OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.

On Aug 11, 12:26*pm, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:48 am, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:
spindrift writes:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
I assume you mean
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
Yes - that'll be the one.
It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of
positioning.
Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this.
I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. *I wonder
why that is?
Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose.
No he didn't.

The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry
Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level
3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of
their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result
of H&S issues for officers)
In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has
been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to
"complaint *about Constabulary policies and procedures."

I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I
think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues.

I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up).

Jim Chisholm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

thanks Jim, my biggest worry was that this set a precedent.

It used to be fairly robustly thought that when a vehicle collides
with a vehicle in front then the driver behind is automatically at
fault.

That cycle lane is stupid.

If you were a regular user you would understand the need.

The other day a daft motorist failed to read or comprehend the N notices
and drove up to the raised bollard. Of course it didn't lower, but then
an equally daft taxi driver drove up close behind, followed by a bus,
which of course could not know the first vehicle wasn't a taxi. They
then all had to slowly reverse to allow the first driver out.
I just sped by in the 'by-pass' lane on my bike.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWi4LwdvvHU

On Aug 11, 12:48*pm, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

spindrift writes:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
I assume you mean
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html

Yes - that'll be the one.

It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of
positioning.

Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this.

I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. *I wonder
why that is?

Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose.

No he didn't.

The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry
Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level
3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of
their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result
of H&S issues for officers)
In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has
been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to
"complaint *about Constabulary policies and procedures."

I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I
think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues.

I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up).

Jim Chisholm

I wish you luck with it. I don't see why it should be alright to trash
a bike in circumstance where hitting a car would not have been
accepted.

However, Judith seems quite right about the difference between the
diagram and the still.
Of course, had Judith noticed the offer on the bottom of the page
offering full CCTV footage....

From what I see, in the first pic there are two cyclists, neither have
reached the cycle lane just beyond the loading bay.
One can be seen inside the stretch of empty parking space, veering in,
as it were, towards the cycle lane, whilst the second cyclist remains
on the main roadway i.e. just outside the loading bay and doing so as
if to facilitate overtaking the other bike.

The pic of the imminent crash shows a car who might well have been
trying to overtake a cyclist who was, in effect, so far into the road
that said driver wouldn't have been able to squeeze through without
crashing into the bollards to the right.
But the point here is that if instead of a bike, that cyclist was a
parked car, the other driver would not have been entitled to thump it
out of the way.

Clearly, if the parking bay ran right up to the bollards and was fully
occupied, the road would have been as good as blocked to the passage
of cars.

Furthermore, by this time, the inside cyclist is probably within the
cycle lane, whilst the road hogging cyclist, in spite of having
reached the cycle lane beyond the loading bay, has clearly made no
effort whatsoever to veer in towards the cycle lane and remains
instead out in the middle of the road like some sort of selfish ****.

But arsehole or not, that car driver should have had no more right to
bump off the cyclist in order to to squeeze through the forthcoming
gap anymore than if it was a conked out car that was blocking up the
passage.

Which, given what an ignorant dickhead such 'cycling' portrays is
rather a pity.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:26:15 +0100, "J. Chisholm"
wrote:

snip

I just sped by in the 'by-pass' lane on my bike.

Jim


weren't you concerned about glass, dog ****, or general debris in the
cycle lane, a pedestrian walking off the pavement in front of you, or
the danger you were putting yourself in when you would had to rejoin
the main carriageway?

(These are of course all argument which have been produced for not
using such (and even that precise) lane in the past)


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that
helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence
suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational
forces implicated in the worst brain injuries.
(Guy 'Liar' Chapman)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:07:31 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
wrote:

snip

The diagram is the same as the picture, and you are able to view the
footage by contacting the cyclist- the link's on the webpage above
that you obviously haven't read properly.

The diagram is not the same as the picture - and it just shows how
inattentive to detail people are when it suits their own agenda.
As I said - unfortunately "accuracy" in this group is rather
selective.

What is the position of the cyclist in the picture with regard to the
LH edge of the lane through the bollards?

What is the true position of the cyclist from the photograph?

(You see - I have looked at and even read the web page - (obviously -
with more attention to the detail than you did))

The footage may be made available to those who ask - I will give it a
go.

That does not answer the question - why is it not made available to
everyone online? Can you answer that?




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that
helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence
suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational
forces implicated in the worst brain injuries.
(Guy 'Liar' Chapman)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:47:58 -0700 (PDT), aquachimp
wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:48*pm, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

spindrift writes:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
I assume you mean
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html

Yes - that'll be the one.

