# Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.



## Cycleops (25 Apr 2022)

Some have criticised the police for prosecuting the motorist. What does the CC jury think?
https://mol.im/a/10750323
DM link.
Sorry I can't find the video on YouTube.


----------



## SydZ (25 Apr 2022)

The driver crosses the white line. Had he stayed in lane I think the story would have been different.


----------



## BoldonLad (25 Apr 2022)

Seems fair to me. Cannot see any reason why he/she had to cross the white line, there was no obstruction on his/her side. Slowing down wouldn't have hurt. Pity they didn't prosecute the owner/driver of the blue car parked half on the footway too.


----------



## classic33 (25 Apr 2022)

@Cycleops, perhaps the video isn't on youtube to allow the case to go ahead.


----------



## Cycleops (25 Apr 2022)

Yes, I thought that too @SydZ & @BoldonLad . Do you think that he strayed over the line deliberately?


----------



## BoldonLad (25 Apr 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Yes, I thought that too @SydZ & @BoldonLad . Do you think that he strayed over the line deliberately?



Who knows, except him/her?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Had that been a car rather than a cycle, wouldn't the expectation be that the car would yield to oncoming vehicles, as the obstruction is in their carriageway? That being the case, shouldn't the cyclist have taken appropriate defence and waited for the oncoming traffic to pass?


----------



## SydZ (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Had that been a car rather than a cycle, wouldn't the expectation be that the car would yield to oncoming vehicles, as the obstruction is in their carriageway? That being the case, shouldn't the cyclist have taken appropriate defence and waited for the oncoming traffic to pass?



A car has to yield as it cannot pass without entering the opposite lane which is already occupied by an oncoming vehicle. That is not the case for the cyclists is this case.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

SydZ said:


> A car has to yield as it cannot pass without entering the opposite lane which is already occupied by an oncoming vehicle. That is not the case for the cyclists is this case.



In which case, by the cyclists own judgement, there was room for them to get through safely. Had there not been, the onus should be on the cyclist to yield in that situation.

Obviously I'm all in favour of the Police and courts protecting cyclists, but I think in this case they're sending out the wrong message, and it will be antagonistic to car drivers, reducing the impact of other measures imho.


----------



## SydZ (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> In which case, by the cyclists own judgement, there was room for them to get through safely. Had there not been, the onus should be on the cyclist to yield in that situation.



I’m not disagreeing with you. I am simply commenting on the circumstances that are being presented in this case.


----------



## Rusty Nails (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> In which case, by the cyclists own judgement, there was room for them to get through safely. Had there not been, the onus should be on the cyclist to yield in that situation.
> 
> Obviously I'm all in favour of the Police and courts protecting cyclists, but I think in this case they're sending out the wrong message, and it will be antagonistic to car drivers, reducing the impact of other measures imho.



There was room for the cyclists to get through on the reasonable assumption that the car would stay on its own side of the road.

It becomes very worrying if the courts decide to let someone off careless/dangerous driving because it might hurt the feelings of unreasonable drivers.


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (25 Apr 2022)

I thought that motorists could only cross the white line if it was clear and safe to do so. There is no onus on traffic - either vehicles or bikes - to move out of the way. The cyclists can hold their line and the motorists just have to wait. 
As there were cyclists on the road it was not clear or safe to make that manoeuvre. QED.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> I thought that motorists could only cross the white line if it was clear and safe to do so. There is no onus on traffic - either vehicles or bikes - to move out of the way. The cyclists can hold their line and the motorists just have to wait.
> As there were cyclists on the road it was not clear or safe to make that manoeuvre. QED.





Rusty Nails said:


> There was room for the cyclists to get through on the reasonable assumption that the car would stay on its own side of the road.
> 
> It becomes very worrying if the courts decide to let someone off careless/dangerous driving because it might hurt the feelings of unreasonable drivers.



It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either. 

It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.

There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road, and they passed each other away from the parked vehicle, so the cyclist could have adjusted their position to have passed further away from the car. They actually appear to move toward it prior to reaching the parked car.

The obstruction is clearly in the cyclists lane, so the responsibility lays with them imho. 

Clearly the Police and the Courts disagree with me, but then others have disagreed with decisions not to prosecute on clearer evidence than this.


----------



## classic33 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.
> 
> It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.
> 
> ...


Obstructions on both sides it seems. The driver moved out/over to avoid the tree(s) on their side. But crossed into the opposite lane to miss it.

As mentioned earlier, was anything done about the car illegally parked on the pavement?


----------



## Rusty Nails (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road


 Fair play, you are working hard there to find any reason, no matter how slight, to justify your argument.

The cyclist sees a car on his side of the road, a car approaching him, and he is expected to notice "there does appear to be a bush protruding _ slightly_ into the road".
How about the motorist being expected to notice the more obvious cyclist overtaking a parked car and not crossing over the centre line?


----------



## Ian H (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.
> 
> It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.
> 
> ...



The cyclist isn't obstructed by the parked car. There's enough room to pass it within the lane. The oncoming driver either moves over the line deliberately to intimidate, or has an obstruction on their side. If the latter, they should have given way.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> Obstructions on both sides it seems. The driver moved out/over to avoid the tree(s) on their side. But crossed into the opposite lane to miss it.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, was anything done about the car illegally parked on the pavement?



Is it actually illegally parked?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Ian H said:


> The cyclist isn't obstructed by the parked car. There's enough room to pass it within the lane. The oncoming driver either moves over the line deliberately to intimidate, or has an obstruction on their side. If the latter, they should have given way.



Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.


----------



## classic33 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Is it actually illegally parked?


Is pavement parking legal.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> Is pavement parking legal.



It's not strictly illegal in most places.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Had that been a car rather than a cycle, wouldn't the expectation be that the car would yield to oncoming vehicles, as the obstruction is in their carriageway? That being the case, shouldn't the cyclist have taken appropriate defence and waited for the oncoming traffic to pass?



There is no expectation that a car would yield there unless they had to cross the centre line to pass the parked vehicle.

The cyclists weren't even really close to the centre line.

The driver was an idiot who fully deserved what he got. And how the ABD can possibly defend him I have no idea.


