Cycling UK Forum

Not quite sure if this is the right place to post, but I recently met someone in Oxford who had been cycling through a large roundabout when he was hit from the side/behind by a motorist failing to see him or allow him to exit from the roundabout. He is a tall, well-built experienced cyclist who was cycling in the primary position. He suffered some leg injuries, the police were involved but it took them three weeks to contact any witnesses and in fact, he discovered they were not going to pursue the case because of contributory factors. What were these? That he had not been wearing a helmet or hi-vis. He is not a CTC member and is pursuing the driver through the courts using the solicitors, Marshall and Galpin who he says have experience of cases like this.

What I wondered was whether he should complain about the police officers to a higher authority and whether the CTC might offer any additional help that I could tell him about that might persuade him to join.

The most worrying outcome to my mind is that he has now suffered a blow to his confidence and says he won't be cycling across that particular roundabout again (it is busy, 6-exit and multi-lane).

Can't comment on the legal position but multi-lane roundabouts are a nightmare. I get flak for suggesting roads aren't always the ideal place for cyclists but things like this are a case in point, they have competitiveness and fast acceleration built into the design. When I was quicker and younger than I am now I negotiated one of these twice a day and it was pure luck I wasn't T-boned by drivers looking through me. There's no foolproof official line on cycling round them and I've been reduced to standing, weaving and pointing before now - anything in fact to get noticed. What slow coaches are supposed to do is anyone's guess.

I hope the chap gets redress.

I know at least one roundabout in Oxford that's a bit of a monster with lots of conflicting movements and large open areas away from kerbs. However even on this one there can be no excuse for the behaviour of a motorist who (presumably) failed to drive with due care and attention. Ideally such roundabout junctions would be engineered differently (and if Oxford is such a cycle-friendly place as they like to think, why the hell haven't they?) but that should in no way mitigate the blame attached to the guilty party. Another case of the Police allowing their prejudices to undermine their duty to uphold the law by the sound of it.

annief wrote:.. the police were involved but it took them three weeks to contact any witnesses and in fact, he discovered they were not going to pursue the case because of contributory factors. What were these?

I've had a case of this. It could be waffle to cover the fact that they failed in their duty to issue a NIP to the driver within 14 days. They are now brushing it under the carpet.

I've recently overcome this by writing to my local Inspector on the day of an incident and reminding him to make sure that his people get the NIP issued in time, as their failure last time left a dangerous driver on the roads unpenalised. Seemed to work, as I had an officer here the next morning.

i too hope that the victim is successful in punishing the motorist through the courts.

ru88ell - what's NIP?

NIP - Notice of Intended Prosecution

annief: are you sayng that the police are claiming that not wearing a helmet caused his leg injuries - it isn't clear from your post.

NIP - 14 days

I didn't think this applied to Dangerous Driving as I was not aware of any 'time outs' for that offence.

I am aware that NIPs are mainly used for speeding offences and the 'time out' does have an effect.

Im my case police issued a NIP to a driver who overtook me on the right, and then cut across me to turn left. The location of the overtake was opposite a junction to our right, and in the face of oncoming vehicles. He nearly took my front wheel with him in doing so.

Not sure what the NIP was for, but I reported the driver for what I thought was dangerous driving. Police confirmed that they had 14 days.

glueman wrote:Can't comment on the legal position but multi-lane roundabouts are a nightmare. I get flak for suggesting roads aren't always the ideal place for cyclists but things like this are a case in point, they have competitiveness and fast acceleration built into the design. When I was quicker and younger than I am now I negotiated one of these twice a day and it was pure luck I wasn't T-boned by drivers looking through me. There's no foolproof official line on cycling round them and I've been reduced to standing, weaving and pointing before now - anything in fact to get noticed. What slow coaches are supposed to do is anyone's guess.

I hope the chap gets redress.

My experience with multi-lanes in Sunderland is that drivers also tend to run through red lights on them. I believe the legal standing of a driver turning is that they have to give way to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the road they're turning onto, but they usually don't, and it's particularly bad at round-abouts. In Virginia, every intersection has a sign reminding drivers that violating the pedestrian's right of way carries a $500 fine. It seems to work.

Ru88ell wrote:It could be waffle to cover the fact that they failed in their duty to issue a NIP to the driver within 14 days. They are now brushing it under the carpet.

That sounds familiar.

I was knocked off my bike at a roundabout by a taxi driver entering the roundabout from my left. He didn't see me because he was busy tuning his radio in, and admitted as much.

The police claim that they could not prosecute because the taxi driver refused to give evidence, an excuse more pathetic than "the dog ate my homework". In the end, the police/CPS are not accountable to anybody and can prosecute whichever "crimes" they feel like. This, and other episodes, have reduced my faith in the police as a service to society to pretty much zero.

- matt

Quick quetsion - if HiViz is so important - why are you allowed to have black cars?

Given the number of accidents involving vehicles, surely brigt yellow, orange cars should be a necessity and anyone droving a dark coloured car (especially at night) is negligent and would be contributing to any incident they are involved in?

The important bit about Hi Viz at night is the reflectivity.

Can't imagine what life would be like on the road at night if cars were all reflecting all over as well as having headlamps - glare-city.

Appropo of nothing whatsoever to do with cycling - I read once that in Norway (?) there were experiments to see if reindeer could be given something in their food that would make their coats fluorsce at night. So many drivers collide with these large animals, which, not unlike cyclists, presume that a road may be used by something other than a motor-vehicle.