Motorist faces jail for assaulting cyclist

[gman]

To be fair the driver did jump the light just as it turned red which could have been a misjudgement, whereas there was quite a duration of being at red in the cyclist video. But I'm sure there's lots of videos to show the reverse also and pretty much any point that anyone wants to prove.

 

[gman]

For example, since this thread started and many have been moaning about cyclists, motorists have killed 30 people, this time tomorrow it will be 35.

And it's all the fault of the motorists?

 

[Mattyd]

It doesn't say how such data is derived.

It's all from the DFT, the pdfs are online, I chose not to post those as they are pretty solid with data. But you'll have to take it up with them/read the pdf.
As 10% tolerance etc, you, me and every motorist are aware of this, drive at 25-29mph if its an issue.

And it's all the fault of the motorists?

All cases? No. Most cases? without question.

In my opinion, if you choose to drive a car/or ride a bike and someone in front of you (more vulnerable) makes a simple mistake (we have all done it) and you hit them, you should share some responsibility. Perhaps not blame, but some responsibility.
I don't believe it right that we should be able to drive around in 2 tonnes of the vehicle and then point the finger at someone else when it all goes pear-shaped.

 

[stupar]

Read this in my local paper this morning.

If this was the result of a hit and run then I hope justice is served (should they find the perpetrator)
It would equally highlight the fact that motorists don't always stop at the scene of an accident either.

 

[gman]

All cases? No. Most cases? without question.

I would tend to agree but then you never know, take that woman who stepped out on front of that cyclist and how the blame fell?

In my opinion, if you choose to drive a car/or ride a bike and someone in front of you (more vulnerable) makes a simple mistake (we have all done it) and you hit them, you should share some responsibility. Perhaps not blame, but some responsibility.
I don't believe it right that we should be able to drive around in 2 tonnes of the vehicle and then point the finger at someone else when it all goes pear-shaped.

I always thought the person behind always had the responsibility unless the person in front has engineered a situation deliberately?

 

[nilagin]

In my opinion, if you choose to drive a car/or ride a bike and someone in front of you (more vulnerable) makes a simple mistake (we have all done it) and you hit them, you should share some responsibility. Perhaps not blame, but some responsibility.
I don't believe it right that we should be able to drive around in 2 tonnes of the vehicle and then point the finger at someone else when it all goes pear-shaped.

Regardless of whether someone is more vulnerable or not, they have there own responsibility to act safely for themselves and others on the road. A motorist can only take so much responsibility and care around them. At lunchtime today I was driving to the gym on a 30mph main B road which can be quite busy. In front of me is a cyclist, who by his demeanour was out for a pleasurable ride in the sun. He appeared to be oblivious to his surroundings and veering from left to right for no reason other than he was enjoying himself. He was heading towards two pubs so I guessed he wasn't drunk, as a result of how much room he was needing I had to go completely onto the other side of the road and then get taken by surprise by a speed bump pillow which are only marked on the opposite side for cars travelling in the correct direction.
To make it worse on both sides of the road is a 10ft grass verge and then roads running parallel to the main road for about a quarter of a mile, roads that see about 5% of the regular traffic on the main road, he could have veered quite happily from side to side on either of those roads and not been a problem for himself or anyone else. A bit hard to share some responsibility for people like that.
It was bad enough overtaking him where I did, a quarter of a mile further along and he would have probably been doing the same where the road is slightly narrower and a 40mph country road.

 

[nilagin]

A work mate ended up unconscious and in hospital after an accident on his bike. He also suffered a broken collarbone, broken arm, broken leg and cuts and bruises all over his body. When he came around he had no recollection of an accident but assumed he had been hit by a vehicle. Turns out a following motorist had witnessed what had happened and caught it on his dash cam. No other vehicles were involved my work mate had hit a brick or bit of hard core laying in the road.

 

[dod]

As with most insurance today compared to how it used to be where a lot of things were standard cover, it appears it may now be an added extra that you would have to specify and pay extra for. But from what I can make out from a quick Google search, the cost of cover is very small.

So until the time it's made compulsory we'llhave to either suck it up or sue the parents, or the child if they have the means to pay. We still have legal redress.

It still boils down to the fact that motorists don't really want to have cyclists disrupt their own personal schedule or make allowances for them despite them having exactly as much right as they do to be on the road.

If we are talking about the population as a whole, whilst obesity is on the increase, it is far from the norm. Also on the increase is the distance people find themselves having to commute to work due to cost of housing whether buying or renting and as a result thete is less likelihood of them being able or wanting to cycle to work.

