather than a cycle, wouldn't the expectation be that the car would yield to oncoming vehicles, as the obstruction is in their carriageway? That being the case, shouldn't the cyclist have taken appropriate defence and waited for the oncoming traffic to pass?

 

[SydZ]

Had that been a car rather than a cycle, wouldn't the expectation be that the car would yield to oncoming vehicles, as the obstruction is in their carriageway? That being the case, shouldn't the cyclist have taken appropriate defence and waited for the oncoming traffic to pass?

A car has to yield as it cannot pass without entering the opposite lane which is already occupied by an oncoming vehicle. That is not the case for the cyclists is this case.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

A car has to yield as it cannot pass without entering the opposite lane which is already occupied by an oncoming vehicle. That is not the case for the cyclists is this case.

In which case, by the cyclists own judgement, there was room for them to get through safely. Had there not been, the onus should be on the cyclist to yield in that situation.

Obviously I'm all in favour of the Police and courts protecting cyclists, but I think in this case they're sending out the wrong message, and it will be antagonistic to car drivers, reducing the impact of other measures imho.

 

[SydZ]

In which case, by the cyclists own judgement, there was room for them to get through safely. Had there not been, the onus should be on the cyclist to yield in that situation.

I’m not disagreeing with you. I am simply commenting on the circumstances that are being presented in this case.

 

[Rusty Nails]

In which case, by the cyclists own judgement, there was room for them to get through safely. Had there not been, the onus should be on the cyclist to yield in that situation.

Obviously I'm all in favour of the Police and courts protecting cyclists, but I think in this case they're sending out the wrong message, and it will be antagonistic to car drivers, reducing the impact of other measures imho.

There was room for the cyclists to get through on the reasonable assumption that the car would stay on its own side of the road.

It becomes very worrying if the courts decide to let someone off careless/dangerous driving because it might hurt the feelings of unreasonable drivers.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I thought that motorists could only cross the white line if it was clear and safe to do so. There is no onus on traffic - either vehicles or bikes - to move out of the way. The cyclists can hold their line and the motorists just have to wait.
As there were cyclists on the road it was not clear or safe to make that manoeuvre. QED.

There was room for the cyclists to get through on the reasonable assumption that the car would stay on its own side of the road.

It becomes very worrying if the courts decide to let someone off careless/dangerous driving because it might hurt the feelings of unreasonable drivers.

It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.

It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.

There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road, and they passed each other away from the parked vehicle, so the cyclist could have adjusted their position to have passed further away from the car. They actually appear to move toward it prior to reaching the parked car.

The obstruction is clearly in the cyclists lane, so the responsibility lays with them imho.

Clearly the Police and the Courts disagree with me, but then others have disagreed with decisions not to prosecute on clearer evidence than this.

 

[classic33]

It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.

It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.

There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road, and they passed each other away from the parked vehicle, so the cyclist could have adjusted their position to have passed further away from the car. They actually appear to move toward it prior to reaching the parked car.

The obstruction is clearly in the cyclists lane, so the responsibility lays with them imho.

Clearly the Police and the Courts disagree with me, but then others have disagreed with decisions not to prosecute on clearer evidence than this.

Obstructions on both sides it seems. The driver moved out/over to avoid the tree(s) on their side. But crossed into the opposite lane to miss it.

As mentioned earlier, was anything done about the car illegally parked on the pavement?

 

[Rusty Nails]

There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road

Fair play, you are working hard there to find any reason, no matter how slight, to justify your argument.

The cyclist sees a car on his side of the road, a car approaching him, and he is expected to notice "there does appear to be a bush protruding  slightly into the road".
How about the motorist being expected to notice the more obvious cyclist overtaking a parked car and not crossing over the centre line?

 

[Ian H]

It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.

It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.

There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road, and they passed each other away from the parked vehicle, so the cyclist could have adjusted their position to have passed further away from the car. They actually appear to move toward it prior to reaching the parked car.

The obstruction is clearly in the cyclists lane, so the responsibility lays with them imho.

Clearly the Police and the Courts disagree with me, but then others have disagreed with decisions not to prosecute on clearer evidence than this.

The cyclist isn't obstructed by the parked car. There's enough room to pass it within the lane. The oncoming driver either moves over the line deliberately to intimidate, or has an obstruction on their side. If the latter, they should have given way.