Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[ClichéGuevara]

You really don't seem to understand the concept of the centre line here. The cyclists were well within their own lane. The car wasn't.

When there is an obstruction, the centre line becomes academic, as the lane becomes the size of the available space.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

That expectation is only valid if the car approaching the parked vehicle would have to cross the centre line to pass it.

It isn't, but I'll leave you to believe what you like.

 

[Alex321]

Actually, the onus isn't always on the vehicle in the opposite lane.

I didn't say it was. The onus is on the vehicle which has to cross the centre line.

In the video in the OP, as the obstruction is in the cyclists part of the carriageway, the onus is on them to yield if there isn't room. The cyclist was virtually on the centre line, yet still some distance from the parked car when they past the oncoming vehicle.

I'm bored of this now. I've said my bit, and none of this will change anything, as it's not as though the driver has asked me to run their appeal.

If the cyclist had been "virtually on the centre line", they would be dead now, since the car was well over it.

 

[Slick]

To be honest, it looks like something I see often whilst out on the bike but definitely car at fault and I'm delighted to see the police prosecuting this.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Rubbish. That would only apply if the cyclist couldn't proceed within their own lane. The cyclist was not obstructed. The driver, for what ever reason, encroached on the cyclist's side of the road.

Ah right. I must have imagined the parked vehicle.

 

[classic33]

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.

They moved out, maintaining as straight a line as possible. No last minute manoeuvre to get them out from behind the car, where they'd have been hidden from view.

They also stayed clear of the "door zone" when passing the car.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

They moved out, maintaining as straight a line as possible. No last minute manoeuvre to get them out from behind the car, where they'd have been hidden from view.

They also stayed clear of the "door zone" when passing the car.

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.

 

[cougie uk]

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 driver of the car crossed into the cyclists lane. If it's that hard for you to understand I hope you don't drive.

 

[Seevio]

Looks fairly clear cut to me. Driver for reasons legitimate or not, crossed the centre line bringing him too close to the cyclists.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I'm bored of this now.

Nice get out.

I must have imagined the parked vehicle

Your imagination has certainly been working overtime.

 

[Seevio]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhW08Z5wyqA

 

[slowmotion]

Appalling driving. Never mind the white line distraction, the car passed the cyclist really fast and insanely closely.
Dreadful.

 

[raleighnut]

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

yep looks like a clear case of 'intimidation' to me

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Nice get out.



Your imagination has certainly been working overtime.

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.

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.

 

[markemark]

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.

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.

The cyclists may have been wise to have held back as it was obviously a pinch point. That is irrelevant to the car being at fault and as such the car driver should been fined either way.