It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of
positioning.

Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this.

I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. *I wonder
why that is?

Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose.

No he didn't.

The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry
Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level
3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of
their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result
of H&S issues for officers)
In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has
been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to
"complaint *about Constabulary policies and procedures."

I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I
think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues.

I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up).

Jim Chisholm

I wish you luck with it. I don't see why it should be alright to trash
a bike in circumstance where hitting a car would not have been
accepted.

However, Judith seems quite right about the difference between the
diagram and the still.
Of course, had Judith noticed the offer on the bottom of the page
offering full CCTV footage....


I had noticed - and I have requested a copy.

However, it does beg the question why has it not been made available
for general viewing (with no commercial implications).

Perhaps someone can explain?



From what I see, in the first pic there are two cyclists, neither have
reached the cycle lane just beyond the loading bay.
One can be seen inside the stretch of empty parking space, veering in,
as it were, towards the cycle lane, whilst the second cyclist remains
on the main roadway i.e. just outside the loading bay and doing so as
if to facilitate overtaking the other bike.

The pic of the imminent crash shows a car who might well have been
trying to overtake a cyclist who was, in effect, so far into the road
that said driver wouldn't have been able to squeeze through without
crashing into the bollards to the right.
But the point here is that if instead of a bike, that cyclist was a
parked car, the other driver would not have been entitled to thump it
out of the way.


This is my point about the footage - we can't tell what actually
happened from the photographs and the incorrect diagram.

Did the car hit the cycle? It hasn't in the photograph as far as I
can see? It looks like the car is braking but no collision yet.

Immediately after the photograph - did the cyclist hit the side of
the car (dare I say it : perhaps being bloody minded and thinking I
was here first - I have as much right to be here as you)

Did the car sound its horn?

Why did the cyclist not use the cycle lane which had been provided?

Was the cyclist trying to make a point?



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that
helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence
suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational
forces implicated in the worst brain injuries.
(Guy 'Liar' Chapman)

judith wrote:

Did the cat hit the cyclist?

Yes the wing mirroe cuaght the cyclists handlebar hence throwing him off

Did the car sound its horn?

The driver said he did, but neither cyclist heard it
(So he saw the cyclists and had ample time to take avoiding action , but
didn't)

Why did the cyclist not use the cycle lane which had been provided?

This has been stated often enough:
Exiting from the lane before the bollards were in operation was
'extremely' difficult, with a narrow gap and cyclist required to look
over shoulder at that point, with drivers *clearly* breaking the law by
exceeeding posted 20mph limit.
At the time of the crash the LA had already agreed to close the lanes as
unsafe until bollards came into operation.

Was the cyclist trying to make a point?

Cyclist was riding according to 'Level 3 ' bikability' and had every
right to use the bollard lane, as cyclists aren't prohibited.

At no time did the cyclist break the Law

It is clear that the driver of the motor vehicle did, and the CPS
guidelines say the 'driving to close to another vehicle' is careless or
inconsiderate driving.

Jim

On Aug 11, 2:55*pm, judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:47:58 -0700 (PDT), aquachimp



wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:48*pm, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

spindrift writes:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html
I assume you mean
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html

Yes - that'll be the one.

It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of
positioning.

Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this.

I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. *I wonder
why that is?

Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose.

No he didn't.

The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry
Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level
3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of
their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result
of H&S issues for officers)
In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has
been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to
"complaint *about Constabulary policies and procedures."

I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I
think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues.

I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up).

Jim Chisholm

I wish you luck with it. I don't see why it should be alright to trash
a bike in circumstance where hitting a car would not have been
accepted.

However, Judith seems quite right about the difference between the
diagram and the still.
Of course, had Judith noticed the offer on the bottom of the page
offering full CCTV footage....

I had noticed - and I have requested a copy.

However, it does beg the question why has it not been made available
for general viewing (with no commercial implications).

Perhaps someone can explain?

I understood the answer to that was implied by the extracted and
signed for promise not to use the footage for 'entertainment'.
Seeing what appears to be a wholly inconsiderate cyclist getting his
just deserts might be regarded by some as highly entertaining.

But instead, on the point of amusing inconsiderateness's, we have to
settle for the amusing irony of ... well, ... pot calling kettle..
springs to mind.


From what I see, in the first pic there are two cyclists, neither have
reached the cycle lane just beyond the loading bay.
One can be seen inside the stretch of empty parking space, veering in,
as it were, towards the cycle lane, whilst the second cyclist remains
on the main roadway i.e. just outside the loading bay and doing so as
if to facilitate overtaking the other bike.