It's about a third; include those overweight and it is the norm. Longer distances doesn't automatically mean you need to drive a car either, although I'm sure there are cases where it is the most convenient option.

Over half the worlds population lives in cities which is coincidentally where the worst air quality is. Even taking a fifth of those people off the roads and onto bikes would make a huge difference. Better cycling infrastructure, better public transport, car sharing, park and ride, compulsory electric taxis could all make a difference. Tax the hell out of those who insist on driving in on their own to encourage it to happen and pay for the required improvements. It's not nearly as inconvenient as some of the alternatives if we don't.

So what was the point of your comment then. Even though there is a very small minority of motorists who don't drive legally, the mode of transport is still legal. Electric scooters aren't legal so can't be taxed, registered, MOT'd etc. So a pointless comparison.

The percentage of drivers who don't drive legally is debatable. This study is in Denmark but it's not unreasonable to assume that the percentages of people breaking the law would be comparable. Being video based the results would seem to be fairly objective although this one is commissioned by a pro cycling group so I'd assume there's an agenda.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...d-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/

100% of cyclists on the road are in principle entitled to be there (ex motorway) but motorists don't want them on their bit. And to illustrate the significance of that and reinforce the title of the thread here's a link from yesterday, cyclist killed. (Same example as @stupar ) We have no details but at best it's a tragic accident.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...-in-hospital-following-suspected-hit-and-run/

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I always thought the person behind always had the responsibility unless the person in front has engineered a situation deliberately?

It's been a specific offence under the general heading "driving without due care and attention" since 2013 to drive too close to the vehicle in front of you. It can be dealt with by the police giving advice or by issuing a fixed penalty notice of £100 + 3 penalty points. In extreme cases it can be upgraded to dangerous driving which may result in a prison sentence. More here: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/

 

[Ste_S]

It still boils down to the fact that motorists don't really want to have cyclists disrupt their own personal schedule or make allowances for them despite them having exactly as much right as they do to be on the road.

Yeah, absolutely.
See also motorists not giving way to peds who are already crossing the road

 

[jamesev]

Ok, so there is a clear resolution here. Each person takes turns posting youtube videos of highways transgressions, alternating between car and bicycle. The first person to run out of videos is the loser and that particular mode of transport is banned from the roads forever. The victor is crowned king of the road and gets a certificate and everything!

Seems to be the sensible conclusion to this discussion........

Just link to Facebooks Idiot UK drivers exposed page. Endlsss dash cams of idiot motorists.

Electric scooters aren't a legal means of transport in the UK. They can't be used on roads or pavements at present.

Electric most things. I saw countless electric longboards used in San Francisco as transport but apparently these aren’t legal here, same with petrol powered scooters that MAF make.

 

[Jelster]

Seems like another blinkered view of cyclists to jump on the hate cyclists bandwagon whilst completely overlooking the poor behaviour of motorists.

Can’t understand where this vilification for one set comes from when as there are probably the same proportion in each group that operate badly. I suspect it’s some sort of jealousy

Having commuted by motorcycle in London for 6 years, I could write a long list of times when cyclists behaved like bell ends, but then I could say the same about drivers too. However, I have personally experienced a cyclist jumping lights, hitting a pedestrian, and then trying to ride off, and also a cycle courier jumping a red while was walking across said road who got very angry when I pushed him off instead of jumping out of the way.....

When I cross on a pelican crossing that is telling me it's safe to do so, I expect to get to the other side without having to dodge a tool on a bike.

 

[Jelster]

Whenever a cycling post appears on the internet I like to play a little game:

"Road Tax"..."Insurance"..."Lycra"...BINGO!

If the cap fits.....

 

[Ste_S]

Having commuted by motorcycle in London for 6 years, I could write a long list of times when cyclists behaved like bell ends, but then I could say the same about drivers too. However, I have personally experienced a cyclist jumping lights, hitting a pedestrian, and then trying to ride off, and also a cycle courier jumping a red while was walking across said road who got very angry when I pushed him off instead of jumping out of the way.....

When I cross on a pelican crossing that is telling me it's safe to do so, I expect to get to the other side without having to dodge a tool on a bike.

I've experienced all those things you've mentioned from drivers too, including a car slaloming around around stopped cars to go through a ped crossing on red whilst i was walking across the road. I expect to be able to cross the road safely on a ped crossing without having a tool in a car trying to run me over.

Who'd of thought the ability of someone to be an idiot isn't dependant on their mode of transport ?