----------



## Profpointy (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.



You don't normally expect an oncoming vehicle to cross into your side of the road though do you? If you follow that logic you could barely cycle anywhere.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> There is no expectation that a car would yield there unless they had to cross the centre line to pass the parked vehicle.
> 
> The cyclists weren't even really close to the centre line.
> 
> The driver was an idiot who fully deserved what he got. And how the ABD can possibly defend him I have no idea.



I would argue that there is a clear expectation that a car approaching the parked vehicle, as the cyclist was would be fully expected to yield. The cyclist moved toward the centre line prior to reaching the parked car, that the oncoming car had already passed.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Obviously I'm all in favour of the Police and courts protecting cyclists, but I think in this case they're sending out the wrong message, and it will be antagonistic to car drivers, reducing the impact of other measures imho.



How is it "sending out the wrong message" to prosecute somebody who is clearly filmed driving carelessly and without consideration for other road users?

NOT prosecuting wold have been sending out a much more "wrong" message.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Profpointy said:


> You don't normally expect an oncoming vehicle to cross into your side of the road though do you? If you follow that logic you could barely cycle anywhere.



Would you expect a vehicle to move over so much earlier than the obstruction that you have just past?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> How is it "sending out the wrong message" to prosecute somebody who is clearly filmed driving carelessly and without consideration for other road users?
> 
> NOT prosecuting wold have been sending out a much more "wrong" message.



I clearly disagree, but life is all about opinions.

In my view, the car driver had passed the hazard, and the cyclist moved over, when they would have been safer staying in primary for a second or two longer, just in case the oncoming vehicle had cause to move out due to a hazard on their near side.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.
> 
> It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.


And the "clear and consistent rules" here are that you do NOT cross the centre line unless it is clear and safe to do so.




ClichéGuevara said:


> There does appear to be a bush protruding slightly into the road, and they passed each other away from the parked vehicle, so the cyclist could have adjusted their position to have passed further away from the car. They actually appear to move toward it prior to reaching the parked car.
> 
> The obstruction is clearly in the cyclists lane, so the responsibility lays with them imho.


The cyclists were well within their own lane. The onus is ALWAYS on the vehicle moving into the opposite lane.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.



You really don't seem to understand the concept of the centre line here. The cyclists were well within their own lane. The car wasn't.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> And the "clear and consistent rules" here are that you do NOT cross the centre line unless it is clear and safe to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> The cyclists were well within their own lane. The onus is ALWAYS on the vehicle moving into the opposite lane.



Actually, the onus isn't always on the vehicle in the opposite lane. In the video in the OP, as the obstruction is in the cyclists part of the carriageway, the onus is on them to yield if there isn't room. The cyclist was virtually on the centre line, yet still some distance from the parked car when they past the oncoming vehicle. 

I'm bored of this now. I've said my bit, and none of this will change anything, as it's not as though the driver has asked me to run their appeal.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I would argue that there is a clear expectation that a car approaching the parked vehicle, as the cyclist was would be fully expected to yield. The cyclist moved toward the centre line prior to reaching the parked car, that the oncoming car had already passed.



That expectation is only valid if the car approaching the parked vehicle would have to cross the centre line to pass it.


----------



## Ian H (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.


Rubbish. That would only apply if the cyclist couldn't proceed within their own lane. The cyclist was not obstructed. The driver, for what ever reason, encroached on the cyclist's side of the road.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You really don't seem to understand the concept of the centre line here. The cyclists were well within their own lane. The car wasn't.



When there is an obstruction, the centre line becomes academic, as the lane becomes the size of the available space.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> That expectation is only valid if the car approaching the parked vehicle would have to cross the centre line to pass it.



It isn't, but I'll leave you to believe what you like.


----------



## Alex321 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Actually, the onus isn't always on the vehicle in the opposite lane.


I didn't say it was. The onus is on the vehicle which has to cross the centre line.



ClichéGuevara said:


> In the video in the OP, as the obstruction is in the cyclists part of the carriageway, the onus is on them to yield if there isn't room. The cyclist was virtually on the centre line, yet still some distance from the parked car when they past the oncoming vehicle.
> 
> I'm bored of this now. I've said my bit, and none of this will change anything, as it's not as though the driver has asked me to run their appeal.



If the cyclist had been "virtually on the centre line", they would be dead now, since the car was well over it.


----------



## Slick (25 Apr 2022)

To be honest, it looks like something I see often whilst out on the bike but definitely car at fault and I'm delighted to see the police prosecuting this.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

Ian H said:


> Rubbish. That would only apply if the cyclist couldn't proceed within their own lane. The cyclist was not obstructed. The driver, for what ever reason, encroached on the cyclist's side of the road.



Ah right. I must have imagined the parked vehicle.


----------



## classic33 (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.


They moved out, maintaining as straight a line as possible. No last minute manoeuvre to get them out from behind the car, where they'd have been hidden from view.

They also stayed clear of the "door zone" when passing the car.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (25 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> They moved out, maintaining as straight a line as possible. No last minute manoeuvre to get them out from behind the car, where they'd have been hidden from view.
> 
> They also stayed clear of the "door zone" when passing the car.



They moved to a position, prior to the obstruction, that brought them closer to the vehicle than the rules suggest are appropriate for cars to pass a cyclist. Had they read the road, and stayed in primary for a second or two longer, they would still be visible, and have taken sensible precautions in case the oncoming vehicle had cause to move. 

This applies more so for the camera person.


----------



## cougie uk (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> It's not clear from the clip if there was something on the inside of the car that could have caused it to move over, and I doubt the cyclists had checked either.
> 
> It's nothing to do with 'hurting feelings' that's not really a credible argument. It's more a case of keeping clear and consistent rules, as if they're not, then the confusion causes frustration, which is no good for anyone.
> 
> ...



The driver of the car crossed into the cyclists lane. If it's that hard for you to understand I hope you don't drive.


----------



## Seevio (25 Apr 2022)

Looks fairly clear cut to me. Driver for reasons legitimate or not, crossed the centre line bringing him too close to the cyclists.


----------



## Rusty Nails (25 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I'm bored of this now.



Nice get out.



ClichéGuevara said:


> I must have imagined the parked vehicle



Your imagination has certainly been working overtime.


