'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane

[Bollo]

A liberal writes....

I get frustrated that some of the advice in Cyclecraft is necessary as, in an ideal world, the mind-games and defensive tactics J F advocates would not be necessary. But I think most on here would agree that the bulk of the advice contained in Cyclecraft is reasonable and at the very least, makes you think about how you cycle and interact with other traffic. There's even the odd bit in there that I disagree with, but the point is its I've had to reason out why I disagree with it.

But....

I kind of get where D Goat is coming from, Cyclecraft is often treated as a holy text on this forum.

Having said that....

Like some other posts, I'm not into blaming the victim at all. The bike chap referenced in the OP should not be criticised for what amounts to assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[srw]

ALike some other posts, I'm not into blaming the victim at all. The bike chap referenced in the OP should not be criticised for what amounts to assault with a deadly weapon.

It's only assault if it's deliberate. From the CCTV stills that's not at all obvious. The guy wasn't mown down, he was clipped. Despite the tendentious sketch of the road positions (which understates the cyclist's distance from the kerb, doesn't show the "other" cyclist and pretends that the car was pointing at the pavement - it wasn't - it was parallel) I find it difficult to project from the second still to a position where a collision can have occurred.

 

[jezhiggins]

I find it difficult to project from the second still to a position where a collision can have occurred.

Then look at it again.

Regardless of the position of the cyclists and the line they took, there is simply no way the taxi can hope to overtake before the island in the middle of the road. There just isn't room, plus there's an oncoming car. Given the distance of travel between the two photos, he clearly didn't even attempt to overtake. To my eye, it looked like he may even have moved slightly to the left. He obviously expected both cyclists to dive left into the cycle lane, assuming he was actually paying attention at all. Neither cyclist did dive left. If they were, they would already have done so, because they're far enough past the parked car to do so.

The guy who was hit looks to me to be smack in the middle between the white lane marking the cycle lane and the stripey triangle in the middle of the road. He looks to have held a pretty straight line from his initial position. He might have moved fractionally to the right, but he hasn't madly veered one way or the other. I think his intention is pretty clear.

No matter how you try and slice it, the cyclist was driven into, either through carelessness or incompetence. I'm not arguing, necessarily, that a crime has been committed, but the suggestion that the cyclist "hemmed in" the taxi thus forcing the collosion is nonsense.

 

[Disgruntled Goat]

There was ample room and time for the cyclist to move left and allow the car to pass. By chanting the cycle craft mantra he found himself in a vulnerable situation. The taxi driver was in the wrong but a sense of rightious indignation will heal far faster than a broken leg.

 

[Nigeyy]

I do see dg's point -though I've not read Cycle Craft (and from the points on the discussion board) it seems it does advocate behaviour that at times can be questionable. Having said that, the key words are "at times" -I'd like to bet Cycle Craft is better for probabilities of avoiding accidents than not following its ideas.

 

[srw]

Then look at it again.

Regardless of the position of the cyclists and the line they took, there is simply no way the taxi can hope to overtake before the island in the middle of the road. There just isn't room, plus there's an oncoming car.

No, but the cyclist is clearly (if only by an inch or so) to the left of the car. The front of the car is level with the cyclist. The car has driven straight under (probaly quite sharp) braking. The car will not go any further to the left.

This should have been a near miss and dented pride at worst.

 

[wafflycat]

I do see dg's point -though I've not read Cycle Craft (and from the points on the discussion board) it seems it does advocate behaviour that at times can be questionable. Having said that, the key words are "at times" -I'd like to bet Cycle Craft is better for probabilities of avoiding accidents than not following its ideas.

That's about it. It is good stuff. It's also following the standards of the National Cycle Training Scheme. So if you were new to cycling and went out and got yourself some training from a properly accredited trainer, it's the skills described in Cyclecraft that you'd be taught.

 

[jezhiggins]

Then look at it again.

Regardless of the position of the cyclists and the line they took, there is simply no way the taxi can hope to overtake before the island in the middle of the road. There just isn't room, plus there's an oncoming car.

No, but the cyclist is clearly (if only by an inch or so) to the left of the car. The front of the car is level with the cyclist. The car has driven straight under (probaly quite sharp) braking. The car will not go any further to the left.

This should have been a near miss and dented pride at worst.

The car shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. The fact that he was braking hard, and it certainly looks pretty hard in the picture, shows that the driver had misjudged the situation. He expected the bike to move out of the way, and it didn't.

I don't believe the cyclist maintained his position out of bloody-mindedness, but because he thought what he was doing was plain and obvious. Had he checked over his shoulder, I imagine he would have taken avoiding action. He might be faulted for that, but I expect most of us don't routinely check when we aren't making a manoeuvre.

When someone is driven into from behind, you'd have to have a pretty exceptional set of circumstances for the blame to fall on the them. This isn't one of them.

 

[BentMikey]

I see a few people here and elsewhere trying to say the cyclist moved right, or was overtaking the other cyclist. This is not supported by the CCTV photos, and is not supported in comments from Jim Chisholm either.

On the other hand you can see the taxi driver moving left in the photos, so it's clear that the taxi driver was purely to blame for the collision. No legal or moral fault can be attributed to the cyclist.

In fairness, though, if it were me riding that road, I would have been further out in the lane. I wouldn't have ridden that cycle lane either, as I think it's more dangerous and more likely to cause an accident, lunatic taxi driver overtakes notwithstanding. I don't think an undertake attempt would be likely given the parked car just before the farcility.

 

[BentMikey]

p.s. I think there's some of the worst kind of victim blaming going on here. Go read the overtaking rules in the highway code please, and you'll see you're utterly utterly wrong. Shameful.

 

[Nerazzurri]

I cannot believe there's people here trying to lay some responsibility on the cyclist. Firstly, although the cyclist isn't required to use the cycle lane anyway, what a bloody crap cycle lane; it's got to be a sick joke by some planner? Secondly, and IMO conclusively, if you think the cyclist is in any way responsible, check out your highway code (you have one, right? or you've at least read one in the past?) parts 63, 147, 153, 162, 163, 167 and 212.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

The cyclist overtook the parked car too close. He then didn't signal his intentions clearly to the driver. Was he trying to overtake the other rider? Turn right? I'd expect a hand-signal at least...

Hmmm, not sure what the hand signal is for going straight ahead on the road I'm on at the moment... please enlighten me.

I agree that it's not clear whether th cyclist even looked over his shoulder (there's no mention of it) and the stills from the CCTV show him in one position and then further out into the lane on the next one.... but regardless of this, the taxi should have seen the pinch point and realised that the cyclist is heading to there too and that there's no room to overtake.

Crap driver, simple as.

 

[srw]

Crap driving, crap cycling, crap CCTV managing, crap policing. Crap all round, really.

Whatever the highway code says, if you know there's someone behind you doing something silly you take mitigating action. And if you don't know there's someone behind you doing something silly you shouldn't be on the road.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

... but it's okay for them to be doing something silly in the first place?

 

[srw]

First two words I wrote:

"CRAP DRIVING".

Does that answer your question?