Cycling UK Forum

Si wrote:

Why the need to get him charged?

Perhaps if people know that they are likely to get charged for offences then maybe they would be less likely to commit them in the first place, whether they are deliberate or caused due to a lack of care.

Surely in these cases, the bigger deterrent against commiting an offence isn't a heightened risk of being prosecuted, it's the possibility that you could knock someone off and kill them. If so and you still drive without care or without reason then the bigger likelyhood of being charged probably won't enter the drivers head anyway.

Mister Loco wrote: I was up against the left-hand kerb.

I think you need a little bit of training as well as the driver. Not being "up against the kerb" when turning left is one first things that is taught in Level 2 Bikeability for precisely the reason you have unfortunately discovered. If you had taken a more assertive position the driver would not have been able to pull along side you and you would both have turned safely. Hopefully a lesson learned for both of you.

Point taken about road positioning. In my defence, when I reached the give-way point, there wasn't anything coming up behind me - I checked. If there had been, I would have positioned myself more centrally as you sensibly suggest. The heavy traffic on the main road caused me more delay than I anticipated and, in the interim, the car pulled up alongside of me leaving me badly positioned. Leason learnt though!

Hope you are ok Mr. Loco, but get those injuries recorded on some form of medical review, A+E or your local doc.
My recent boney injuries have healed but I am having some fairly nasty on-going consequences of the non-boney ones, ie soft tissue damage.
Get the photos taken as well.

Mister Loco

On the assumption that this happened because the driver was not looking carefully, nobody can be sure this would have been much different wherever you had been on the carriageway. Had you been riding primary, it's not impossible that - on this occasion - you would have been hit directly from behind. I'd suggest there's a big difference between this doing something palpably wrong, like clowning about, or illegal.

bensonboo wrote:

Si wrote:

Why the need to get him charged?

Perhaps if people know that they are likely to get charged for offences then maybe they would be less likely to commit them in the first place, whether they are deliberate or caused due to a lack of care.

Surely in these cases, the bigger deterrent against commiting an offence isn't a heightened risk of being prosecuted, it's the possibility that you could knock someone off and kill them. If so and you still drive without care or without reason then the bigger likelyhood of being charged probably won't enter the drivers head anyway.

why not have both deterrents and give us twice the chance of not being run down?

bensonboo wrote:Why the need to get him charged? I can't understand why we need to go as far as people do in cases such as this, as long as I had assurances I wouldn't be out of pocket I'd leave it at that. ...

If somebody prefers not to report something like this to the police that's fair enough. It's also better IMO to take the decision at the outset, rather than do what some people do which is to blow hot then cold. People who get cold feet at the thought of going through with something like this can waste everybody's time. Another problem is, what happens if the assurances that you wouldn't be out of pocket fall through? There's also a feeling that somebody indemnified from their own bad driving by insurance may never feel the need to consider others.

The overriding point is that the two sides of this are separate, though intertwined. Prosecution is about punishment by the state, compo is about ensuring that the person on the receiving end of the bad driving is financially no worse off than they were before.

Funny thing is my accident has made me much more aware when I am driving my car.... I always thought I was pretty aware of a cyclists needs when meeting one on the road, being one myself and all, but I now find myself actively looking out for them and other potential road hazzards as opposed to going into auto-pilot, the all too easy thing that we motorists can do on familiar journeys.
I think hitting people where it hurts ie in fines, compensation and higher insurance premiums and a real chance of being prossecuted would go some way to making people more careful but judges need to stop handing out such paultry fines. Motorists really need to be hit hard if they knock a person off their bike .... its the only way!

mr_cellophane wrote:

Mister Loco wrote: I was up against the left-hand kerb.

I think you need a little bit of training as well as the driver. Not being "up against the kerb" when turning left is one first things that is taught in Level 2 Bikeability for precisely the reason you have unfortunately discovered. If you had taken a more assertive position the driver would not have been able to pull along side you and you would both have turned safely. Hopefully a lesson learned for both of you.

