Guilty or Not Guilty

[Dogtrousers]

I think the rider falling off is a bit of a red herring. What's important is the (poor) quality of the driving. It would be the same if no one had fallen off.

 

[Milkfloat]

That link is in my original post. Cheers anyway.

Ooops.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I think the rider falling off is a bit of a red herring. What's important is the (poor) quality of the driving. It would be the same if no one had fallen off.

Exactly

 

[winjim]

Daft bit of driving which is not excused by, but should be considered in the context of, the cyclists being way way over to the left. Stop on the left or ride in the middle, that's just mixed messaging.

 

[Deleted User]

They fell of way after the Landrover had gone past, why?

Did the one in front stop and they didn't have time to unclip so toppled over?

 

[MontyVeda]

They fell of way after the Landrover had gone past, why?

Did the one in front stop and they didn't have time to unclip so toppled over?

that's what it looks like to me.

but as has been pointed out, the cyclist toppling isn't the issue, the speed and closeness of the pass is, and the driver has admitted they were at fault, so what we have here is a non-story.

 

[Deleted User]

that's what it looks like to me.

but as has been pointed out, the cyclist toppling isn't the issue, the speed and closeness of the pass is, and the driver has admitted they were at fault, so what we have here is a non-story.

If they hadn't fell off what problem had been caused?

Just the fact he was driving quicker than some think appropriate?

He'd gone past before the one in the middle even noticed him!

 

[mjr]

Daft bit of driving which is not excused by, but should be considered in the context of, the cyclists being way way over to the left. Stop on the left or ride in the middle, that's just mixed messaging.

Brave words are cheap. Who here would play chicken with an oncoming Landrover driven that badly? Even if the riders had dismounted and stood on the edge of the tarmac, it would have been an inconsiderate close pass of pedestrians at that speed. If the cyclists had "taken the lane" and stuck to it, I think we'd be looking at a serious-injury collision, at best.

So guilty. It looks way less than 1.5m and probably more than 30mph. This was before the highway code clarification this January, but it was still clearly careless and inconsiderate driving under the old one because they would never try that with an oncoming van. I say van because that sort of driver may well bully an oncoming car into the verge or back to a passing place.

 

[Glow worm]

Definitely too close and too fast. I was reading some comments on this incident earlier on Twitter, from drivers saying this driver did nothing wrong because he didn't actually hit anyone! I've read this kind of crap from drivers so often and it's an attitude that certainly explains a lot of terrible driving ie it's fine to roar past us at 60 mph within inches as long as they don't hit us. Nitwits the lot of them and I'd throw the book at them all.

 

[Ian H]

The cyclist behind was quite possibly unsighted and therefore surprised by the vehicle, and perhaps not the most experienced rider. Given there was no wobble room, the speed was inappropriate and verging on dangerous.

As said above, an experienced cyclist would have ridden out until the vehicle slowed, but that doesn't excuse the driver at all.

 

[mjr]

As said above, an experienced cyclist would have ridden out until the vehicle slowed, but that doesn't excuse the driver at all.

From the manner of driving and way the vehicle moved, based on my decades riding small country roads, including ones in Northants, I really believe that "until the vehicle slowed" would mean "until it hit them" in that case. The best likely scenario is that they might have decided to drive with two wheels in the field. They weren't slowing for anything short of the apocalypse.

 

[Time Waster]

Either the cyclists or the driver would have to pass by at less than 1.5m due to the width of the road. Not a nice road for cycling if motor vehicles can use it too.

I'm an experienced cyclist and I'd have simply stopped and waited as far over as possible. You can never be sure that a fast driver is going to stop and primary in that situation could turn careless into dangerous without any change in the driver's actions. Or it could force a change in behaviour. Which happens is discovered with hindsight, which means IMHO cyclists need to pick the safest option in case worst case scenario happens.

Fair result for careless but equally as likely to expect no conviction.

 

[fossyant]

Driver too fast, middle cyclist having a clipless moment, not helped by the panic from the rear. I've had worse, much worse, but I am experienced, and I'd stand my ground. Given they were crawling before the driver passed, I think they all spotted the driver, but the driver just charged through, which is wrong.

 

[ianrauk]

I'm surprised you're confused. Way too fast past the cyclists leaving them with little time to stop and unclip. That rider could have easily fallen the other way.

Ridiculous driving. If it had been me I'd have stopped or been at walking pace at most.

The driver admitted it was careless.

Nowhere in my post does it say I'm confused.
My take on it us that the vehicle was too fast for the road and the woman who fell was startled and suffered a clipless moment.
The vehicle driver also believed he was going too fast so decided to plead guilty due to the video evidence. Though I am of the opinion, if it wasn't filmed he would have a different plea and there would have been a different outcome.

 

[mjr]

Either the cyclists or the driver would have to pass by at less than 1.5m due to the width of the road.

Cyclists may pass cars at 1m in line with current highway code advice, or less if they choose, but it's for the more vulnerable user to decide, not the biggest.

Not a nice road for cycling if motor vehicles can use it too.

It's fine if the motorists stop and let cyclists pass, like the police said.