'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane

[spindrift]

But the cyclist was also riding poorly.

How? By going in a straight line?

Why are you getting so aggressive?

 

[srw]

By not being aware of his surroundings, including what was happening behind him. By not being ready to give up his line for his own safety. By not clearly signalling his intentions. By riding in an unsafe position on the road?

Why are you getting so aggressive?

Why am I getting aggresive? I may have missed something, but aggression does appear to be the default mode of what is apparently called "debate" around here. It reminds me of Prime Minister's Questions with John Prescott.

 

[spindrift]

By not being aware of his surroundings,

Being aware of a vehicle behind you doesn't mean you just assume they will drive into the back of you!

By not being ready to give up his line for his own safety.

I think cyclists darting all over the road to avoid any/every vehicle behind them would be more dangerous than following the HC.

By not clearly signalling his intentions

There is no signal a cyclist should use to indicate they're going straight on.

By riding in an unsafe position on the road?

It wasn't unsafe.

Nobody's been aggressive toward you, don't be silly, if you flounce about every time someone disagrees with you maybe this isn't the place for you...

 

[srw]

Nobody's been aggressive toward you, don't be silly, if you flounce about every time someone disagrees with you maybe this isn't the place for you...

"A friendly place for everyone with an interest in cycling"? Well, it's certainly a place.

 

[spindrift]

"A friendly place for everyone with an interest in cycling"? Well, it's certainly a place.

You remind me of Kate Bush.







Pre-Madonna.

 

[Mr Pig]

The drawing is fairly representative of what happened, IMO .

I don't agree. I don't think it's very accurate at all.

 

[BentMikey]

Oddly enough I don't give a stuff about National Standards. I do what I need to do to keep me out of harm's way, and that includes letting tossers of drivers be tossers, even if it means I have to pull in when I don't want to. It's worked for the last 12 years of commuting and 30-plus years of cycling and I expect it to work for many more.

That's more an example of how safe cycling is, and is probably also a sign of how your experience lets you get away with less than optimal cycling practice. Best practice, i.e. National Standards, is about playing the odds.

That cyclist is right not to be using that cycle lane, it's a hazard that's far more likely to result in an accident than the likelihood of such a lunatic stupid and dangerous overtake by the taxi driver. All he did wrong was to not own the lane, and to sit in a bit of a waffly in-between position, instead of closing the door properly and preventing the taxi from overtaking at that point.

 

[BentMikey]

I don't agree. I don't think it's very accurate at all.

OK, well, point out the specific errors you think are in it.

 

[srw]

That's more an example of how safe cycling is, and is probably also a sign of how your experience lets you get away with less than optimal cycling practice. Best practice, i.e. National Standards, is about playing the odds.

That cyclist is right not to be using that cycle lane, it's a hazard that's far more likely to result in an accident than the likelihood of such a lunatic stupid and dangerous overtake by the taxi driver. All he did wrong was to not own the lane, and to sit in a bit of a waffly in-between position, instead of closing the door properly and preventing the taxi from overtaking at that point.

I'll let slip your unthinking equation of National Standards (the Gospel according to Franklin?) and best practice.

Point by point:
On balance the cyclist is right not to be using the lane (we agree).
I disagree that, used sensibly, it's likely to result in an accident. It may if the cyclist using it is careless. It's a poor lane because it demands the cyclist gives way.
The taxi driver was driving badly (we agree).
The cyclist did not own the lane (we agree).
The cyclist should have been clearer about his intentions (we agree).

That's not bad, is it?

 

[BentMikey]

The point by point is quite good - we're closer than others might guess. I'm not so sure on the last point - whilst the cyclist could have been better positioned out in the lane, he shouldn't have needed to be, as the onus is entirely on the overtaking driver to overtake properly with enough room, and that wasn't done. He didn't need to be clear about intentions, as he was going straight ahead.

The best practice vs national stds/cyclecraft, now there's a thing. It seems many experienced riders, usually males, have an ego issue with it, claiming all sorts of better ways of doing things. In many challenges, I've yet to see a single justified case where John Franklin is wrong, though I've seen many cases of misinterpretation. The closest yet has been Nuttycyclist bringing up a second solution to one particular road problem, where his solution was arguably slightly better than the Cyclecraft one. Both were, however, good solutions. Can you come up with any specific examples of Cyclecraft or National Standards being wrong?

 

[Mr Pig]

OK, well, point out the specific errors you think are in it.

In the diagram the car is shown to the left of the centre of the lane. It is not. It is to the right of the centre.

In the diagram the bike is shown to the extreme left of the lane, hugging the lane marking. This is also fiction as the cyclist was actually very near the centre of the lane.

The diagram also shows the car at an exaggerated angle of travel which is clearly designed to convey the idea that it was a deliberate collision, as this direction of travel would serve no other purpose. The photographs clearly show that the car driver takes a line which is intended to take the car between the islands to the left of the lane.

Also interesting is that the pedestrian in the bottom left of the second picture has turned round. It may be coincidence but it is more likely, given the brake lights and attitude of he car, that the car has braked sharply and he has responded to the sound. This is interesting because this is before the collision. The mirror of the car is about four feet from the handlebars, which is where the cyclist claims contact was made.

Still far too close and reckless driving but the car driver clearly understood that he had made a mistake and braked to try and avoid contact. The diagram is designed to make his actions look far worse than they were.