Poor bloke's been knocked off last thing he needs is this sort of criticism imho, at this stage.

Would it have made a difference, so easy to look back when not there and offer advice.

I have a roundabout I have to frequently negotiate. Entry road that I use widens to 2 lanes; left lane is marked for turning left traffic and straight on (my route), right lane for right turners.
It does not matter where i position myself in the left of the 2 lanes, some tw*t always has to pass me in the right lane and turn left across me.
The other day I was 3/4's of the way out in this left lane and still some idiot did the above maneouvre!
Not particularly amusing as I was recently the victim of a left turning car driver!

I agree with previous posts which recommend that a tougher line should be taken with careless driving and the onus should be on the driver to exercise high levels of care and diligence especially when in the proximity of cyclists.
I also agree with the comment that motorists who are also cyclists are likely to be more aware of the vulnerabilities of cyclists.
However I am of the view that it often takes 2 or more to make an accident. The driver in this case has been righly criticised and in all fairness if the cyclist potentially contributed to the accident then this should be pointed out as well.
As far as I can see in this case the accident might have been avoided if the cyclist had made his presence and intentions more aware to the motorist.
I'm not suggesting that I get it right every time - like any other cyclist and indeed motorist - my next ride or drive could be my last.
In a situation like this when turning left I make eye contact with the motorist and sometimes wave to them to make sure they have seen me.
If they come up quickly alongside me and I'm concerned that they could cut me up, I drop back and let them go ahead. In other words I ride defensively.
Hope you get better soon.
jonty

I think some confusion is creeping in. There's a big difference IMO between contributing to a collision in a stupid or reckless way, and somebody feeling able, with hindsight, to say that this or that might in general have led to a different outcome. Apart from anything else, this forum an others are full of examples where cyclists have been 'involved in a collision' in spite of taking every prescribed bit of safety advice, bar staying at home in bed.

thirdcrank wrote: Apart from anything else, this forum an others are full of examples where cyclists have been 'involved in a collision' in spite of taking every prescribed bit of safety advice, bar staying at home in bed.

I am sure no one would dispute that. There must be lots of accidents, some of them serious, where the cyclist has acted safely and properly and the other party has been totally at fault.
jonty

I hold that it is self evident that professional drivers (i.e. people who make their living behind the wheel) should be held to a higher standard.

So if a cyclist is involved in an accident whilst performing his job, e.g. messenger, postman, etc then he/she should be held liable if the other party is a non professional car driver?

beetroot wrote:I hold that it is self evident that professional drivers (i.e. people who make their living behind the wheel) should be held to a higher standard. ...

That may be 'self-evident' but the law in respect of careless driving etc., requires the same standard of all drivers (including provisional licence holders.)

beetroot wrote:I hold that it is self evident that professional drivers (i.e. people who make their living behind the wheel) should be held to a higher standard.

So if a cyclist is involved in an accident whilst performing his job, e.g. messenger, postman, etc then he/she should be held liable if the other party is a non professional car driver?

That's why I added a clatification under that sentence.

The higher standard is "you don't get to accumulate 12 points on a taxi drivers license, you lose the right to drive a taxi after 6"
"You don't get allowed points on an HGV license at all"

That kind of higher standard...

Earlier I wrote:The highest numbered vehicle in any incident is assumed to be liable unless they can prove otherwise.

I hold that it is self evident that professional drivers (i.e. people who make their living behind the wheel) should be held to a higher standard. Those teaching the next generation of driver should be held to the highest standard of all.
Note that this is ambiguous and could imply that normal drivers should be held to a lower standard wrt prosecution - It ought to be read as "normal" drivers get a ban/retest after n points, professional driver after a smaller number and instructors after even fewer.

So in answer to your question - no the car driver would still be liable (unless they can prove otherwise), but they wouldn't lose their license as a result of a "one point" collision. And HGV driver would etc...