The pic of the imminent crash shows a car who might well have been
trying to overtake a cyclist who was, in effect, so far into the road
that said driver wouldn't have been able to squeeze through without
crashing into the bollards to the right.
But the point here is that if instead of a bike, that cyclist was a
parked car, the other driver would not have been entitled to thump it
out of the way.

This is my point about the footage - we can't tell what actually
happened from the photographs and the incorrect *diagram.

Well, only having being there would answer that one surely if you're
unwilling to extrapolate from the evidence on offer what was most
likely.
And in that view I see that a motorist's selfishness and perhaps
understandably exhausted patience drew him to try and belt his way
through.


Did the car hit the cycle? *It hasn't in the photograph as far as I
can see? It looks like the car is braking *but no collision yet.

*Immediately after the photograph - did the cyclist hit the side of
the car (dare I say it : perhaps being bloody minded and thinking I
was here first - I have as much right to be here as you)

From the article, the authorities seems to think that the cyclist did
veer into the car. From the stills we can't see for sure, but,if we
can assume the 2ND pic is as close to the impact as could be shown
before infringing the non-entertainment contract, looking at the
cyclists line of travel from the earlier pic, there is no evidence
whatsoever of any deviation from that line towards the car.
Otherwise, we'd have to believe that between the stills, the cyclist
had indeed veered towards the cycle line and was returning to ram the
car.


Did the car sound its horn?

The answer to that has since been given. If the driver had indeed
hooted, it only confirms for me how very much in the wrong the driver
was.

Hooting is applied, AFAIU as a warning conveying a certain lack of
control by the hooter. Get-the-****-out-of-my-way type hooting implies
controlled and intentional control freakery and not the oh,-****,-jump-
out-the-way-quick hoot.

Put it this way, in a rush you're walking down a busy path, and though
you're going as fast as you can until your way is impeded by a couple
of old dears. Unfortunately you haven't judged things right and you
bump into one. You apologise profusely , but she still stumble
backwards and then ends up with a broken hip.
Or, your hammering down the path, see the old ladies, shout out
"Sorry" to announce intent and then go and flatten one.

Why did the cyclist not use the cycle lane which had been provided?

That's not really relevant. Cars often stop in awkward places to let
off passengers, that driver wouldn't have been entitled to bang into
such inconsiderately parked cars on the grounds that they should have
used a car park.


Was the cyclist trying to make a point?

And how would the CCTV footage qualify that one?
Besides, what point? The alternative would be to scramble away from
the car and make the "point" that the driver was entitled to force
such


-- *
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. *Some evidence shows that
helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence
suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational
forces implicated in the worst brain injuries.
(Guy 'Liar' Chapman)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:07:31 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
wrote:

snip

you are able to view the
footage by contacting the cyclist- the link's on the webpage above
that you obviously haven't read properly.

I have requested the footage - the response was:

No
Given your postings in the previous thread, and the fact that you've
given me no reason why you've a need for the footage, I am not
releasing it to you. It has been seen by some cycling professionals
and some with 'Level 3' cycle training qualifications.


*****************not said - but reading between lines**********

it has been seen by my friends who I trust - but I certainly wouldn't
want you to see it - as you obviously may find something which would
show me in a poor light.

That is the same reason that we do not want to make it available to
the public at large - who knows what people could point out.

You will have to rely on the two random images I have selected (which
actually show me in a good light) - and of course if you're not sure
what happened - look at the diagram for a biased interpretation of the
photograph.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that
helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence
suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational
forces implicated in the worst brain injuries.
(Guy 'Liar' Chapman)

judith wrote:


Any chance of making the full CCTV footage available. I must say it
seems odd that you haven't. I think you can as long as there is no
commercial gain.

You're wrong, again.

Why don't you put the cctv on utube or similar? - then we can all
judge what happened.

"I did have to sign to say it wouldn't be used for "Entertainment""

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:58:12 -0700, spindrift wrote:
It used to be fairly robustly thought that when a vehicle collides
with a vehicle in front then the driver behind is automatically at
fault.

I believe it did in insurance claims as a while ago there was a story
going around that crimnal gangs were driving around a reasonable speed
then performing emergency stops in front of drivers for no reason. The
driver behind then ran in the back of them, huge claim for damages to the
car, whiplash, time off work etc.

I believe the police got wise to it (possibly pointed out that they could
prosecute for something).

Doesn't change my view that the cyclist was correct in this case.

peter