Fined and given points for driving too fast and close.

[markemark]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

The findings of the court.

 

[cougie uk]

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

 

[Scotchlovingcylist]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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 ?