CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 38 min 40 sec ago

Re: Cyclist injured by steam roller

5 August 2014 - 11:53am
I agree with the edited heading, had a pedestrian collided with a stationary cycle and got injured and the heading in the paper was pedestrian injured by cyclist, there'd be a few complaints on here. I'll assume that it wasn't intentional and that the OP isn't a professional journalist with a few editors to check their posts before they get posted.

It is rather a unique vehicle to crash into and would be funny if they weren't so badly injured, as steamrollers are always cropping up in cartoons in comical situations.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 11:32am
AlaninWales wrote:Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).

AIUI it happened on Goods Way round the back of Kings Cross near the filling station. If she didn't have a view of the cyclist there when she started the turn she can't have been looking. Its a wide road with a slight curve and good sight lines. And despite some reports there isn't a steep hill there to come racing down. Its pretty flat thereabouts.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 11:31am
One of the one-way streets in Bath's city centre was made two way for bikes early this year. The signing and markings were fairly subtle, which meant that anyone cycling contra-flow inevitably was held up by pedestrians crossing in front of them or drivers driving as if they didn't exist. The local cycling campaign group asked for the markings to be improved, which they were, and it is now very clear that cyclists can use it in both directions. Generally other road users behaviour has improved, but a few weeks ago I still had one car drive deliberately at me (it is a narrow road with parking on one side so little space to avoid oncoming cars), which I assume was the driver's way of saying that I shouldn't have been cycling in that direction. Or maybe he just didn't like me.

Re: Cyclist injured by (crashing into a )steam roller

5 August 2014 - 11:30am
Feel sorry for him on one level but what sort of plonk could miss seeing a big steam roller like that?

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 11:26am
Its surprising how many motorists impersonate a police officer by advising a cyclist where they should and shouldn’t ride a bike.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 11:14am
When that happened to me, I politely asked “Are you my mother?”
When the answer was no, I said “Then f*** off then” and rode off.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 10:59am
661-Pete wrote: However U-turns are a rather grey area in motoring law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many years ago U-turns were illegal on all roads. This is not the case now, although they are still illegal where prohibited by a specific sign, or where there are double white lines. Certainly a lot of cases where I've witnessed U-turns (and they can be most disconcerting to the cyclist!) are where the driver is simply too lazy to make it as far as the next roundabout, where they can reverse their direction of travel quite legally and safely. Most irksome driving behaviour, I'd call it...
First I've heard of it ever having been illegal. If you think about it, a three point turn is permitted and deemed important enough to be a required part of driver training. So how could a U-turn (which manages the same manoeuver in a single turn) have been illegal? How could anybody legally turn round where there was no side road, roundabout or turning circle? You could reverse into a driveway or farm entrance but that itself would be a trespass and therefore unlawful.

I have no problem with u-turns or 3-point turns as long as they are done with care. I probably do them on my bike much more frequently than in the car.

Re: Ten Miles a Day

5 August 2014 - 10:57am
Damn and bollox.
I have just been informed of a change in workplace which will reduce my commute distance.
26 miles down to 18.
I will have to ride some ‘evening extenders’.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 10:56am
kwackers wrote: ... I'd like to think they were embarrassed when they spotted the repeater 'cyclist contraflow' signs further up the road but somehow I doubt they see road signs at all. ...

The so-called "flying motor cycle" (no motor vehicles sign) is often cited as a widely misunderstood traffic sign whenever there's some sort of quiz. Ime, it's routinely ignored by drivers, but often pointed to as indicating a prohibition which includes cycling. I suspect that the cycle contraflow sign is even less widely understood. Having lost all my stuff about this when my last computer packed up, I'm not going to look it up again. IIRC it's a blue rectangular sign with a white arrow or arrows (depending on number of lanes) pointing up, and a cycle logo with an arrow pointing down.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 10:41am
AlaninWales wrote:Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).
Without the full details it is not possible to who was to blame; presumably that's why there will be some investigation...
You have a point there. However U-turns are a rather grey area in motoring law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many years ago U-turns were illegal on all roads. This is not the case now, although they are still illegal where prohibited by a specific sign, or where there are double white lines. Certainly a lot of cases where I've witnessed U-turns (and they can be most disconcerting to the cyclist!) are where the driver is simply too lazy to make it as far as the next roundabout, where they can reverse their direction of travel quite legally and safely. Most irksome driving behaviour, I'd call it...