Another point worth mentioning concerning the difference between the cyclists actual position and his position portrayed in the diagram. If the cyclist believed that the correct position to be in was the centre of the lane, why has he shown himself at the extreme left? If the extreme left position shown in the diagram is where the cyclist believed that he actually was on the day then his judgement and recollection are in question.

I'm not trying to be harsh on the guy, I think he was wronged, but these are the kind of observations and considerations that may well have counted against him in the eyes of those examining the incident. If you try to exaggerate there is always a risk that in the backlash you'll loose more ground than you had to begin with.

 

[BentMikey]

In the diagram the car is shown to the left of the centre of the lane. It is not. It is to the right of the centre.

In the diagram the bike is shown to the extreme left of the lane, hugging the lane marking. This is also fiction as the cyclist was actually very near the centre of the lane.

You're right, but I'm not sure it's a material difference, because the relative position of car and cyclist is far more important, and no car driver should be that dangerously close to a cyclist.

The photos show the driver to be either stupidly careless, or intentionally dangerous, IMO.

The diagram also shows the car at an exaggerated angle of travel which is clearly designed to convey the idea that it was a deliberate collision, as this direction of travel would serve no other purpose. The photographs clearly show that the car driver takes a line which is intended to take the car between the islands to the left of the lane.

The photos show a driver coming either carelessly or deliberately close to the cyclist. There's no valid reason a normal or competent driver would drive this close to a cyclist. The direction of the car itself is quite accurate in the diagram, IMO. The position of the left front wheel is interesting in the picture.

Also interesting is that the pedestrian in the bottom left of the second picture has turned round. It may be coincidence but it is more likely, given the brake lights and attitude of he car, that the car has braked sharply and he has responded to the sound. This is interesting because this is before the collision. The mirror of the car is about four feet from the handlebars, which is where the cyclist claims contact was made.

Still far too close and reckless driving but the car driver clearly understood that he had made a mistake and braked to try and avoid contact.

Yes, that's quite possible. An alternative view would be that the driver braked hard to scare the cyclist, since, IMO, the only two options for his actions are careless or deliberate driving. The braking might thus be to scare the cyclist, or as you say to avoid a collision, except that he did this far too late and far too close to the cyclist, which implies intention to me, not carelessness.

Another point worth mentioning concerning the difference between the cyclists actual position and his position portrayed in the diagram. If the cyclist believed that the correct position to be in was the centre of the lane, why has he shown himself at the extreme left? If the extreme left position shown in the diagram is where the cyclist believed that he actually was on the day then his judgement and recollection are in question.

I agree - the diagram is inaccurate here. Again, I'm not sure it makes any difference as to the culpability of the motorist. I'd also agree that the cyclist should have been much further right in the first photo, to take primary and properly close the door on the lane.

In an email exchange, Jim responded that the taxi might have undertaken him, but I don't think so given the parked car.

I'm not trying to be harsh on the guy, I think he was wronged, but these are the kind of observations and considerations that may well have counted against him in the eyes of those examining the incident. If you try to exaggerate there is always a risk that in the backlash you'll loose more ground than you had to begin with.

I don't see the exaggeration that you're claiming in this specific incident, but if this were a general point I'd completely agree with you.

 

[Mr Pig]

I'm not arguing about whether the car driver acted recklessly. You asked about how I thought the diagram was inaccurate, which it is, and as it is being presented as evidence I think it does matter.

The fact that every inaccuracy in the diagram makes the cyclist look better and the car driver worse casts doubt over the accuracy of all other evidence provided. That's all I'm saying, and you can moan about it until you're blue in the face but it'll still stand.

 

[BentMikey]

Well, I'm not completely disagreeing with the points you raised, but you are trying to present the diagram as significantly different, when it's only slightly different, and not in a way which benefits the cyclist, and it's presented as not to scale anyway, which slaughters your argument.

The important points are that the driver overtook inappropriately, and moved left into the cyclist's path, taking him out. The cyclist's path was straight, parallel to the kerb, and he wasn't doing anything wrong. None of those are changed by the diagram.

 

[Mr Pig]

I don't agree with you Mikey and other people will have to make their own minds up.

We should also remember that none of us have actually seen the video, whilst every person who 'has' seen the video, with the exception of the cyclist concerned, has taken the view that the car driver was not at fault.

From what I've seen it looks to me like the car driver is very much at fault, but considering the bias shown in the diagram I'm not discounting the possibility that this is not as clear cut as one man's side of the story suggests.

Given the vehicle positions in the first still photograph, it is reasonable to assume that the car driver may have hoped that the cyclist would move over to the left and let him pass. There is amble room for him to do so, even without moving into the cycle lane. It is possible that the cyclist moved or wobbled to his left slightly, perhaps unintentionally, giving the car driver the impression that he was moving out of the way.

By the second still the cyclist has regained his line catching the car driver by surprise.

I am not saying that is what happened, I don't know. What I am saying is that given the fact that I do know that the cyclist is prepared to use an inaccurate diagram to try and aid his case I feel compelled to question whether he's happy to do likewise with the still photographs.

My sincere apologies to the guy if that's not the case. As I said, from the evidence I can see it looks to me like he was wronged. However, without seeing the video evidence myself I'm not going to get too dogmatic about it. One man's side of the story is just that. There is a possibility that the people who have seen the video have decided that the car driver doesn't have a case to answer, because he doesn't.