----------



## Seevio (26 Apr 2022)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhW08Z5wyqA


----------



## slowmotion (26 Apr 2022)

Appalling driving. Never mind the white line distraction, the car passed the cyclist really fast and insanely closely.
Dreadful.


----------



## raleighnut (26 Apr 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Yes, I thought that too @SydZ & @BoldonLad . Do you think that he strayed over the line deliberately?



yep looks like a clear case of 'intimidation' to me


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Nice get out.
> 
> 
> 
> Your imagination has certainly been working overtime.



No get out or imagination needed. I fully expected resistance to my opinion, I can live with that, and have seen little in the arguments offered that changes my view. 

I'm an assertive cyclist, but for my own protection, I would not have moved out from primary as early as those two cyclists did, as there was no need. They would have lost no time had they stayed in primary, and would have met the oncoming vehicle more safely, before negotiating the hazard of the parked car.

It's interesting that people insist on cars keeping their distance when overtaking cyclists, and that cyclists should not be forced in to the gutter, as that part of the highway is generally poorly maintained, and cyclists may need to take evasive action for obstructions or potholes, yet seem to think it's okay for the cyclist to unnecessarily narrow that gap due to an upcoming obstruction in their lane that they had not yet reached, and for cars to remain in the gutter.


----------



## markemark (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> No get out or imagination needed. I fully expected resistance to my opinion, I can live with that, and have seen little in the arguments offered that changes my view.
> 
> I'm an assertive cyclist, but for my own protection, I would not have moved out from primary as early as those two cyclists did, as there was no need. They would have lost no time had they stayed in primary, and would have met the oncoming vehicle more safely, before negotiating the hazard of the parked car.
> 
> It's interesting that people insist on cars keeping their distance when overtaking cyclists, and that cyclists should not be forced in to the gutter, as that part of the highway is generally poorly maintained, and cyclists may need to take evasive action for obstructions or potholes, yet seem to think it's okay for the cyclist to unnecessarily narrow that gap due to an upcoming obstruction in their lane that they had not yet reached, and for cars to remain in the gutter.



The cyclists may have been wise to have held back as it was obviously a pinch point. That is irrelevant to the car being at fault and as such the car driver should been fined either way.


----------



## newts (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Your argument that they should have given way, works more for the cyclist, as the car had passed the park vehicle before the cyclist reached it, but the cyclist chose to move out early.



Perhaps you should watch the video closer? The first cyclist (of 3) is level with the parked car when the oncoming car passed, over the line at excessive speed for the situation.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> No get out or imagination needed. I fully expected resistance to my opinion, I can live with that, and have seen little in the arguments offered that changes my view.
> 
> I'm an assertive cyclist, but for my own protection, I would not have moved out from primary as early as those two cyclists did, as there was no need. They would have lost no time had they stayed in primary, and would have met the oncoming vehicle more safely, before negotiating the hazard of the parked car.


One part of your imagination is this concept that they "moved out from prime". No, they actually moved *into* prime.



ClichéGuevara said:


> It's interesting that people insist on cars keeping their distance when overtaking cyclists, and that cyclists should not be forced in to the gutter, as that part of the highway is generally poorly maintained, and cyclists may need to take evasive action for obstructions or potholes, yet seem to think it's okay for the cyclist to unnecessarily narrow that gap due to an upcoming obstruction in their lane that they had not yet reached, and for cars to remain in the gutter.



Why do you find that part of your imagination (since none of it happened) to be "interesting"?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

newts said:


> Perhaps you should watch the video closer? The first cyclist (of 3) is level with the parked car when the oncoming car passed, over the line at excessive speed for the situation.



The car is not over the line when the 1st cyclist goes through. Therefore they have reduced the gap between themselves and that vehicle.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> One part of your imagination is this concept that they "moved out from prime". No, they actually moved *into* prime.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find that part of your imagination (since none of it happened) to be "interesting"?





Alex321 said:


> One part of your imagination is this concept that they "moved out from prime". No, they actually moved *into* prime.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find that part of your imagination (since none of it happened) to be "interesting"?



The pictures demonstrate that it isn't _my_ imagination.


----------



## DCBassman (26 Apr 2022)

I doubt there was any obstruction in the offender's lane, as that would mitigate for them. And then there would not have been a prosecution. No obstruction? No defence.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> The pictures demonstrate that it isn't _my_ imagination.



False.

You imagine that the car would have had to "drive in the gutter" if it hadn't pulled across into the other lane, while there is not the slightest indication that might have been the case.

You imagine the cyclists pulling out of prime, when they were actually pulling into it.

You imagine the cyclists "unnecessarily" narrowing the gap, when the highway code recommends doing as they did, and pulling out before reaching an obstacle (and common sense would say the same).

If you are not just trolling, and genuinely believe the driver was not seriously at fault here, then I *really* hope you don't drive.

The courts most definitely disagree with you too, since he wasn't even given the minimum of 3 points for careless driving, but was given 5 points - only 1 short of the maximum.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> False.
> 
> You imagine that the car would have had to "drive in the gutter" if it hadn't pulled across into the other lane, while there is not the slightest indication that might have been the case.
> 
> ...



Really, so where would the car have been, if not with it's wheels in the gutter?

The cyclist could quite easily have remained in the centre of their lane (not the highway) and lost no time at all, and navigated the hazard safely.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Really, so where would the car have been, if not with it's wheels in the gutter?



In the normal driving position.

There was plenty of room for the vehicle to stay within their own lane. I've rewatched the video several times, and there is no sign of any obstruction in their lane. They could have driven with their nearside wheels 18 inches out from the white line and not crossed the central white line. And that is exactly what they should have been doing.



ClichéGuevara said:


> The cyclist could quite easily have remained in the centre of their lane (not the highway) and lost no time at all, and navigated the hazard safely.



They were very close to the centre of their lane. Much closer to the centre of it than to the centre line.


----------



## Baldy (26 Apr 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Yes, I thought that too @SydZ & @BoldonLad . Do you think that he strayed over the line deliberately?



I believe the court decided that he did.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> In the normal driving position.
> 
> There was plenty of room for the vehicle to stay within their own lane. I've rewatched the video several times, and there is no sign of any obstruction in their lane. They could have driven with their nearside wheels 18 inches out from the white line and not crossed the central white line. And that is exactly what they should have been doing.
> 
> ...



At the start of the clip, the cyclist in shot moved toward the oncoming vehicle. The camera cyclist was already further towards the white lines prior to that, and appears to move closer still despite the hazard being some distance in front, and the oncoming vehicle having already passed it.

I would not ride like that, as I prefer to take my own appropriate safety measures based on reading the road and timing my approach.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Baldy said:


> I believe the court decided that he did.



That is indisputable. I'm more arguing that the cyclists could have approached that hazard far better than they did.


----------



## Arjimlad (26 Apr 2022)

I agree with the police, the CPS and the court here. The driver crossed the white line at some speed towards the cyclist who would have expected the driver to stay on his side of the road. 

I think the big brouhaha is because if people just look at the video & can only imagine themselves driving towards the blue car, they would of course expect to slow down & give way to the oncoming vehicle. Whereas a cyclist can overtake it without causing any obstruction at all to oncoming drivers, on the basis of them staying in their lane. 

I have had a driver veer over the white line towards me without any obstruction at all on his side of the road whilst I was riding 2 abreast with my son. The report was accepted by the police & acted upon, outcome unknown.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> as the obstruction is in the cyclists part of the carriageway, the onus is on them to yield if there isn't room.


The cyclists didn't need to leave their lane to avoid the obstruction so had no obligation to yield. On the other hand, the car driver for some reason crossed to the opposing lane and endangered the cyclists. Conviction deserved.

See also:

HC
Rule 127
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead.* Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear* and wish to overtake or turn off.

The road was not clear.


----------



## matticus (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> They moved to a position, prior to the obstruction, that brought them closer to the vehicle than the rules suggest are appropriate for cars to pass a cyclist. Had they read the road, and stayed in primary for a second or two longer, they would still be visible, and have taken sensible precautions in case the oncoming vehicle had cause to move.
> 
> This applies more so for the camera person.
> 
> View attachment 641845



After reading the first two pages - and without even seeing the video - I thought "_He's almost certainly talking drivel. It sounds clear-cut_"
Now you've posted a screenshot that confirms it - thanks.


----------



## Cycleops (26 Apr 2022)

Regardless of what you think about who should have been where and when the message being sent out by the police is take extra care when approaching cyclists or risk being penalised. Simples.


----------



## lazybloke (26 Apr 2022)

The bigger problem here is the comments section below the video. I didn't expect much from the knuckle-dragging readship, but nor did I expect suggestions to mow down a paralyse cyclists.


Maybe a good thing that this story is sparking debate, so that drivers learn it's not acceptable or legal to aim 1.5 ton lethal weapons at the vulnerable.


----------



## T4tomo (26 Apr 2022)

raleighnut said:


> yep looks like a clear case of 'intimidation' to me





Arjimlad said:


> I agree with the police, the CPS and the court here. The driver crossed the white line at some speed towards the cyclist who would have expected the driver to stay on his side of the road.
> 
> I think the big brouhaha is because if people just look at the video & can only imagine themselves driving towards the blue car, they would of course expect to slow down & give way to the oncoming vehicle. Whereas a cyclist can overtake it without causing any obstruction at all to oncoming drivers, on the basis of them staying in their lane.
> 
> I have had a driver veer over the white line towards me without any obstruction at all on his side of the road whilst I was riding 2 abreast with my son. The report was accepted by the police & acted upon, outcome unknown.



We don't know what the driver was thinking, but my complete speculation is he sees obstruction on other side, incorrectly thinks cheeky cyclist should wait behind it like a car would (even though the line they all take does not impede motorist at all) and does a "veer towards them" manoeuvre to intimidate them. 

Far too many drivers have no idea what he Highway code says and see cyclists a a major inconvenience, even if they arent.

We were descending Aston Hill at circa 25-35 mph on Sunday on a sportive, as we stopped at the bottom junction (just off the road) to regroup a passenger leans out of the window shouting "you should ride in single file" we were laughing at the absurdity of this - its a 40mph zone and twisty road, I not sure what overtaking opportunity had been prevented, and for the most part I doubt we were two abreast on the descent anyway, although would have been centre of our lane of the road to smooth the bends out.


----------



## boydj (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I would argue that there is a clear expectation that a car approaching the parked vehicle, as the cyclist was would be fully expected to yield. The cyclist moved toward the centre line prior to reaching the parked car, that the oncoming car had already passed.



The cyclists stayed well within their own lane. The driver looked to be trying to intimidate the cyclists as he got very close to the camera cyclist and likely even closer to the cyclists behind the one with the camera. The police and court must have had a lot more info than the short clip we have seen, including the testimony from the cyclists, and based the charge and the guilty judgement on all of the information.

You are either on a wind-up or you're not a cyclist.


----------



## newts (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> The car is not over the line when the 1st cyclist goes through. Therefore they have reduced the gap between themselves and that vehicle.
> 
> View attachment 641857


Previously you wrongly stated that the moving car was level with the parked car before the first cycle had reached the car. This screen shot clearly shows the leading cycle level with the parked car. At this point the speeding car is touching the white line & he continues to cross further to punish pass the the second cyclist (still at excessive speed for the situation (blue Jersey).


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

newts said:


> Previously you wrongly stated that the moving car was level with the parked car before the first cycle had reached the car. This screen shot clearly shows the leading cycle level with the parked car. At this point the speeding car is touching the white line & he continues to cross further to punish pass the the second cyclist (still at excessive speed for the situation (blue Jersey).



At the point the lead cyclist reaches the parked car, the oncoming vehicle is still in its lane.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> At the point the lead cyclist reaches the parked car, the oncoming vehicle is still in its lane.



And then where does the driver go?


----------



## Rusty Nails (26 Apr 2022)

This thread should be used as a textbook example of that old saying "_When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".  _


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> This thread should be used as a textbook example of that old saying "_When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". _



I agree. The refusal to see the cyclists could have reduced the risk significantly if they'd actually read the road better is quite revealing.


----------



## Arrowfoot (26 Apr 2022)

Poor situational awareness of the driver. He clearly must have seen the cyclists having to come out because of their other car. He should have slowed down and kept within his lane. He deserved the points and the fine. Totally unnecessary. If it was a truck instead of cyclists, my guess he will slow down and keep well well within his lane like a church mouse.


----------



## BoldonLad (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I agree. The refusal to* see the cyclists could have reduced the risk significantly if they'd actually read the road better* is quite revealing.



In your world, does that mean the Cyclists should have been prosecuted for "careless cycling" ?


----------



## Rusty Nails (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I agree. The refusal to see the cyclists could have reduced the risk significantly if they'd actually read the road better is quite revealing.





Don't give up the day job.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> In your world, does that mean the Cyclists should have been prosecuted for "careless cycling" ?



Nope. People seem to jump from one thing to another, and then chuck in some rather silly attempts at personalising things. It's quite childish, and also quite revealing.

This thread seems to be a very good example of people being entrenched in one position, and then creating a position that someone else must hold no matter what the reality, and also refusing to accept that there are several elements involved.

I've not said the driver was in order, my main point is that the cyclists should have read the road a lot better than they did.


----------



## boydj (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Nope. People seem to jump from one thing to another, and then chuck in some rather silly attempts at personalising things. It's quite childish, and also quite revealing.
> 
> This thread seems to be a very good example of people being entrenched in one position, and then creating a position that someone else must hold no matter what the reality, and also refusing to accept that there are several elements involved.
> 
> I've not said the driver was in order, my main point is that the cyclists should have read the road a lot better than they did.



You're missing the point that the closing speed means that this whole incident was over in a second or two, giving the cyclists no time at all to react to the driver swinging his car into their lane.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

boydj said:


> You're missing the point that the closing speed means that this whole incident was over in a second or two, giving the cyclists no time at all to react to the driver swinging his car into their lane.



I'm not missing that at all, for reasons I've mentioned previously.


----------



## BoldonLad (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Nope. People seem to jump from one thing to another, and then chuck in some rather *silly attempts at personalising things. * It's quite childish, and also quite revealing.
> 
> This thread seems to be a very good example of people being entrenched in one position, and then creating a position that someone else must hold no matter what the reality, and also refusing to accept that there are several elements involved.
> 
> *I've not said the driver was in order, my main point is that the cyclists should have read the road a lot better than they did.*



I trust the first bolded bit is not meant for me, I have not made any personal comments, to you, or, any other poster. If you think otherwise, please show me where.

The second bolded bit, OK, if that was your intention, fair enough, it is always possible to learn and improve, but, I have to say, that is not how your posts read to me. I shall re-read them.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> I trust the first bolded bit is not meant for me, I have not made any personal comments, to you, or, any other poster. If you think otherwise, please show me where.
> 
> The second bolded bit, OK, if that was your intention, fair enough, it is always possible to learn and improve, but, I have to say, that is not how your posts read to me. I shall re-read them.



The likelihood is that it doesn't read like that because I was responding to assumptions people jumped to about my position, often several different ones in quick succession. Quite a few posters read from a very fixed position, rather than with an open mind, and try to defend (or attack) a position that's not necessarily represented in the post they're responding to.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I agree. The refusal to see the cyclists could have reduced the risk significantly if they'd actually read the road better is quite revealing.



Can you point to somebody who has "refused" to do that. Thought not.

The refusal to accept the driver is in any way at fault, even after the court has decided quite serious fault (minor fault would only have been 3 points) is much more revealing.

Yes, if the cyclists had kept further in, then the car wouldn't have been as close. But then of course, they would have been passing the parked car too close if a door had been opened.

Yes, if they had "yielded", they would have been less at risk, but there was absolutely no need whatsoever for them to yield. If the car driver had not decided for no apparent reason to pull across the centre line, there wouldn't have ben the slightest issue.

If you expect cyclists to yield unnecessarily in that type of situation, then one can only assume you think cyclists shouldn't be on the road.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (26 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Can you point to somebody who has "refused" to do that. Thought not.
> 
> The refusal to accept the driver is in any way at fault, even after the court has decided quite serious fault (minor fault would only have been 3 points) is much more revealing.
> 
> ...



All of those points, apart from the bits of your own invention have been addressed earlier. I see no point repeating them, as you clearly didn't read them the first times.


----------



## boydj (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> All of those points, apart from the bits of your own invention have been addressed earlier. I see no point repeating them, as you clearly didn't read them the first times.



For a contrarian you're not keeping your end up very well.


----------



## DaveReading (26 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> This thread seems to be a very good example of people being entrenched in one position


You're not wrong there.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> All of those points, apart from the bits of your own invention have been addressed earlier. I see no point repeating them, as you clearly didn't read them the first times.



There is NOTHING true or valid in that statement.


----------



## Arrowfoot (27 Apr 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> All of those points, apart from the bits of your own invention have been addressed earlier. I see no point repeating them, as you clearly didn't read them the first times.



Che, I think the logic is who is likely to pose more danger and in this case, the car rather than the cyclists. Granted the cyclist were wide even after factoring car door length. There is also the possibility that the cyclists did a wider than necessary to compensate the possibility that the stationary car driver may come out without checking his mirror.


----------



## Rusty Nails (27 Apr 2022)

So to summarise:

It was possible for the cyclists to have ridden _slightly_ closer to the parked car, although they were not breaking any rules/laws in deciding to give that car a wide berth to avoid the door opening suddenly into their path.

The oncoming car was definitely committing an offence and driving dangerously, especially by crossing over the central line and going too close to the cyclists, at speed, and completely deserved the decision to prosecute by the police and the sentence awarded by the court.

Any messages sent out to that well known victimised group, motorists, other than the right one, that they should not drive dangerously, is irrelevant.


----------



## Kajjal (27 Apr 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> So to summarise:
> 
> It was possible for the cyclists to have ridden _slightly_ closer to the parked car, although they were not breaking any rules/laws in deciding to give that car a wide berth to avoid the door opening suddenly into their path.
> 
> ...



Correct, the driver crossed into the opposite lane when another road user was in it. Had the other road user not been there it would not have been an issue.


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Apr 2022)

I think 15 seconds of film before and after the incident would have helped to clarify matters.

But if this was the full incident. I think the punishment was a bit steep.


----------



## Rusty Nails (27 Apr 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> I think 15 seconds of film before and after the incident would have helped to clarify matters.
> 
> But if this was the full incident. I think the punishment was a bit steep.



3 points on your licence plus £100 fine for a speeding offence doing 37mph on an empty road in a 30 mph zone versus 5 points on your licence for a dangerous driving offence of crossing the centre line, at speed, close to oncoming cyclists, plus a £400 fine seems perfectly fair to me.


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Apr 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> 3 points on your licence plus £100 fine for a speeding offence doing 37mph on an empty road in a 30 mph zone versus 5 points on your licence for a dangerous driving offence of crossing the centre line, at speed, close to oncoming cyclists, plus a £400 fine seems perfectly fair to me.



You are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2022)

As a cyclist, faced with a partial obstruction in my lane, and an oncoming car, I would not have chosen to ride as close to the centre line as those cyclists did.


----------



## lazybloke (27 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> As a cyclist, faced with a partial obstruction in my lane, and an oncoming car, I would not have chosen to ride as close to the centre line as those cyclists did.



As a driver, I wouldn't have veered towards the cyclists.


----------



## Rusty Nails (27 Apr 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.



That's gracious of you.


----------



## gcogger (27 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> As a cyclist, faced with a partial obstruction in my lane, and an oncoming car, I would not have chosen to ride as close to the centre line as those cyclists did.





lazybloke said:


> As a driver, I wouldn't have veered towards the cyclists.


Both statements seem reasonable to me.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Apr 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> 3 points on your licence plus £100 fine for a speeding offence doing 37mph on an empty road in a 30 mph zone versus 5 points on your licence for a dangerous driving offence of crossing the centre line, at speed, close to oncoming cyclists, plus a £400 fine seems perfectly fair to me.



It wasn't a dangerous driving offence (disqualification, 3-11 points if that is avoided due to "exceptional hardship"), it was careless or inconsiderate driving (3-9 points).


----------



## Rusty Nails (27 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> It wasn't a dangerous driving offence (disqualification, 3-11 points if that is avoided due to "exceptional hardship"), it was careless or inconsiderate driving (3-9 points).



I stand corrected. The comparison is still valid.


----------



## lazybloke (27 Apr 2022)

gcogger said:


> Both statements seem reasonable to me.



I agree, but the point of this thread is to examine whether it was right to prosecute the motorist, and of course the answer had to be yes because there is proof that the motorist has manoeuvred into a lane of oncoming traffic, very nearly hitting a vulnerable group.

Drivers are expected to meet certain standards.


----------



## classic33 (27 Apr 2022)

What about recent changes in the Highway Code?


----------



## boydj (27 Apr 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> I think 15 seconds of film before and after the incident would have helped to clarify matters.
> 
> But if this was the full incident. I think the punishment was a bit steep.



I'm pretty sure the police and courts would have had the full details of the incident, complete with witness statements. If, as seems likely, there were other cyclists behind the camera cyclist then the driver would have been very close to them. Watching the available footage it certainly seems that the driver was deliberately trying to intimidate the cyclists and the sentence reflects that.


----------



## Baldy (27 Apr 2022)

I've read in other articles that he swerved towards the cyclist and excellerated as he drove past. I think it was this aggressive behaviour that got him done.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> What about recent changes in the Highway Code?



The recently introduced "Hierarchy of road users" bit will definitely mean the driver was at fault. But the recent changes were all to guidance, rather than law.


----------



## classic33 (27 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> The recently introduced "Hierarchy of road users" bit will definitely mean the driver was at fault. But the recent changes were all to guidance, rather than law.


Which is why I said the Highway Code, not legal changes.


----------



## gcogger (27 Apr 2022)

lazybloke said:


> I agree, but the point of this thread is to examine whether it was right to prosecute the motorist, and of course the answer had to be yes because there is proof that the motorist has manoeuvred into a lane of oncoming traffic, very nearly hitting a vulnerable group.
> 
> Drivers are expected to meet certain standards.



Yes, the driver should have been prosecuted IMHO. I also think the cyclists could have been more cautious, but there's no blame on their side.


----------



## lazybloke (27 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> The recently introduced "Hierarchy of road users" bit will definitely mean the driver was at fault. But the recent changes were all to guidance, rather than law.





classic33 said:


> Which is why I said the Highway Code, not legal changes.



I hope that even before the recent HC changes, the police & courts would have taken a dim view of any driver who let their car veer into a lane of oncoming traffic?
Possibly difficult to prove it was a deliberate decision, but even if accidental that would be an alarming lack of attention whilst "in control" of a fast-moving vehicle. Bad driving either way.


----------



## icowden (28 Apr 2022)

Just my twopennorth but it seems to me that the oncoming car would have seen the lead cyclist well before it reached the point where the parked car was, and would also have been able to see cyclists behind the leader. Any normal person would have slowed down regardless of whether the following cyclists slowed to stop by the parked car or not. This driver fails to lower their speed consistent with the possible dangers of the road and veers out of lane.

Nuff said.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> Which is why I said the Highway Code, not legal changes.



I don't really see why it matters what the highway code says when it is the law that counts but this offence was committed before the changes to the highway code came into force.


----------



## classic33 (28 Apr 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> I don't really see why it matters what the highway code says when it is the law that counts but this offence was committed before the changes to the highway code came into force.


It was more for the replies being given here.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (28 Apr 2022)

Was initially thinking both parties display poor judgement and still do, with the driver being a little hard done by to be fair.
After some thought though probably not. Whether there was an obstacle on their side of the road or not causing them to move over, the driver should have stopped or at the very least slowed down. Whether intentional or simply a mistake by poor judgement they have paid the price and hopefully they learn from it. Cyclists are more vulnerable and the outcome could have been far worse.

That being said the cyclist has moved over, presumably out of the parked cars door zone which in itself is fine, however they are positioned more towards the centre line than I would have been in that situation. It looks a tight road and I would have been more concerned of the oncoming car and either stayed further to the left or stopped, whether I had the right of way or not.

If I were making assumptions I would say the driver felt they had right of way due to the parked car and shot through as they did to prove a point without little care or thought to the cyclists safety as some drivers do.
The cyclists rode through as they did and how it is suggested they should do, without further thought or some self preservation as some cyclists do. 

Still poor judgement by both parties imo but probably the right outcome in terms of penalty given.
A longer video may aid to make a more informed judgement though.


----------



## markemark (28 Apr 2022)

speedfreak said:


> Was initially thinking both parties display poor judgement and still do, with the driver being a little hard done by to be fair.
> After some thought though probably not. Whether there was an obstacle on their side of the road or not causing them to move over, the driver should have stopped or at the very least slowed down. Whether intentional or simply a mistake by poor judgement they have paid the price and hopefully they learn from it. Cyclists are more vulnerable and the outcome could have been far worse.
> 
> That being said the cyclist has moved over, presumably out of the parked cars door zone which in itself is fine, however they are positioned more towards the centre line than I would have been in that situation. It looks a tight road and I would have been more concerned of the oncoming car and either stayed further to the left or stopped, whether I had the right of way or not.
> ...



2 parties. 
One does something to put themselves in danger - they should be more careful in the future and learn from the situation.
Other does something to put other people in danger - they should be punished proportionally to the amount of danger they posed.


----------



## keithmac (28 Apr 2022)

I've just seen the video and that was very poor driving.

Anyone on here who cycles and drives surely wouldn't do the same?.

Far too fast, and encroaching the other lane.


----------



## boydj (29 Apr 2022)

speedfreak said:


> Was initially thinking both parties display poor judgement and still do, with the driver being a little hard done by to be fair.
> After some thought though probably not. Whether there was an obstacle on their side of the road or not causing them to move over, the driver should have stopped or at the very least slowed down. Whether intentional or simply a mistake by poor judgement they have paid the price and hopefully they learn from it. Cyclists are more vulnerable and the outcome could have been far worse.
> 
> That being said the cyclist has moved over, presumably out of the parked cars door zone which in itself is fine, however they are positioned more towards the centre line than I would have been in that situation. It looks a tight road and I would have been more concerned of the oncoming car and either stayed further to the left or stopped, whether I had the right of way or not.
> ...



Since the cyclists never got within a metre of the centre line, I totally fail to see why they should moderate their behaviour for an oncoming car which had no reason not to stay with its own lane. There was no reason for the cyclists to expect the oncoming car to cross the centre line, and if there was an obstruction in the oncoming lane which we can't see, then it is the driver's duty not to impede vehicles in the opposite lane.

I believe, and the sentence reflects this, that the driver deliberately drove at the cyclists to scare them


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (29 Apr 2022)

boydj said:


> Since the cyclists never got within a metre of the centre line, I totally fail to see why they should moderate their behaviour for an oncoming car which had no reason not to stay with its own lane. There was no reason for the cyclists to expect the oncoming car to cross the centre line, and if there was an obstruction in the oncoming lane which we can't see, then it is the driver's duty not to impede vehicles in the opposite lane.



This is partly my point, you're putting all of the responsibly onto the driver, fair enough as they are more protected and as I stated should be more aware of vulnerable road users which I why I feel the penalty is proportionate.
You can't claim there was no reason for the car not to move over, dangerous or not as we can't see the full video on that side, there may have been an obstacle in the road. Again not that they should have moved over.

The fact you totally fail to see why the cyclists should moderate their behavior and expect others to keep them safe proves my point that some cyclists have little idea of self preservation and put all the responsibility of their safety onto other road users.



boydj said:


> I believe, and the sentence reflects this, that the driver deliberately drove at the cyclists to scare them



If this is the case then I agree and rightly so they deserve what they got and I have acknowledged that in my post but what makes you believe that they deliberately did it out of interest.


----------



## Baldy (29 Apr 2022)

The findings of the court.


----------



## cougie uk (29 Apr 2022)

Can't believe this is still being argued over. Poor driving. End of.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (29 Apr 2022)

Baldy said:


> The findings of the court.



I assume this is in reponse to my question.
Where in the article does it state the driver deliberately drive at them to scare them?


----------



## Cycleops (29 Apr 2022)

speedfreak said:


> Where in the article does it state the driver deliberately drive at them to scare them?


Obviously it can't be proved, but why else would the driver have crossed the centre line? Unless of course there was other factors at play, could have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Whatever, the driver got their comeuppance and hopefully won't attempt anything like that in the future.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (29 Apr 2022)

Baldy said:


> The findings of the court.



If that's the criteria, on top of the many occasions where there wasn't even a prosecution for things flagged on here, I know of at least one case where a pedestrian was badly injured by a car when they were on the footpath, and no prosecution occurred. So unless you're prepared to accept those occasions too, it's not the best criteria to use imho.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (29 Apr 2022)

@Cycleops No it can't be proved and may very well be the case it was done on purpose with the cynic in me believing this is probably true.
However, you state there could be other factors involved like I have also stated previously, obstacle in road, avoiding trees etc although you suggest maybe criminal activity whereas I'm suggesting poor judgement which would be another argument altogether. 
The list could go on but to assume the court had found him guilty for deliberately driving at them to scare them has not been documented anywhere that I can see hence the reason for asking the other posters to clarify why they believed this, so as not to debate the case on what we think may have happened.


----------



## Baldy (29 Apr 2022)

speedfreak said:


> I assume this is in reponse to my question.
> Where in the article does it state the driver deliberately drive at them to scare them?



There's a lot of articles on this case, I can't be bothered looking it up for you. But I believe it was the aggressive nature of his actions that got him done, as much as anything.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (29 Apr 2022)

Baldy said:


> There's a lot of articles on this case, I can't be bothered looking it up for you. But I believe it was the aggressive nature of his actions that got him done, as much as anything.



There are, I've just read about 10 of them and cannot find one that states the driver intentionally drove at them to scare them. 
If you can't be bothered to look them up to aid your point that's fine, at least you're honest. However, I'm not going to debate a point based on what you believe.
One article I found did suggest the driver felt they had done nothing wrong and proceded to make their argument in court which they are entitled to do, no specific details of the court proceedings are available from what I can find however.
Hopefully the driver learns from their mistake, regardless of why they did it, and proceed to make better judgement in the future.


----------



## boydj (29 Apr 2022)

speedfreak said:


> This is partly my point, you're putting all of the responsibly onto the driver, fair enough as they are more protected and as I stated should be more aware of vulnerable road users which I why I feel the penalty is proportionate.
> You can't claim there was no reason for the car not to move over, dangerous or not as we can't see the full video on that side, there may have been an obstacle in the road. Again not that they should have moved over.
> 
> The fact you totally fail to see why the cyclists should moderate their behavior and expect others to keep them safe proves my point that some cyclists have little idea of self preservation and put all the responsibility of their safety onto other road users.
> ...



Tell me what could or should the cyclists have done. Given a closing speed that looks in excess of 60mph the amount of time the cyclists had to react to a motorist changing direction towards them is minimal when their main focus was on clearing the parked car. I know that when I'm cycling I will register oncoming vehicles, but my primary attention is on what's in front of me and what may be approaching from behind.

It's reported elsewhere that there were more cyclists behind the camera cyclist and the car must have got very close to them at speed. The cyclists reported that they felt the driving was deliberately aimed at them. There's a thread on Twitter where the camera cyclist has clarified a couple of things. I know that their are drivers out there who object to bikes on the road in groups like club runs and I've experienced aggressive behaviour from drivers similar to this incident. There are even other examples in this forum of similar behaviour - it's rare, but not that unusual.

The police and court had access to the full video and eyewitness statements, hence the charge and guilty finding. The fact that the sentence was 5 points, rather than 3 points for a simple careless driving indicates a finding that the carelessness was at the more serious end.


----------



## lazybloke (29 Apr 2022)

speedfreak said:


> There are, I've just read about 10 of them and *cannot find one that states the driver intentionally drove at them to scare them*.
> If you can't be bothered to look them up to aid your point that's fine, at least you're honest. However, I'm not going to debate a point based on what you believe.
> One article I found did suggest the driver felt they had done nothing wrong and proceded to make their argument in court which they are entitled to do, no specific details of the court proceedings are available from what I can find however.
> Hopefully the driver learns from their mistake, regardless of why they did it, and proceed to make better judgement in the future.



Do you think the car was self-driving?

Update: of course this was a facetious comment and not a serious question.

We could say the driver intentionally drove at them and they were scared.
If the driver protests this not true, then he/she is admitting to not being in control of the vehicle. Is that any better?


----------



## DaveReading (29 Apr 2022)

Are we all now expected to cycle along single-carriageway roads in a manner that would negate the risk from an oncoming driver who decides, suddenly and with no warning, to cross the centreline ?

How do we do that ?


----------



## keithmac (30 Apr 2022)

I'd be ashamed if I was driving that car and honestly amazed that cyclists are sticking up for him.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (1 May 2022)

lazybloke said:


> We could say the driver intentionally drove at them and they were scared.
> If the driver protests this not true, then he/she is admitting to not being in control of the vehicle. Is that any better?



We could say that and it may be considered slightly better as at least it wasn't intentional, the penalty imposed would reflect the very poor lack of judgement they showed and hopefully they learn.



boydj said:


> Tell me what could or should the cyclists have done



I already have. Considering the tightness of that road imo, they could have stopped or stayed slightly further to the left. 



boydj said:


> cyclists reported that they felt the driving was deliberately aimed at them



They may have felt that but it doesn't meant that's the case.

I 'feel' that this is starting to go around in circles as we all have differing opinions which isn't a bad thing but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere so will leave it a that. I respect your view but cannot see it entirely as you do and vice versa it seems.
To reiterate however, I haven't said the driver is blameless and will re state that the standard of driving was poor and they deserve the penalty imposed. I just think the cyclists can learn from this too.


----------



## DCBassman (1 May 2022)

speedfreak said:


> I 'feel' that this is starting to go around in circles


You're right. This incident has been done to death...


----------



## boydj (1 May 2022)

speedfreak said:


> ..........
> I already have. Considering the tightness of that road imo, they could have stopped or stayed slightly further to the left.
> ...............



But you're cycling along, there's a parked car that you pull out to pass, avoiding the door zone, and then for no apparent reason there's an oncoming car pulling over into your lane at speed. The cyclists were already moving wide enough to pass the parked car before the driver in the opposite lane veered towards their lane. The road is not that tight, since the cyclists never got within a metre of the centre line.

The timing says that the cyclists never had an option to change their behaviour.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (3 May 2022)

I’m amazed at some of the comments on this thread! Surely trolls masquerading as ‘cyclists’? If the ’law’ has moved to find a driver guilty and imposed a reasonable sentence then it’s pretty much cut and dried. Looking at the vid I can’t see it’s anything other than a good/correct decision.


----------



## Profpointy (3 May 2022)

Something not yet mentioned (I think?) is that it is usually wise to pull out early when passing parked cars else some clown behind will try and overtake squeezing you into the car. People in the other lane don't generally drive at you after all !


----------



## PK99 (3 May 2022)

There are two issues at play here:

1. Was the driver in the wrong? Was the prosecution correct? Yes & Yes

2. Was the road positioning of the cyclist wise? Would I have done the same? Would I recommend other cyclists to follow their example? No, No, and No.


----------



## DaveReading (3 May 2022)

PK99 said:


> Was the road positioning of the cyclist wise? Would I have done the same?


Given that the car was, by all accounts, travelling at least 3 times as fast as the bike, the cyclist would have pulled out to overtake the parked car well before the oncoming car was on the scene.

Abandoning the overtake, apart from being something that should not have been necessary, would have required some pretty sharpish braking by the rider.

Is that how you're proposing we should all ride?


----------



## newfhouse (3 May 2022)

PK99 said:


> Was the road positioning of the cyclist wise?



Should they have ridden closer to driver’s door of the parked car, or passed the obstruction by hopping onto the pavement?


----------



## cougie uk (3 May 2022)

Ridiculous defending the car driver. Saying that the cyclists could have slowed or stopped - and then what - the bloody driver is still in their lane. You're probably more stable moving than stopped to unclip in a hurry anyway. 

I've had a muppet in a BMW come round a corner wide - end up on my side of the road and then beep me. Absolute state of driving today. 

In fact I've decided to get another camera for the bike after a couple of punishment passes this week. I've plenty of time to send off the reports. 

https://chilli-tech.com/content/new-bullet-action-camera/


----------

