Cycling UK Forum

I reckon that following another car is like talking on the phone: most of your mind is on keeping the car in sight and much less on what you're doing yourself. If they'd run into the cyclist while nattering with Aunt Lulu the peelers wouldn't be so censorious towards the victim.

I think the sergeant's email was an attempt to keep court appearances to a minimum.

Audax67 wrote:I think the sergeant's email was an attempt to keep court appearances to a minimum.

Probably, but that action had already been taken and there was no need for the comment about the cyclist's actions. The posters on this thread aren't bothered too much by the action taken by the police or that didn't end up in court, more the suggestion that the cyclist continuing to cycle down the road having previously been overtaken by a hearse somehow mitigated the driving offence that resulted in him being knocked off.

Shame we don't have a rear-facing camera, or one in the red car.

At 45 seconds, the cyclist moves into primary to overtake the small truck parked on the pavement and double-yellows, and the white car overtakes him. He stays in primary, possibly because he can see the bollard ahead.

At 48 seconds, the white car passes the bollard.

At 49 seconds the red car toots. Cyclist looks round.

At 51 seconds, cyclist passes bollard. Red car runs into cyclist. (So the red car is about 3 seconds behind the white car, which is a sensible distance.)

The cyclist's comment about indicating right is in response to the woman saying "For f's sake, you were in the middle of the road."

The driver had six seconds to see the cyclist in the centre of the lane. The driver may not have seen the bollard, so continued at a speed to overtake, then realised (too late) that he couldn't overtake because of the bollard.

From the comfort of my armchair, I don't think turning right or indicating is relevant. But if I was the cyclist, I'm sure I wouldn't be as calm or rational as he was. Indicating doesn't, of course, give the cylist any rights. He doesn't need any. He was already in the centre of the lane.

I understand the immediate reaction of the car occupants. "If the cyclist hadn't been there, we wouldn't have hit him. Therefore it was his fault." When I do something wrong, I immediately look for some mitigating circumstances that makes it not really my fault. It's a natural reaction, and it needs some time and a close look at the evidence to conclude where the fault lies.

Mark1978 wrote:
Teaching them to ride a bike on the road would be of the biggest benefit in this situation.

Riding a bike on a road should be part of the driving test

As a Notts resident myself i`d just like to say that in my humble opinion the Notts police, when it comes to cyclists are less than useless. My own experiences and that of others lead me to the conclusion that either they want us off the road or are just too bone idle to do anything about the protection of vulnerable road users. However,, try pasting a motorist !!

I'd assume a funeral cortege would consider it inappropriate to pass cars, so why is it ok to overtake a cyclist? It the cortege overtaking the cyclist that caused this situation.

BigFoz wrote:I'd assume a funeral cortege would consider it inappropriate to pass cars, so why is it ok to overtake a cyclist? It the cortege overtaking the cyclist that caused this situation.

No. Unless it's a really big, public affair like Princess Diana, or Wootton Basset, the cortege will go at normal road speed for most of the route. Otherwise there'd be mayhem on our roads: there's always a funeral happening somewhere. So overtaking other vehicles is perfectly in order. And the cars are not expected to go in convoy, nose to tail, all the way. Hence the driver and his passenger had no case to put - they were just shooting their mouths off...

Shootist wrote: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.

Help me understand... One vehicle overtook another vehicle whose operator was signalling for a right turn. When a collision resulted, the operator of the overtaken vehicle is at fault because 'it wasn't safe'? Is that what you are saying?

The cyclist wasn't hit when he pulled right. He took the lane and traveled in primary for some time before he was hit by an overtaking vehicle. IMO, unless he got off and took his turn as a pedestrian, he couldn't have been much more cautious.

There's no doubt in my mind that the cyclist was completely innocent here in every legal and moral sense. He is clearly the victim here and has my sympathies. But, I think what the PC was trying to say in a very clumsy way was that a court would view the fact the car was travelling to a funeral as mitigation for largely emotional rather than rationale reasons. The woman clearly lost it, but again the emotion of a funeral is hard to quantify. Personally, I think the main problem was that the police communication skills were poor.

Still no excuse, shouldn't be driving if they are that 'emotional' what about someone losing their job, or, finding their missus in bed with the milkman! Limitless justification if you go down this route.

Sagwagon wrote:As a Notts resident myself i`d just like to say that in my humble opinion the Notts police, when it comes to cyclists are less than useless. My own experiences and that of others lead me to the conclusion that either they want us off the road or are just too bone idle to do anything about the protection of vulnerable road users. However,, try pasting a motorist !!

So we can add the Notts police force to the Cheshire Constabulary and Greater Manchester police forces for rank incompetence and utter uselessness.

I thought I was going to see something hard to judge, but what happens is the cyclist goes through a pinch point and the car behind simply rams him like he wasn't there . How anyone could excuse that driver is beyond understanding.

I have just had a couple of days in Nottingham, and having commuted in and out of the city centre a few times I can report that a large proportion of car drivers there felt that a bicycle was an object to bully off the road!

hexhome wrote:I have just had a couple of days in Nottingham, and having commuted in and out of the city centre a few times I can report that a large proportion of car drivers there felt that a bicycle was an object to bully off the road!

Cycling around my local area you get the odd driver who obviously thinks that but it's mostly ok, but there's one road that's an exception and vastly more people will make ill advised attempts to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic, overtaking on blind bends, accelerating to beat you to pinch points (bollards), following you through just inches from your mudguard and even overtaking on the wrong side of them.
Why this particular road I've absolutely no idea. It's narrow, it's bendy, it's a 30 limit, it's got several pinch points, it has blind junctions just after corners, it's not that long (600m) and it doesn't go anywhere other than to peoples houses.

hexhome wrote:I have just had a couple of days in Nottingham, and having commuted in and out of the city centre a few times I can report that a large proportion of car drivers there felt that a bicycle was an object to bully off the road!

If you are on one of the main routes into the city, that's quite likely. I commute in from the east side and luckily have a decent cyclepath for the bit along the main road. The main roads are narrow and very congested, so tempers fray fairly easily. They are best avoided on a bike.

The council's propensity for putting up pedestrian refuges doesn't help, as people try and race past you before the next one and cut in at the last minute. Riding in primary helps avoid this but, of course, winds the drivers up even more.