Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[ClichéGuevara]

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]

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]

Is it actually illegally parked?

Is pavement parking legal.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Is pavement parking legal.

It's not strictly illegal in most places.

 

[Alex321]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.