And another off.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Pastychomper
Posts: 308
Joined: 14 Nov 2017, 11:14am
Location: Caithness

Re: And another off.

Postby Pastychomper » 20 Sep 2019, 10:41am

kwackers wrote:... it became obvious when the policeman in question was giving me "advice" whilst I was sat in the ambulance that initially he thought I'd come through the lights from her left!

He was diplomatic but there's no doubt in my mind he thought my road positioning was at least partly to blame and he repeatedly said I should "keep left". I rather got the impression that by saying there'd be no charges he thought he was doing me a favour! I'd have been really interested to have heard the conversation between him and the driver.


Pardon my cynicism, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a direct link between the bits in bold. I don't want to accuse the driver of lying, but it does happen occasionally.
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then.
--Ole Boot

hemo
Posts: 522
Joined: 16 Nov 2017, 5:40pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: And another off.

Postby hemo » 20 Sep 2019, 12:01pm

What ever happen to the highway code surely plod should know some of rules contained in 162 - 167, clearly stating cyclists should be given as much room as when overtaking another vehicle.

User avatar
Spinners
Posts: 1574
Joined: 6 Dec 2008, 6:58pm
Location: Port Talbot

Re: And another off.

Postby Spinners » 20 Sep 2019, 1:32pm

alexnharvey wrote:I would suggest to the PCC that the driver's ex police officer status may have led the police to fail to investigate this matter properly.


Like this.

Also, bumping it up as overlooked by 'spellgate' :wink:
Cycling UK Life Member
PBP Ancien (2007)

Pete Owens
Posts: 1565
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: And another off.

Postby Pete Owens » 20 Sep 2019, 3:36pm

hemo wrote:What ever happen to the highway code surely plod should know some of rules contained in 162 - 167, clearly stating cyclists should be given as much room as when overtaking another vehicle.

The trouble is they are also aware of rule 63 which advises cyclists to keep within the cycle lane.

reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: And another off.

Postby reohn2 » 20 Sep 2019, 4:05pm

Pete Owens wrote:
hemo wrote:What ever happen to the highway code surely plod should know some of rules contained in 162 - 167, clearly stating cyclists should be given as much room as when overtaking another vehicle.

The trouble is they are also aware of rule 63 which advises cyclists to keep within the cycle lane.

There was no cycle lane at point of collision and dangerous manoeuvre,the driver could clearly see the cyclist and decided to bully him out of the way.
TBH,were it me I'd take as far as I could to see the law imposed on such a dangerous driver.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

alexnharvey
Posts: 811
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:39am

Re: And another off.

Postby alexnharvey » 20 Sep 2019, 4:36pm

Pete Owens wrote:
hemo wrote:What ever happen to the highway code surely plod should know some of rules contained in 162 - 167, clearly stating cyclists should be given as much room as when overtaking another vehicle.

The trouble is they are also aware of rule 63 which advises cyclists to keep within the cycle lane.


63 (cycle lanes)
These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see rule 140). When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. Before leaving a cycle lane check that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: And another off.

Postby reohn2 » 20 Sep 2019, 4:42pm

alexnharvey wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:
hemo wrote:What ever happen to the highway code surely plod should know some of rules contained in 162 - 167, clearly stating cyclists should be given as much room as when overtaking another vehicle.

The trouble is they are also aware of rule 63 which advises cyclists to keep within the cycle lane.


63 (cycle lanes)
These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see rule 140). When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. Before leaving a cycle lane check that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

In the video,well before idiot driver arrived on the scene,K was riding in primary(the rear view camera clearly shows this),I suspect in anticipation of the two lane junction up ahead.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

alexnharvey
Posts: 811
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:39am

Re: And another off.

Postby alexnharvey » 20 Sep 2019, 4:47pm

Yes, I would like to clarify that I think it is wrong to argue rule 63 should be applied in this way. I don't think the wording supports Pete Owens suggestion, hence posting the full text for everyone's reference.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1565
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: And another off.

