Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[ClichéGuevara]

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]

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]

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.the f

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.

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]

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]

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

You're not wrong there.

 

[Alex321]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You are entitled to your opinion.

That's gracious of you.