Myself, if I want to do a 180° turn when driving, I prefer to find a quiet side road or driveway on the left which I can reverse into. With due care, naturally.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 9:11am
There's no mention of an investigation into any offence being committed by the cyclist. The police investigation is to ascertain whether her driving was illegal, not to apportion blame.

Re: Any success reporting a near miss to the Police?

5 August 2014 - 9:05am
TonyR

I find your experience interesting and to some extent reassuring. When the early discussions took place about reducing police attendance at traffic accidents AKA advising more people who ring to report accidents that they need only exchange details, experienced traffic police queried what would happen in cases where false details were given. It's worth mentioning that in the days when the police did attend and investigate more accidents, anybody who initially decided only to exchange details but then found they had been stiffed was likely to get little sympathy if they later reported the accident to try to get the other party's details. Assurances were made that people who exchanged details would not be let down in these circumstances. The subsequent developments are all after my time, but I remember, perhaps a decade ago, when police forces' websites carried details of which collisions would be attended, some at least included an assurance along those lines.

After a crash, especially where there's no injury, IME a lot of people just want to reinstate their car at no cost to their no claims bonus. Prosecution is not on their agenda and is even less desirable to them when the possibility of being called to give evidence emerges. Injury accidents - and that's most crashes between a motor vehicle and a cyclist - are a different matter, or they should be. Unfortunately, under the guise of concentrating on serious crashes, there seems to have been a substantial loss of official interest in "minor injury" accidents. It's been suggested that the evidence for this includes a lot of hospital-visit injuries to vulnerable road users not appearing in the police stats. It's my impression and nothing more that KSI - killed or seriously injured is often interpreted as "any possibility of their being a Coroner's inquest." My wife was recently watching an episode of a telly documentary called Traffic Cops or something similar. (It features our local police force and our neighbours' twin sons have "starred" in it.) One bit that I caught included the scene of a bad smash. The police at the scene received info from the paramedics that the casualty was failing and an officer explained the effect of an inquest.

The point I'm trying to make is that this apparent downgrading of injury collisions is detrimental to the interests of vulnerable road users.

Re: Any success reporting a near miss to the Police?

5 August 2014 - 8:30am
TonyR wrote:When I got knocked off I went afterwards to the local police station to report it. Filled in a one page form with driver and witness driver details. Driver and witness didn't respond to follow up letters and I was about to give up when the police phoned me to check I had the driver's correct details (she had given me a false address) and gave me the details of her insurance company. I then made a claim to the insurance company who rejected it with a denial by the driver and a claim I had thrown myself off my bike. I then contacted the police and found they had visited and interviewed both the driver and witness. Although they had taken no further action they provided me with copies of their interview statements which demolished the insurance company's case and driver's denial. They still took it to the Court steps before settling in full but without the police I would have had to write it all off. So even if it doesn't help all the time I would now always report it to the police because it can work some of the time at least.

I hate insurance companies, they're so quick to take your money but when it comes to providing the service they should be providing, they're as slippery as a wet bar of soap.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 8:14am
661-Pete wrote:The DM has 'history' - the fact that this article, according to what has been posted on this thread, does not 'blame' the cyclist is to their credit - but nevertheless they have 'form' for anti-cyclist bias in general and I avoid their website like the plague whenever I can.

In the rare instances where a cycling-related story, worthy of discussion, appears in the DM and nowhere else, I reluctantly visit the DM site and usually copy-and-paste the relevant parts of the article (excluding the girlie sidebar that is ) - so that others may apprise themselves of the article's content without visiting the site...

But that is not necessary in this case. A bit of googling shows that the story has been published in several newspapers, so there is no need to visit the DM. For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 45013.html
So there!

As to the circumstances of this collision - well doing a U-turn (or a 3-point turn) without making absolutely sure there are no approaching vehicles which might be unable to stop - well that counts as Careless Driving at the very least. Why are the police unwilling to charge? The celebrity status of the perpetrator surely ought to make not an atom of difference....?
Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).
Without the full details it is not possible to who was to blame; presumably that's why there will be some investigation...

Re: Ten Miles a Day

5 August 2014 - 7:35am
87.42miles yesterday, but only 8,406ft = 96.2ft per mile.

Must try harder.

Re: Any success reporting a near miss to the Police?