Postby Pete Owens » 20 Sep 2019, 5:00pm

There most certainly was a cycle lane for most of the duration the manoeuvre - even if it had just ended by the time of the collision; the car was actually slightly ahead of the cyclist at the point the lane ended.

As far as the authorities who painted it, the motorist and the police that is where the cyclist should position themselves to keep out of the way of the all important motor traffic. In their world view a cyclist riding outside the lane is obstructing the flow of traffic, deliberately putting themselves in harms way in the process. They would see the cyclist behaviour as lane hogging - in exactly the same way that they would pull over a motorist cruising at 40mph in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.

Note - I most certainly do not endorse this view - I am just explaining why the cycle lane is such bad news from the cyclists perspective.

reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: And another off.

Postby reohn2 » 20 Sep 2019, 5:23pm

Pete Owens wrote:There most certainly was a cycle lane for most of the duration the manoeuvre - even if it had just ended by the time of the collision; the car was actually slightly ahead of the cyclist at the point the lane ended.

As far as the authorities who painted it, the motorist and the police that is where the cyclist should position themselves to keep out of the way of the all important motor traffic. In their world view a cyclist riding outside the lane is obstructing the flow of traffic, deliberately putting themselves in harms way in the process. They would see the cyclist behaviour as lane hogging - in exactly the same way that they would pull over a motorist cruising at 40mph in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.

Note - I most certainly do not endorse this view - I am just explaining why the cycle lane is such bad news from the cyclists perspective.

I take your point but where K stops,in a clearly marked laned junction,there's no room for both bike and car,the driver should have waited until after the junction.
TBH in a court of law I don't think the driver would stand a chance after the court saw at the video footage.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2248
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: And another off.

Postby roubaixtuesday » 20 Sep 2019, 5:31pm

Pete Owens wrote:There most certainly was a cycle lane for most of the duration the manoeuvre - even if it had just ended by the time of the collision; the car was actually slightly ahead of the cyclist at the point the lane ended.

As far as the authorities who painted it, the motorist and the police that is where the cyclist should position themselves to keep out of the way of the all important motor traffic. In their world view a cyclist riding outside the lane is obstructing the flow of traffic, deliberately putting themselves in harms way in the process. They would see the cyclist behaviour as lane hogging - in exactly the same way that they would pull over a motorist cruising at 40mph in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.

Note - I most certainly do not endorse this view - I am just explaining why the cycle lane is such bad news from the cyclists perspective.


Personally I think all cycle lanes as implemented in the UK - those painted by the side of the road - are at best pointless, and almost invariably positively counterproductive.

On wide roads they're unnecessary; on narrow roads they encourage close passes. They're invariably filled with debris, parked cars or overgrown hedges, making them inconvenient or impossible to cycle in, yet should you cycle outside of them you'll be harrassed by self righteous motorists who think you're taking their space.

Get rid.

alexnharvey
Posts: 811
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:39am

Re: And another off.

Postby alexnharvey » 20 Sep 2019, 5:38pm

Pete Owens wrote:There most certainly was a cycle lane for most of the duration the manoeuvre - even if it had just ended by the time of the collision; the car was actually slightly ahead of the cyclist at the point the lane ended.

As far as the authorities who painted it, the motorist and the police that is where the cyclist should position themselves to keep out of the way of the all important motor traffic. In their world view a cyclist riding outside the lane is obstructing the flow of traffic, deliberately putting themselves in harms way in the process. They would see the cyclist behaviour as lane hogging - in exactly the same way that they would pull over a motorist cruising at 40mph in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.

Note - I most certainly do not endorse this view - I am just explaining why the cycle lane is such bad news from the cyclists perspective.


The police might believe that but it is not the law

https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/2007-01- ... s-re-trial

Pete Owens
Posts: 1565
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: And another off.

Postby Pete Owens » 20 Sep 2019, 6:18pm

alexnharvey wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:There most certainly was a cycle lane for most of the duration the manoeuvre - even if it had just ended by the time of the collision; the car was actually slightly ahead of the cyclist at the point the lane ended.

