CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 8 min ago

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 11:41am
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 - 10:11am
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 - 10:05am
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 - 9:30am
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 - 9:14am
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 - 8:35am
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 - 7:54am
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 - 7:38am
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 - 7:36am
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 - 1:54am
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 - 11:34pm
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....?

Re: Biased?

4 August 2014 - 10:40pm
bigjim wrote:NUKe wrote:Why are you disgusted Jim ?
It seems a pretty straight forward account. Hopefully the cyclists makes a full recovery. It neither seeks to exonerate or damn ms Piper
If you can't see it I can't be bothered explaining.
Have it your way I only asked


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 . If your only gripe are the helmet comments then why didn't you place this in the helmet sub forum. There is no rant, no blaming of the cyclists, If you read the article it does describe how the CPS has to make a decision and describes quite well the antagonism between cycling and non cycling groups.

Re: Help with choosing bike type and/or commute through Lond

4 August 2014 - 8:05pm
So I visited the university again and saw practically all the bike facilities on the site. I'd say any outside the university is filled with cheaper bikes and the facilities inside the university, but still outdoors and available to the public, had the expensive bikes together; their riders purposefully group the bikes in each area based on perceived cost, apparently. It seems these are the better places to park your bike, although a couple of the areas that had racks with expensive bikes were almost completely secluded from crowds (not that it matters too much).

I found that lockers are available on first-come-first-serve basis; could be somewhere to leave a folding bike, saddle or wheel, or some things from the pannier. Leaving locks on the bike stands is officially not allowed but I don't think it matters and I saw some being left like that. I could leave a chain lock. Finally the gym for students is much cheaper than ordinary gyms which means I could use as a shower if I found I needed it.

When I mentioned Ebay and Gumtree, I didn't mean I was against second hand bikes per-say, it is just I want to find something that fits me comfortably for a 15 mile commute and I (wrongly) assumed that it wouldn't be possible to try the bike when buying online.

Re: More than a little red faced?

4 August 2014 - 5:54pm
Hmmmm.... being forced to stop ... storming out of his car in an alcohol-fuelled rage ... remonstrating (if that's the right word) with the police officer controlling the traffic ... police officer takes a few suspicious sniffs ...
I'm only guessing all this, mind you.

Re: Cyclist injured by steam roller

4 August 2014 - 4:43pm
Presume the peleton split around it and he didn't?

Cyclist injured by steam roller

4 August 2014 - 4:26pm
What the chances of this happening are I don't know but this poor chap ran into a stationary steam roller....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ca ... e-28524709

Re: Help with choosing bike type and/or commute through Lond

4 August 2014 - 4:06pm
Just to add to the good advice above:
A tatty looking fixed or single speed bike can be less attractive to thieves but for your commuting distance, I'd stick with gears . Opportunists usually just want the easiest pickings so two D locks and replacing all quick releases for bolts would make your bike harder work. Additional tactics are locking up next to a better looking bike, and avoiding leaving your bike in the same place each day. As mentioned upthread, a folder can be taken with you and is more versatile for a longer commute, but I appreciate this is a more expensive option.

Vorpal wrote:There are also some community organisations & Cycle hubs that are non-profits, set up to help people get cycling.

London Bike Kitchen in Hackney may be a good source for you. They run drop in workshops and maintenance courses – I've found their staff very friendly and helpful:
http://lbk.org.uk/

aspiringcyclist wrote:Also, I would like to be able to try out the bike first so Ebay, Gumtree, etc. aren't options.

Don't rule out second hand, as there are some good quality bikes around that look suitably 'worn'. If you're unsure of what to look for, perhaps someone could accompany you? Any seller should allow you to inspect and test ride one, including those on Gum Tree. As well as the CTC classifieds section here, you could also try sellers in these two forums:

http://www.cyclechat.net/forums/classif ... rvices.20/
http://www.lfgss.com/ (Seems to be undergoing migration at the moment. Despite the name, you may find a suitable geared bike for sale.)

Re: Help with choosing bike type and/or commute through Lond

4 August 2014 - 3:34pm
I think it works fairly well. I only have anecdotal evidence to support it, but as mjr implies, the more commen a bike is, the easier it is to get rid of.

Professional thieves want something easy to sell for reasonable cash. If they cannot immediately identify a bike or it's value, they will go on to something that is more sure for them.

A combination of of uncertain value or distinctive markings, and better locks than an easily recogniseable bike will normally 'protect' your bike.

If you can get secure cycle parking, by all means use it. Don't just rely on the university website, either. Contact the university. See if there is a BUG (bicycle users group) or similar. Ask where the cycle parking is, how many spaces, if you need to arrive early to ensure that you get one, etc. Someone is bound to know that sort of thing. It might be best to call and ask. You also might be able to leave a lock there.

There are a number of previous threads on locking bikes. Here's one of them viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56076
You can use the search tool to find others.

Re: Ten Miles a Day

4 August 2014 - 2:47pm
Ayesha wrote:I transcribed it off a folded out packet which previously contained Gitanes cigarettes which was shown to me in 1992 by a chap at Peugeot Citroen SA who knew a bloke who’s brother-in-law had a friend who worked at the Peugeot museum in Sochaux.

If I let you see it, I will have to kill you.
First you'd have to find me

Re: Ten Miles a Day

4 August 2014 - 2:39pm
I transcribed it off a folded out packet which previously contained Gitanes cigarettes which was shown to me in 1992 by a chap at Peugeot Citroen SA who knew a bloke who’s brother-in-law had a friend who worked at the Peugeot museum in Sochaux.

If I let you see it, I will have to kill you.

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