'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane

[Origamist]

Worrying:

'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/77/article16.html

 

[wafflycat]

Smacks of the attitude of Telford plod in the Cadden case: know nothing about cycling and heaven forbid if you are deigned to be 'holding up' motorised transport.

 

[John the Monkey]

It's an entrenched attitude in drivers, even "professional" drivers too.

It's the reason I use the slow, and inconvenient path through Whitworth Park rather than the road on my way to work these days.

 

[spindrift]

Beyond belief, a worrying precedent.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

That's unbelievable. Presented with the facts, clear CCTV and the "rulebook" they still come to the conclusion that the cyclist was wrong.

Muppets.

 

[wafflycat]

I think there's an arrogance, a reluctance to say 'ok, we got it wrong' by 'the powers that be' on too many an occasion. Having worked for a plod force, many, many years ago admittedly, in a civilian capacity, I came across the arrogance of too many of the uniformed lot on a daily basis. Got to remember that a job which wields power will attract its share of folk that like having power and making sure others know about it.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

A few letters to MP’s might be in order.

The result that can be drawn from this incident is that in the eyes of the police, it is perfectly acceptable to run someone over on purpose if you feel they are in the wrong road position – a very worrying precedent.
Letter being penned to my two local MP’s in a moment : Richmond, where I work – Susan Kramer (LibDem) and Twickenham, where I live – Vince Cable (LibDem). I wrote to them both when the proposal for the new HC was to stipulate that cyclists MUST use facilities if provided – and received favourable responses from them both.

 

[domtyler]

Beyond belief, a worrying precedent.

Beyond belief? Hardly.
Worrying? Definitely.
A Precedent? Definitely not I'm afraid.

 

[spindrift]

I think a precedent has neen established that the cops won't investigate cars driving into cyclists if a cycle lane exists, even a stupid cycle lane like the one in this example.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Dear Vincent Cable MP

I have previously written to you, and Susan Kramer MP, with some concerns regarding proposed changes to the Highway Code and cyclists. This was when wording was going to be changed to insist that cyclists MUST use cycling facilities where provided if at all possible, as opposed to using them if practical. I received favourable replies from you both on this matter and thankfully parliament chose not to make the changes that I, and many other cyclists, objected to.

It has since come to my attention that, in a case where a cyclist was deliberately run into by a car, the police decided that, because the cyclist was not using the cycling facilities provided, it was the cyclists fault that they were run over (by a car overtaking at a pinch point). Details of the case are below.

Although this case occurred in Cambridge, I am very worried that it will set a precedent throughout the country and feel that it is indicative of a misconception amongst motorists, and more worryingly, the police, that cyclists have no right to cycle on the road when facilities (that in many cases are inadequate) are provided.

I live in Twickenham, work in Richmond and commute most of the time by bike. I have had occasional, similar occurrences of drivers driving at me or shouting at me for cycling on the road, and received a similar “well, you weren’t using the cycle path” attitude from the local police.

As MP’s for a party that has been pro environment and pro cycling far longer than many other parties, I was hoping that you could in some way help to raise this issue in order to change attitudes towards cyclists using the roads by drivers and the police.

 

[Night Train]

To me it seems a clear cut, and simple, case of one road user overtaking another when the road ahead was not clear. It should lead to driving without due care and attention at least.
Can't see why the Police couldn't/wouldn't see that.

 

[Riding in Circles]

The CCTV operator seems to think that the appropriate response was to ram the cyclist rather than to slow down, what a dork.

 

[Nigeyy]

Being devil's advocate here...... Let's say he was being inconsiderate -cycling too far out, just for sake of argument.

If his claims are correct that he maintained a predictable line, I find it mind blowing that the police seem to think it's OK to make contact with someone simply because they are in (what they deem) the incorrect place with an apparently reasonable line of vision.

Also, is it just me, or is no one picking up on the parked car in the loading area? Surely he (the cyclist) maintains a proper position to get by this parked car and from the distance looks like the the *absolute* correct thing to do IS to maintain a predictable line?

Bah! to the police on this one. Their response is idiotic.

 

[Bollo]

Bah! to the police on this one. Their response is idiotic.

...but typical. Despite filming my own accident where the driver was easily guilty of careless driving, the police showed no interest in the footage. The plod attending was nice enough but his attitude was one of 'what d'ya expect? You're riding a bike on the road. On.....the.....road......for.......cars'. I know its not going to be a popular comparison, but it reminded me of those rape cases where the woman is 'responsible' because she was wearing a skirt above her knees.

I've never talked about this aspect of my accident before, but I'm in a belligerent old moody today. The attitude that really shocked me came from one of the attending paramedics. I'm sat in the back of the ambulance thanking by stars I was still alive with bloody knees, a smacked jaw and a wrenched shoulder and his first question - "why weren't you wearing a helmet?". He then huffed and puffed in the driver's seat while the junior medic looked me over. Sorry for keeping him from his tea. I was sore and clearly suffering from shock (my usually tidy blood pressure was sky high) but he refused to take me to the hospital. He clearly considered that anyone who cycled, especially without a helmet "deserved what they got." Try explaining risk compensation when you're shaking like Oliver Read on 'After Dark'.

The most surreal moment was when the paramedics kicked me out of the back of the ambulance and the plod took off, probably to mop up some tw@t-induced pileup on the M3 - who offers me a lift? Only the chap who just smacked into me.

 

[Night Train]

Being devil's advocate here...... Let's say he was being inconsiderate -cycling too far out, just for sake of argument.

If his claims are correct that he maintained a predictable line, I find it mind blowing that the police seem to think it's OK to make contact with someone simply because they are in (what they deem) the incorrect place with an apparently reasonable line of vision.

Also, is it just me, or is no one picking up on the parked car in the loading area? Surely he (the cyclist) maintains a proper position to get by this parked car and from the distance looks like the the *absolute* correct thing to do IS to maintain a predictable line?

Bah! to the police on this one. Their response is idiotic.

I noticed all this which is why I used the term road user in my post. It shouldn't have made any difference what the vehicles were in this case. The overtaking driver was clearly wrong.