Cycling UK Forum

snibgo wrote:In the video, at 49 seconds, the cyclist is in primary approaching a pinch point. This is a good position, as it makes it obvious that a following driver shouldn't attempt an overtake.

That is exactly what I thought: on a first run through the video I didn't realise that the cyclist was trying to turn right. I would do exactly the same at central bollards. Most drivers understand and accept my manoeuvre. Those that don't - well, usually they try to force their may past no matter what, without hooting ("MGIF" mentality ). I usually have no option but to let them through at some risk to life and limb. I haven't had a road rage episode resulting from this behaviour - not yet...

Mark1978 wrote:http://nottspolice.tumblr.com/post/57700296337/statement-in-response-to-guardian-article

I did take note that the Guardian mentioned the fact that the driver had been found at fault and ordered to take a Driver Awareness course (not "Alertness"); also that the woman had been cautioned. This detail seems to have escaped some contributors to this thread. I think the incident has been dealt with properly.

The only point where possibly the sergeant got it wrong, is where he said

This is also something that the court would consider as mitigation were we to prosecute the driver in your case.

Is it proper that the police officer should pre-empt the Court's decision as to whether there are mitigating circumstances? Surely that is a matter for the magistrate.

At any rate, it didn't go to court, so it seems.

Its troubling to me that the driver had time to sound their horn so they had clearly seen the cyclist.

I happen to live near to this stretch of road and whilst there is a bend in the road there is good visibility ... the cyclist would have been clearly visible. I have seen many drivers exceeding the speed limit along here.

I suspect the driver wasn't ordered to do a course, but was offered the course as an alternative to prosecution. That seems to be the way it works. The woman was cautioned, so that was an admitted offence.

On the "back him or sack him" principle, the inspector was bound to support the sergeant. But I wonder if the inspector really thinks we should treat funeral corteges as emergency vehicles. I'd be happy to do so, provided all the vehicles had flashing blue lights and the drivers had suitable training.

Anyone know what a Driver's Awareness Course might entail for this sort of offense.

Participants have to ride bikes while drivers try to knock them down.

Well, probably not. See for example http://www.theaa.com/aadrivetech/driver ... index.html

I looked at their course outline and saw that they get taken out onto the road with an instructor, so that's good, but then I saw this.

"No pass or fail tests"

Completely useless if this is given as an alternative to going to court.

snibgo wrote:Participants have to ride bikes while drivers try to knock them down.

Well, probably not. See for example http://www.theaa.com/aadrivetech/driver ... index.html

Teaching them to ride a bike on the road would be of the biggest benefit in this situation.

The guy who knocked me down last year was offered that option, and took it. He had to pay the £175 course fee. I was given the impression that this was the best chance for him not re-offending - but who knows? Anyway, you only get one shot at the course: next time, it's prosecution without the option. And the insurance companies have picked up on these courses and bump their premiums accordingly...

I find the police sergeant's response to to the cyclist truly bizarre.How would anyone know which was and which wasn't part of a funeral cortege ?
I surely proves who was totally at fault by the actions taken by the police against the offenders .
quite what the woman was blathering on about was completely nothing to do with her as she was only a passenger in the car.
The whole incident is weird from begining to end and the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong.

Firstly, for the cyclists here, it is perfectly possible for a car driver to both brake and sound the horn at the same time.

Watching the video, the cyclist states several times that he was indicting to turn right. such an indication doesn't give him any right of way. Neither would it give a right of way to a car or motorcycle. It might appear that it wasn't safe for the cyclist to pull to the right when he did because he was hit by the car. That's a good indicator that it wasn't safe. The driver avoided prosecution by taking a driver awareness course. The police avoided having to risk a prosecution that could well have failed, leaving the driver with an unblemished reputation. The female was cautioned for a public order offence, which means the has a criminal record for the rest of her life. The cyclist has a pretty straightforward claim on the driver's insurance. All in all, it sounds like a reasonable outcome.

Please don't be distracted by the police speaking rubbish on the matter. I believe it's now a required course.

Shootist wrote:Firstly, for the cyclists here, it is perfectly possible for a car driver to both brake and sound the horn at the same time.

I think the point is that if he started braking at the point he started on the horn he wouldn't have hit the cyclist, not only that but the guy had finished sounding the horn and the woman had started shouting before he was hit! More than enough time to brake and avoid him - had the guy wanted to. Fairly obviously he'd taken offence and was sat up the cyclists bottom.

Second point, the cyclist was already in the middle of the lane something he'd done in readiness for the bollards, the horn sounds before the bollards and he was hit just after he'd passed them. He even had time to look round to see what the problem was before he was hit. So imo I doubt the indication was an issue since he was already there and had been for some time before the horn sounded.

Overall though it's as good an outcome as you can expect I think.

Shootist wrote:. It might appear that it wasn't safe for the cyclist to pull to the right when he did because he was hit by the car. That's a good indicator that it wasn't safe. :

It's a twisted logic that a particular move wasn't safe, because a car driver decided to be a dick. I could decide to be a dick and just run into the back of any random cyclist, does that mean that what the cyclist was doing was automatically 'unsafe'?

the cyclist states several times that he was indicting to turn right. such an indication doesn't give him any right of way.

Any right of way to where? He was traveling forward and was hit from behind.

The indication DOES however mean that the following vehicle is not allowed to overtake which is what he was trying to do.

If a car was trying to overtake another car who had his right indicator on AND smashed up his tail end, would you honestly try and justify the overtaking vehicles behaviour? Looking at this from the viewpoint of an ex-courier who was frequently overtaking lines of cars on the roads while riding his motorcycle, you knew you were "in the wrong" if you took out those who were indicating right.