Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[lazybloke]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ClichéGuevara]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.