And another off.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Pete Owens
Posts: 1583
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: And another off.

Postby Pete Owens » 4 Nov 2019, 5:11pm

kwackers wrote:So I've heard back from the plods.

Their interpretation of the video is that the driver performed an overtake giving me plenty of room and then I accelerated into her blind spot...


You really do need to make an official complaint about this as that is so obviously not what happened from even the most cursory viewing of the video. And this is the second different contradictory account offered by the plod concerned. These are not interpretations but lies.

landsurfer
Posts: 5027
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: And another off.

Postby landsurfer » 4 Nov 2019, 8:16pm

Pete Owens wrote:
kwackers wrote:So I've heard back from the plods.

Their interpretation of the video is that the driver performed an overtake giving me plenty of room and then I accelerated into her blind spot...


You really do need to make an official complaint about this as that is so obviously not what happened from even the most cursory viewing of the video. And this is the second different contradictory account offered by the plod concerned. These are not interpretations but lies.


So a third party interpretation of the video would be good ... maybe the CTC / CUK Legal department could give their considered judgement.
If they agree with you a case to proceed would be expected, if they agree with the Police then accept that opinion and consider your riding style.
Positive result both ways ..
It's just like that, it's just the way it is.
The road goes on forever.

kwackers
Posts: 13801
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: And another off.

Postby kwackers » 5 Nov 2019, 9:05am

landsurfer wrote:So a third party interpretation of the video would be good ... maybe the CTC / CUK Legal department could give their considered judgement.
If they agree with you a case to proceed would be expected, if they agree with the Police then accept that opinion and consider your riding style.
Positive result both ways ..

My main question about the police view is "what constitutes an overtake"?

We can argue about the initial space she left because that's difficult to work out from the camera footage but what we can work out is whether she actually passed and the maths agrees with me.
The Fly12 camera has a 135 degree FOV, her car is 4m long.
Her so called overtake (just before I'm supposedly undertaking again) isn't visible on the camera, in order for that to be true some basic trig says she needs to have left a minimum of 10m when overtaking - now I'm pretty certain she didn't because that would put her in the opposite lane and conflicting with on coming traffic plus.
That 10m assumes her back end is exactly level with the camera which excluded my front wheel and any extra space - add 2m as a bare minimum there and she'd need to be 15m over which would have put her in the gardens of the adjacent properties.

A quick experiment I did suggests I was around 2 meters (worst case 3) behind the Audi so she never had the space to begin the overtake anyway.

Which all brings me back to my initial point - what constitutes an overtake?
To me it's a complete manoeuvre, pull out, pass, pull in. Most definitely it isn't pull out and pull alongside and then assume the vehicle to your side is going to make itself scarce.

Unless I've misinterpreted the plod's email they've simply assumed she pulled past me into the available space and then I sped up.
My video simply shows my keeping pace with the Audi so how is that speeding up?

All in all their interpretation is poor at the least and given the circumstances quite suspect.
Apart from her being an ex-plod they'd also have to admit they were wrong - which they should have done anyway since even if their interpretation was correct how do they explain not taking a statement nor viewing my footage and basing their decision not to do anything entirely on the drivers view of what occurred?

Nah, the whole thing stinks. I expected better in particular I expected some evidence of impartiality and an iota of common sense not a fairy tale that can't possibly match the evidence.

Of course if an overtake is defined as simply getting your bonnet in front of the other vehicle then all bets are off.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10741
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: And another off.

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 5 Nov 2019, 6:30pm

Hi,
reohn2 wrote:On who's onus is it when overtaking to do it safely and without danger to other road users?
Should you overtake at a junction?
Should you change lanes at a junction in the manner the driver did in this case?
Why was the cyclist in the wrong according to some posters on this thread?

IMO I can't see how Kwackers did anything wrong and taking the lane/ riding in primary road position is something I do all the time in situations such as this.
IMO this was clearly a case of a motorist bullying a 'lesser' being on the road and due to the lack of decent policing this driver will feel justified in their actions.
So to those people that are,
STOP VICTIM BLAIMING,
STOP BLAIMING THE CYCLIST FOR USING A CAMERA,
PUT THE BLAIM WHERE IT BELONGS.
Sheesh this place is becoming more like a petrolhead's cycle haters fest!


Mad bananas!
I agree with everything R2 Has said.
I come late to this post but I did watch the video not necessarily listening to the sounds.
The car made several attempts to overtake them without overtaking cleanly, and way way too close to, endangered the Vulnerable cyclist.
Whoops!, I haven't finished yet and I've posted.
If that was me I'll be seeing red.
Ad said police are bloody useless.
Unless it's one of their own.
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10741
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: And another off.

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 5 Nov 2019, 6:36pm

Hi,
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.

Quite
Driver is wrong on so many levels.
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10741
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: And another off.

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 5 Nov 2019, 6:50pm

Hi,
cycle tramp wrote:H'mmm.... it does sound like the next step is to raise it as a complaint against the police.
Having viewed the video, i can't see any evidence of any increase of speed on your part... and I'm troubled by the fact that it's only one officers' view.

...perhaps the driver is the wife of prominent Mason?.....

Ouch....... but you don't really need to be related.
Police and Masons go well together.
And before anyone comments on that, I have a Masons as brothers I have Masons as Father in laws, I also have police as in laws.