 

[gman]

Who'd of thought the ability of someone to be an idiot isn't dependant on their mode of transport ?

I agree with this, but with a car, motorcycle or scooter you can identify them. Not so easy with a bicycle, especially with a helmet on, ubiquitous wrap-around sunglasses and the speed upon which they can be going at. I do think at the least some form of identification plate system should be used and children's bikes could be registered to the parents.

Would this not promote more responsible riding? Of course you will always get those who don't abide, just like cars, bikes and scooters (especially chav scooters), but that's a factor in any walk of life (tax, welfare etc). Could be expensive though and I'm not sure if cyclists would be happy to pay an annual licence of sorts?

 

[Cagey75]

Having commuted by motorcycle in London for 6 years, I could write a long list of times when cyclists behaved like bell ends, but then I could say the same about drivers too. However, I have personally experienced a cyclist jumping lights, hitting a pedestrian, and then trying to ride off, and also a cycle courier jumping a red while was walking across said road who got very angry when I pushed him off instead of jumping out of the way.....

When I cross on a pelican crossing that is telling me it's safe to do so, I expect to get to the other side without having to dodge a tool on a bike.

Yet another "this one time ...." - don't get me started on motorcyclists, only this thread hasn't really touched on them and I'm sensible enough to know they're not some collective double digit IQ. But I've seen countless acts of stupidity from people on motorbikes. I could point to 1000's of videos showing motor bike danger but can't be bothered, because it's the same old story. "my mode of transport hates yours'

I think there's an awful lot of 'grow up and get over it' needed in this thread. It's been stated countless times now, it's not the mode of transport but the person behind it. You have to be a bit dim to imagine 'ALL' cyclists/motorists/motorcyclists are the same. And coming across the odd incident involving one or other doesn't give you the right to become some spokesperson against.

If the cap fits.....

If the helmet fits - doesn't entitle you to do 120mph over-taking on corners like a bell-end. I'm not saying 'you' but y'know, many motorcyclists ....

 

[Graham W]

If the cap fits.....

?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think there's an awful lot of 'grow up and get over it' needed in this thread.

In a word: yes.

 

[cambsno]

In my opinion, if you choose to drive a car/or ride a bike and someone in front of you (more vulnerable) makes a simple mistake (we have all done it) and you hit them, you should share some responsibility. Perhaps not blame, but some responsibility.
I don't believe it right that we should be able to drive around in 2 tonnes of the vehicle and then point the finger at someone else when it all goes pear-shaped.

No way! So I am driving along - green light and then hit a cyclist coming over a Xroads jumping a red... no responsibility whatsoever.

Living in Cambridge I see loads of bad cycling. Most drivers are tolerant of this and give space etc.. but there is sometimes no way of knowing what they do, like the stupid girl who went over a slip lane on a roundabout without looking and with headphones on, who narrowly missed being hit by a car.

I bike to work a lot, and yes I will go over a red light if there is nothing coming and I am 100% certain I can cross safely (these are normally quiet roads). I always look ahead and anticipate being hit, and over the years have only had 3 accidents - 1 with a pedestrian and 2 with another bike. Lots of near misses with pedestrains and some bikes but struggling to think of any with cars

 

[stupar]

No way! So I am driving along - green light and then hit a cyclist coming over a Xroads jumping a red... no responsibility whatsoever.

Living in Cambridge I see loads of bad cycling. Most drivers are tolerant of this and give space etc.. but there is sometimes no way of knowing what they do, like the stupid girl who went over a slip lane on a roundabout without looking and with headphones on, who narrowly missed being hit by a car.

I bike to work a lot, and yes I will go over a red light if there is nothing coming and I am 100% certain I can cross safely (these are normally quiet roads). I always look ahead and anticipate being hit, and over the years have only had 3 accidents - 1 with a pedestrian and 2 with another bike. Lots of near misses with pedestrains and some bikes but struggling to think of any with cars

You talk about bad cycling but then go on to declare that you cycle through red lights when it is quiet........ that's quite a stark contrast in your views of other cyclists relative to your own behaviour when on a bike.

Do you think it would be deemed acceptable for a motor vehicle to go through a red light on the basis of "its a quiet road and nothing is coming".

I stop for every red light no matter time of day, road type or volume of traffic.

 

[Cockney]

No way! So I am driving along - green light and then hit a cyclist coming over a Xroads jumping a red... no responsibility whatsoever.

Living in Cambridge I see loads of bad cycling. Most drivers are tolerant of this and give space etc.. but there is sometimes no way of knowing what they do, like the stupid girl who went over a slip lane on a roundabout without looking and with headphones on, who narrowly missed being hit by a car.