5 August 2014 - 6:54am
When I got knocked off I went afterwards to the local police station to report it. Filled in a one page form with driver and witness driver details. Driver and witness didn't respond to follow up letters and I was about to give up when the police phoned me to check I had the driver's correct details (she had given me a false address) and gave me the details of her insurance company. I then made a claim to the insurance company who rejected it with a denial by the driver and a claim I had thrown myself off my bike. I then contacted the police and found they had visited and interviewed both the driver and witness. Although they had taken no further action they provided me with copies of their interview statements which demolished the insurance company's case and driver's denial. They still took it to the Court steps before settling in full but without the police I would have had to write it all off. So even if it doesn't help all the time I would now always report it to the police because it can work some of the time at least.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 6:38am
NUKe wrote: I never thought I'd fined myself defending the Daily Mail, but except for a a couple of misplaced comments around the wearing of helmets the article is fairly balanced for a change, and even the helmet comments are balanced by the comment from London Cycling .

Really? First its much more concerned about the mental trauma to the driver and her missing her appearance that evening than the severe physical trauma of the victim. In fact the seriously injured cyclist gets hardly a mention in the story.

Second it contrasts her low speed at the time with the cyclist's "significant speed" as if that were an excuse.

It cites unattributed calls for cyclists to take more responsibility for their actions as if being hit by a U-turning car is their responsibility. Who made those calls - a DM "journalist"? And why cite them if you are not prepared or able to attribute them?

And there are the gratuitous helmet comments but they are minor compared.

Re: Any success reporting a near miss to the Police?

5 August 2014 - 6:36am
I think there are two quite separate things here, both with the same result: inaction.

It seems pretty clear to me that once a situation has been reached nationally, where only the most serious of crashes are investigated, then near misses are unlikely to receive greater attention.

The retail banks don't like doing anything which may frighten the horses, or in this case which will cast doubt on their security. The losses to a bank need to be substantial before they agree to a criminal investigation, with the attendant publicity.

Re: Any success reporting a near miss to the Police?

5 August 2014 - 12:54am
A near miss is just that - a miss. Without an actual accident, its very unlikely that the police will be interested - whatever we might think as cyclists. Careless or dangerous driving is unlikely to lead to a prosecution without it resulting in an accident first.

I don't think this is an anti-cyclist attitude. The same happens in other areas. Last year I had a call claiming to be from my credit card company asking if I had just made an on-line transaction as they had detected suspicious activity. I hadn't, so was given a reference number and told to phone my bank. I became suspicious when I heard a not very convincing dialling tone and realised that the person had not hung up. Presumably the idea was they would 'answer' pretending to be my bank, so as to get my banking details. So, I phoned my bank using my mobile instead. Then, tried to report it to the police, who fobbed me off with "Action Fruad" who were completely uninterested as I had not actually been defrauded ("there' not very much we can do"). I tried BT, but they would only trace the call if the Police (but not Action Fraud) asked them to. In my view, this was attempted theft.

It does seem wrong that the authorities seem to wait until a crime or 'accident' has actually occurred instead of acting on unsuccessful attempts.

Getting back to road incidents: most cases involve two motor vehicles, and unless someone is actually interested, the only interest the police seem to have is getting the accident removed. It's up to the insurance companies to apportion blame, even when it's beyond doubt that one party was, at least, careless (eg hitting the car in front at a road junction).

Re: Biased?

4 August 2014 - 10:34pm
The DM has 'history' - the fact that this article, according to what has been posted on this thread, does not 'blame' the cyclist is to their credit - but nevertheless they have 'form' for anti-cyclist bias in general and I avoid their website like the plague whenever I can.

In the rare instances where a cycling-related story, worthy of discussion, appears in the DM and nowhere else, I reluctantly visit the DM site and usually copy-and-paste the relevant parts of the article (excluding the girlie sidebar that is ) - so that others may apprise themselves of the article's content without visiting the site...

But that is not necessary in this case. A bit of googling shows that the story has been published in several newspapers, so there is no need to visit the DM. For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 45013.html
So there!

As to the circumstances of this collision - well doing a U-turn (or a 3-point turn) without making absolutely sure there are no approaching vehicles which might be unable to stop - well that counts as Careless Driving at the very least. Why are the police unwilling to charge? The celebrity status of the perpetrator surely ought to make not an atom of difference....?

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions