'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane

[Sh4rkyBloke]

...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.

There is also the possibility that none of the people who have seen the video are cyclists, and thus side with the driver as it's exactly what they would have done... but I see your point, it is difficult to tell from stills exactly what has happened.

That being said though, whatever happened there was still no room for the driver to perform a safe overtake, he should have hung back.

 

[mr_cellophane]

Although not easy to see, it looks as though he is further out relative to the front cyclist and is dropping behind him.
Notice also, that the pedestrian is looking over his shoulder at the incident.

And the forward cyclist is not using the cycle lane and it would appear from comparing positions, that the taxi would have arrived at the pinch point at the same time as him.

 

[Twiggy]

Good point Mr Cellophone,

Even if the first cyclist dived into the cycle lane the lead cyclist would have still been in the pinch point as the taxi passed.

There's no two ways about it, the pinch point had vehicles in it and the taxi tried to overtake through the pinch point, utterly unsafe.

 

[rootes]

I have used that junction - it is a bit crap as if you do use the cycle lane you end up coming back out in the path of the traffic - usually a taxi or bus..

irrespective as to whether the car driver is at fault - def driving without care
- the cyclist hit states that he did not deviate from his course... but he does as he is overtaking the cyclist in front of him - the overtaken cyclist is partially obscured in the second shot by the lampost.

His 'not to scale' (clearly!) diagram also does not show the position of the other cyclist.. let alone the positional inaccuracies

def a case of present a case from you own point of view..

looks to be a confusing situation all round - and in all the taxi driving was driving like a div.. should of perhaps allowed for the fact that once cyclist was travelling faster and would be likely to overtake.

 

[Nerazzurri]

However, I have to admit that were I riding that road in that situation I would not have been where he was. The fact that he was in the middle of the road and still was only hit by the car's mirror suggests that had he been over to the left the car could've passed easily.

If the road continued in the same manner as when the contact took place, yes.

But wouldn't you agree that it narrows considerably a short distance in front?

I would say it does and, IMHO, if the cyclist had been further left (as you suggest) the point of contact would just have been a few metres up the road instead of where it happened - unless of course the cyclist brakes; the common sense thing to do, but they shouldn't have to.

All just my opinion of course.

 

[BentMikey]

- the cyclist hit states that he did not deviate from his course... but he does as he is overtaking the cyclist in front of him - the overtaken cyclist is partially obscured in the second shot by the lampost.

There is no overtake - the relative positions of the cyclists don't change much. If anything, Jim Chisholm is slightly further back from the other cyclist in the second photo.

There is no course deviation - line up the cyclist's position relative to the loading bay lines. Then line up his position to the right turn arrow. No change, the cyclist stays parallel to the lines and the kerb.

Then compare with the taxi - which clearly moves left.

 

[srw]

There is also the possibility that none of the people who have seen the video are cyclists, and thus side with the driver as it's exactly what they would have done... but I see your point, it is difficult to tell from stills exactly what has happened.

There is also the possibility that all of the people who are commenting on this thread on the basis of one side of the argument presented in a misleading way are cyclists, and thus automatically assume he has done no wrong.

I stand by what I said earlier - as far as I can tell on the basis of two poor-quality stills, one of them heavily cropped and enlarged, the driver is being a plonker but not moving in. The cyclist is also being a plonker and not moving. The sketch is a poor representation of the photos, for all the reasons Mr Pig states, and the cyclist (who is, remember, a leading member of a campaign organisation) is doing himself and his organisation no favours at all by putting up the information on that organisation's website.

But then I could be totally wrong.

 

[rootes]

if the cyclist had stayed on the same line he would have hit/glanced the cyclist in front of him... it to me does look like one cyclist was pulling out to overtake the other..

just my opinion... it does always seem that no matter what cyclists do they are always in the right... I clipped a taxi yesterday - first time ever - but I stopped and spoke to the taxi driver and apologised - he was cool plus no damage done (apart from my pride)

irrespective though the taxi is clearly at fault for trying to make a gap that was getting smaller - clear case of needing to cycle quicker as well.

this is the issue with all this traffic calming - it makes people have to go in and out and causes pinch points


looks like just one of those things that happens... no harm done in the grad scheme of things

 

[BentMikey]

if the cyclist had stayed on the same line he would have hit/glanced the cyclist in front of him... it to me does look like one cyclist was pulling out to overtake the other..

just my opinion...

irrespective though the taxi is clearly at fault - clear case of needing to cycle quicker as well

Come on, rootes, look at the markings and the relative position - that's clearly not possible. The other cyclist is ahead of JC in the first photo, and slightly further left. In the second photo, the other cyclist is slightly further ahead still, and still the same amount left. How would JC have hit the other cyclist or overtaken him when he's slightly slower than the other cyclist?

It's also clear JC doesn't alter his line at all, he's aligned with the loading bay markings the same way in both photos. Quite a few people have thought the cyclist moved out, but I think that's because the second picture is zoomed. Look at the markings for an accurate view.

As for comments that I'm a biased cyclist, well, it's possible, but I'm also a driver, and I don't think I'm ignoring the cyclist's riding faults at all. I was one of the first out of these two most recent topics to comment that he should either have ridden fully submissively in the cycle lane, or been further out to the right and properly owned the lane. I certainly wouldn't have ridden where he does, and I would have looked back too. Neither of those points puts any culpability on JC though, it's the driver that's purely to blame for this very bad overtake and collision. As a cycling instructor, I think of JC's riding as a less than ideal bit of cycling practice, but not actually wrong.

 

[BentMikey]

just my opinion... it does always seem that no matter what cyclists do they are always in the right... I clipped a taxi yesterday - first time ever - but I stopped and spoke to the taxi driver and apologised - he was cool plus no damage done (apart from my pride)

Oh come on, that's not very true at all here. Remember some of the discussion on Magnatom's overtakes and undertakes, and some of my overtakes on video? They are clearly bad practice. No-one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes.

I've posted enough times on here talking about my mistakes - who remembers the Royal Mail lorry that saved my bacon when I did a very dodgy overtake? He was super chuffed when I waved a sorry and thanks.

 

[Mr Pig]

But wouldn't you agree that it narrows considerably a short distance in front?

It looks like it. How narrow it is is hard to tell. Again, without seeing the actual road it's hard to tell. In fact sometimes it can be deceptive even when you do see it!

The road I live on has traffic islands all along the middle of it, maybe about ten of them on a mile-long stretch. The road is dead straight and they were put there to cut down on dangerous overtaking.

If you look at these islands there doesn't look like there is enough room for a large vehicle to pass a bicycle next to one. One day a huge tipper lorry from the quarry passed me at one of these islands! To this day I have no idea how it managed that without hitting me, it simply does not look like there is the room.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

I don't agree that the driver 'moved over'. He is following the centre line and hatched area markings on a perfectly reasonable course through the pinch point. I think it is more meaningful to ask whether the cyclist's line was reasonable. Just from the stills It doesn't look it to me, and the quote from the police report seems to back that up. And remember that this police officer has seen the video, which we have not:

"As the {vehicle} was passing, the cyclist is clearly seen to move further to his offside. There was no apparent reason for this deviation…"

I'd love to be more aggrieved about another poor cyclist being badly treated, I know how crap it is out there in the traffic, but there are just too many ifs and buts on this one.

 

[BentMikey]

It's obvious the taxi moved left - look at how his left wheels line up with the arrow in the first photo, and he's moved left so the middle of his car is now over the right turn arrow by the second photo. He's moving to the left of the lane to line up with the pinch point - look at the cross hatchings. If that's staying in a straight line, let me pass you another special brew.

 

[rootes]

Come on, rootes, look at the markings and the relative position - that's clearly not possible. The other cyclist is ahead of JC in the first photo, and slightly further left. In the second photo, the other cyclist is slightly further ahead still, and still the same amount left. How would JC have hit the other cyclist or overtaken him when he's slightly slower than the other cyclist?

It's also clear JC doesn't alter his line at all, he's aligned with the loading bay markings the same way in both photos. Quite a few people have thought the cyclist moved out, but I think that's because the second picture is zoomed. Look at the markings for an accurate view.

A

BentMikey..

leaving apart the actions of the div in the taxi...

that fact that he does not alter his line is part of the issue... (poor road design causes this)

an extension of the loading bay line is not the demark of the edge of the carriageway... if you extend the loading bay marking it puts you in the middle of the road whereas when you are adjacent to the loading bay you on the side of the road...

In the first picture the cyclists are adjacent to the loading bay and on the left of the road lane - once past the loading bay and by sticking to extension of the loading bay markings they are now in the middle of the road lane... see attachments - note red line

this tallies with my comment about traffic calming measures that cause pinch points require users car, bike what ever to keep changing direction..

 

[Twiggy]

If the images where the same size anyone could just merge them, but the "impact" picture has been zoomed in. It'll take a while to get the scale right, but when I have a merged image I will post it up.

 

[jezhiggins]

It looks like it. How narrow it is is hard to tell. Again, without seeing the actual road it's hard to tell. In fact sometimes it can be deceptive even when you do see it!

View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1brVepdkCew


Video of approach to this pinch point - once from the position of the cyclist, once from the position of the taxi. Pause at about 3 seconds and at about 21 seconds to see more or less what they were seeing in the initial photograph. You can easily fill-in where the cyclists and other traffic were in your mind's eye.