I bike to work a lot, and yes I will go over a red light if there is nothing coming and I am 100% certain I can cross safely (these are normally quiet roads). I always look ahead and anticipate being hit, and over the years have only had 3 accidents - 1 with a pedestrian and 2 with another bike. Lots of near misses with pedestrains and some bikes but struggling to think of any with cars

Why do you think it's ok to ignore red lights because you're on a bike?

 

[Jelster]

And coming across the odd incident involving one or other doesn't give you the right to become some spokesperson against.

Believe me, if you commuted in London, you would understand that it's not just the odd incident.

If the helmet fits - doesn't entitle you to do 120mph over-taking on corners like a bell-end. I'm not saying 'you' but y'know, many motorcyclists ....

I don't, and never have. Most motorcyclists that behave in that manner seem to get their just deserts one way or another. Most bikers that have accidents put themselves into vulnerable situations, a bit like cyclists going up the inside of trucks on a left hand corner. I don't think I have ever seen a biker go through a red light, it's absolute suicide to try it, but it's commonplace for cyclists in London.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Why do you think it's ok to ignore red lights because you're on a bike?

I think it's because the ambiguous legal status of bikes makes people think they aren't subject to traffic laws. Our overworked coppers are seldom around to point out the error of this view.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I think it's because the ambiguous legal status of bikes makes people think they aren't subject to traffic laws. Our overworked coppers are seldom around to point out the error of this view.

That and most red lights are designed to improve traffic flow and congestion, and since bikes don't cause congestion, there's an argument that in some instances the laws could be changed (for cars too in some circumstances).

For example, turning left on a red light is commonplace (well, right) on the continent and the USA.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

there's an argument that in some instances the laws could be changed (for cars too in some circumstances).

Yes. These things are always up for discussion. However, pending such a change in the law, I think that if you get into the habit of believing traffic lights are optional for cyclists there may come a time when you'll make a serious mistake.

 

[cambsno]

You talk about bad cycling but then go on to declare that you cycle through red lights when it is quiet........ that's quite a stark contrast in your views of other cyclists relative to your own behaviour when on a bike.

Do you think it would be deemed acceptable for a motor vehicle to go through a red light on the basis of "its a quiet road and nothing is coming".

I stop for every red light no matter time of day, road type or volume of traffic.

I am not saying what I do is correct! I know that cyclists should stop at red lights and while not excusing behaviour I stop at all lights when other people/vehicles have right of way. But, like a pedestrian, if there is nothing coming and I am not going to affect anyone then I do cross (often with other pedestrians). Hypocritical - sure it is.

Actually, as I am on paths normally, its a pedestrian crossing light I go over, rather than a 'proper red'. The one 'true' red light I encounter on my way home is one I normally stop at as its a busy junction, although at weekends it is quiet. My point is that I cycle to the conditions of the road, applying common sense and courtesy.

There is a difference on a bike - for a start I don't believe its illegal to ride while on my phone (and even if it was would the police stop you or do anything). Same with drinking, lots of people bike to the pub, have a few and bike back.

 

[stupar]

There is a difference on a bike - for a start I don't believe its illegal to ride while on my phone (and even if it was would the police stop you or do anything). Same with drinking, lots of people bike to the pub, have a few and bike back.

Unless I'm mistaken if you are not riding your bike in accordance with the highway code then the police can and would stop you with a view giving out a fixed penalty notice or reporting you for the offence.

As stated previously though, police resource is so stretched that most of these incidents go unnoticed.

 

[Tori_T]

Drunk cycling is definitely illegal.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Don't get me started on Norwich! ;P

BTW, love your work Andy, super stuff.

Anyway, back on topic. Im pretty much of the opinion that all road user break the rule in equal measure. And the few articles I've read on the subject more or less confirm this. That said, the difference between law-breaking cyclists and law-breaking motorists are like night and day, not because one is somehow more virtuous than the other, its simply a matter of physics.
For example, since this thread started and many have been moaning about cyclists, motorists have killed 30 people, this time tomorrow it will be 35.

Thanks Matty

Norwich is a prime example of stupid cycle lanes!

 

[cambsno]

Unless I'm mistaken if you are not riding your bike in accordance with the highway code then the police can and would stop you with a view giving out a fixed penalty notice or reporting you for the offence.

As stated previously though, police resource is so stretched that most of these incidents go unnoticed.

Using a hand held mobile phone whilst cycling is not illegal per se. However, you could commit an offence of careless cycling. It is also not advisable for the obvious safety reasons.