As far as the authorities who painted it, the motorist and the police that is where the cyclist should position themselves to keep out of the way of the all important motor traffic. In their world view a cyclist riding outside the lane is obstructing the flow of traffic, deliberately putting themselves in harms way in the process. They would see the cyclist behaviour as lane hogging - in exactly the same way that they would pull over a motorist cruising at 40mph in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.

Note - I most certainly do not endorse this view - I am just explaining why the cycle lane is such bad news from the cyclists perspective.


The police might believe that but it is not the law

https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/2007-01- ... s-re-trial


It may not be the law - but remember they were not prosecuting the OP just offering advice.

Also the Dan Cadden case might have turned out differently if the "cycle lane" the police had originally requested he used actually been a cycle lane rather than an edge of carriageway marking.

kwackers
Posts: 13754
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: And another off.

Postby kwackers » 20 Sep 2019, 6:20pm

Just to add some information re my use of the cycle lane.

If a cycle lane like that exists I'm happy to use it - although in this case I tend to ride roughly on the white line since otherwise I'd be nearer the kerb than if the lane didn't exist.

The main reason I wasn't in the cycle lane is because I was tailing the Audi, nobody behind me has anywhere to go as evidenced by her initial failed overtake - there simply isn't any room. I can also see further ahead and see all the vehicles in front.

So I know the Audi is about to stop, I can see all the queuing traffic, I also knew the lights were about to change because I'd spotted the tail end of the traffic coming from the left.
I'm also aware that the road is about to split into two lanes (and the cycle lane ends) this means there simply is no longer room for a bike and a car to coexist in the same lane. and subsequently since any car behind won't be able to perform a clean overtake until I've cleared the junction then taking primary usually works really well here.

Last point is I know that traffic through the junction is slow and that I'll have no issues tailing the Audi through the junction without in theory annoying someone behind who see's a huge gap opening up they could be in.

For anyone who's interested (you get a better perspective here than the camera) here's where it happened. I'm looking at the opening into the Chapel house car park where I came off. Obviously I'm travelling to the right through the lights.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3907505,-2.6490198,3a,75y,228.53h,63.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4_sZfArkuD8qLj139ogQtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

landsurfer
Posts: 4996
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: And another off.

Postby landsurfer » 20 Sep 2019, 6:21pm

alexnharvey wrote:

The police might believe that but it is not the law

https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/2007-01- ... s-re-trial


Thats quite a good cycle lane .... not a painted line festooned with dead hedgehogs and tyre debris .... personally i'd have used it ... being squished by an HGV driven by a tired guy from Eastern Europe, while wearing my magic helmet of course ... would not be good ... moral high ground dos'nt work if your remains are only 6mm thick ....

A recent experience .. this is the txt of an e-mail i sent to Gordons Coaches of Rotherham... I didn't get a reply ....


...........................

Good afternoon,

"23rd June 2019.
Approx 0830 hrs.
A631 / Bramley Park / Cross St.

Cyclist.

As I approached the traffic lights in the area of Park Grove / A631 i was overtaken by one of your coaches.
3 axle single decker.
The driver came level with me at approx 1 meter clearance … then pulled the bus into the kerb forcing me towards the kerb and to brake heavily to avoid being hit by the rear wheels.
Without taking sudden avoiding action i believe i would have been seriously injured.
I drove round to the drivers window and was vocal in my comments.
His response was to accuse me of going through the lights at Church Lane on red. He was correct, the lights changed as i went through them.

So … because he believed i had gone through the Church Lane lights on red it was ok to try and knock me off my bike !!!

His behaviour brings Gordons Coaches driving standards into question.
It may be that your drivers need training in passing cyclists, i believe this is available from South Yorkshire Police as part of their Cycle Safety initiative.

I welcome your comments."

I braked to avoid injury, i have a duty of care to myself ... and a wife and 3 young children .... :)
"He was in the right" will not be on my headstone ... i will take every possible action to keep myself safe ... I will not pursue my rights and end up hurt ... and i do not believe the OP did either ....
It's just like that, it's just the way it is.
The road goes on forever.