How to spot a mason, They raise both hands in the air and wave them especially when they're stressed.
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
Pastychomper
Posts: 315
Joined: 14 Nov 2017, 11:14am
Location: Caithness

Re: And another off.

Postby Pastychomper » 6 Nov 2019, 10:35am

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:How to spot a mason, They raise both hands in the air and wave them especially when they're stressed.


I remember that as something Beano characters did (do?), especially softies who were being menaced. Is there more than meets the eye to D.C. Thomson? :shock:
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then.
--Ole Boot

kwackers
Posts: 13801
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: And another off.

Postby kwackers » 26 Nov 2019, 4:56pm

Probably the final update since the rest looks like dotting i's etc.

So unsurprisingly the drivers insurance have "agreed to proceed with my claim" so it's all about arguing numbers now apparently.

I'm fairly pleased because if nothing else it means despite all her protestations about being nowhere near me, that I'm out for her money and that she's go no intentions of paying for anything it looks as though she will.
So apart from having to fork out her excess she'll have to spend the next several renewals spelling out the accident on her insurance renewals which if the measure I got of her after the accident is anything to go by will grate enormously and if we're lucky she'll be just a bit more careful around cyclists in future.

Not decided what to do about the police yet, I'm still minded to escalate my complaint particularly now her insurance has agreed she was at fault.

But there's a lesson in there.
Without the camera's I'd have had a fair old struggle getting any resolution, whilst she had a dash cam (which I haven't seen) it's possible it doesn't show anything other than her moving past me and the police's view that her having left plenty of space after which I'd then undertaken her may well have been taken seriously.
Cameras are cheap, in this incident alone it looks as if they'll have paid for themselves many times over.
Sad that we need them but...

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9746
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: And another off.

Postby horizon » 26 Nov 2019, 5:05pm

Everytime a cyclist carries a camera, it means I don't have to as motorists don't know who does and who doesn't. So please excuse my lack of technical know-how and a huge thanks to those who take the time, trouble and expense to install a camera - you are making the roads a bit safer for all of us.

And well done kwackers for what looks like a reasonable result. :)
Let's just get Brexit done so that we can get on with the important job of re-joining the EU!

reohn2
Posts: 36669
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: And another off.

Postby reohn2 » 26 Nov 2019, 5:24pm

Glad you're finally getting some sort of a result out of the case And some recompense for this moron's dangerous driving.
I'd definitely follow things up with the police as it's obvious there's something dodgy going on.

As an aside what kind of cameras do you use?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

slowster
Posts: 1017
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: And another off.

Postby slowster » 26 Nov 2019, 5:38pm

I'm glad to hear you have had some positive news.

kwackers wrote:Not decided what to do about the police yet, I'm still minded to escalate my complaint particularly now her insurance has agreed she was at fault.

The fact that someone may be legally liable under civil law for damage or injury caused by driving a car does not automatically mean they must have comitted a criminal offence. However, in your case the fact that her own insurers consider that she was to blame, and moreover have not sought to reduce the amount they offer to you on the grounds of any contributory negligence, demonstrates that they do not think you were even partly at fault, i.e. they implicitly do not agree with the police 'interpretation' of the video that you accelerated into her blind spot and thereby were partly at fault.

Before pursuing that line of argument with the police or PCC, I would suggest that you wait until the insurers have actually paid out, lest she try to persuade the insurers to withdraw their offer (very unlikely, but it may be best to wait until you've got the money in your hands).

reohn2
Posts: 36669
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: And another off.

Postby reohn2 » 26 Nov 2019, 6:36pm

slowster wrote:......?Before pursuing that line of argument with the police or PCC, I would suggest that you wait until the insurers have actually paid out, lest she try to persuade the insurers to withdraw their offer (very unlikely, but it may be best to wait until you've got the money in your hands).

I'd say that's good advise :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

kwackers
Posts: 13801
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: And another off.

Postby kwackers » 26 Nov 2019, 8:10pm

reohn2 wrote:As an aside what kind of cameras do you use?

Fly6 rear and Fly12 front.
Not the cheapest (being lazy I like that the lights are integral) but tbh even the dirt cheap eBay style cameras would do for this sort of thing.
I would advise having both front and rear though. My experience is that a lot of the time one camera only tells half the story, together they're gospel.
(In this case the rear camera actually shows her making contact, something the front never did)

reohn2
Posts: 36669
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: And another off.

Postby reohn2 » 26 Nov 2019, 8:31pm

kwackers wrote:
reohn2 wrote:As an aside what kind of cameras do you use?

Fly6 rear and Fly12 front.
Not the cheapest (being lazy I like that the lights are integral) but tbh even the dirt cheap eBay style cameras would do for this sort of thing.
I would advise having both front and rear though. My experience is that a lot of the time one camera only tells half the story, together they're gospel.
(In this case the rear camera actually shows her making contact, something the front never did)

Thanks Steve good luck with the claim.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

hemo
Posts: 541
Joined: 16 Nov 2017, 5:40pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: And another off.

Postby hemo » 26 Nov 2019, 8:48pm

Great stuff Kwackers and kudos for persevering.
Moton's hit in the pocket via insurance premiuim rises from claims is likely the only thing (apart from porridge times) that may deter them and to mend their ways.
Also the insurance company may have agreed to pay out esp if the insured has not contacted them, so they may refuse to insure her and a black mark goes against here record and will show up on the data held for her.