 

[cambsno]

Drunk cycling is definitely illegal.

It is but the police cant enforce a test on you and refusing one is not the same as refusing one if driving.

 

[Cagey75]

Drunk cycling is definitely illegal.

drunk walking can get you pulled over if the cops are bored enough - they will call it drunk and disorderly, seen it happen to people on their way home because they stumbled a bit, not even close to other people

 

[ancient_mariner]

?

If the cap fits then you won't get pregnant.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

.

There is a difference on a bike - for a start I don't believe its illegal to ride while on my phone (and even if it was would the police stop you or do anything). Same with drinking, lots of people bike to the pub, have a few and bike back.

It is here in Denmark

 

[Tori_T]

Even if it was legal, it's definitely not recommended.
I've seen someone try to ride while drunk; they started off okay, but where the road curved, they forgot how handlebars worked, so they rode up a drop-curb. Then they forgot how brakes work, and crashed into a garage door and buckled their front wheel before falling off and just lying on the driveway laughing.

 

[nilagin]

100% of cyclists on the road are in principle entitled to be there (ex motorway) but motorists don't want them on their bit.

I have no problem with sharing the road with cyclists so long as the act sensibly and show awareness to the traffic around them. The problem is, the second anyone can stop a bike from falling over whilst pedalling they can share the road, they don't have to take any training, pass a test or take any form of site test. That was ok when there was very little else on the roads but not an ideal situation now.
My point earlier about certain cyclists using a road near me that I feel is unsuitable for them also applies to some motorists. I travel on a 70mph dual carriageway to and from work and on each journey there will be two or three cars travelling at below 50mph. Lorries then have to overtake them and that slows all the other traffic. Now those sub 50mph motorists have every right to be on that road, but as there is a road running parallel to the dual carriageway with a 50mph limit surely that would be more suitable for them. It would cause less congestion, less pollution and less frustration. My wife isn't comfortable with driving on dual carriageways, so other than a couple of local stretches, she avoids them like the plague.
As I said before, when I cycled to work I always used the most direct route that caused the least interruption for others on the road, for the busier roads I would make myself aware of cars behind me and let them pass if I was causing a bit of congestion.
It just takes a bit of forethought and everyone can get where they want to quite easily and safely.

 

[cambsno]

I have no problem with sharing the road with cyclists so long as the act sensibly and show awareness to the traffic around them. The problem is, the second anyone can stop a bike from falling over whilst pedalling they can share the road, they don't have to take any training, pass a test or take any form of site test. That was ok when there was very little else on the roads but not an ideal situation now.
My point earlier about certain cyclists using a road near me that I feel is unsuitable for them also applies to some motorists. I travel on a 70mph dual carriageway to and from work and on each journey there will be two or three cars travelling at below 50mph. Lorries then have to overtake them and that slows all the other traffic. Now those sub 50mph motorists have every right to be on that road, but as there is a road running parallel to the dual carriageway with a 50mph limit surely that would be more suitable for them. It would cause less congestion, less pollution and less frustration. My wife isn't comfortable with driving on dual carriageways, so other than a couple of local stretches, she avoids them like the plague.
As I said before, when I cycled to work I always used the most direct route that caused the least interruption for others on the road, for the busier roads I would make myself aware of cars behind me and let them pass if I was causing a bit of congestion.
It just takes a bit of forethought and everyone can get where they want to quite easily and safely.

Good post! The difference is that many cyclists think they have (or should have) right of way - personally I allow cars right of way for the simple fact that I an not going to win an argument with one. I slow up a little at roundabouts or lights even if my right of way (green) as if someone does say jump a red light I can do something about it. They may be in the wrong but I would rather not get hit!

 

[Cockney]

That and most red lights are designed to improve traffic flow and congestion, and since bikes don't cause congestion, there's an argument that in some instances the laws could be changed (for cars too in some circumstances).

For example, turning left on a red light is commonplace (well, right) on the continent and the USA.

Left on red would be a very sensible move.

 

[Cockney]

Good post! The difference is that many cyclists think they have (or should have) right of way - personally I allow cars right of way for the simple fact that I an not going to win an argument with one. I slow up a little at roundabouts or lights even if my right of way (green) as if someone does say jump a red light I can do something about it. They may be in the wrong but I would rather not get hit!

Bike, motorbike , car the more vulnerable you are the more defensively you have to ride/drive. Right of way counts for very little in a crash/injury.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Left on red would be a very sensible move.

OH my gosh no. Are you crazy