[Closed] Cyclist knocked off his bike and abused

Perhaps the car driver should have done what the hearse drivers did and pass the cyclist in a safe/efficient manner.

Actually the second funeral car looked like he overtook fairly close to that traffic island to me.

But at least he didn't actively hit the guy!

I've actually just watched that video again - but with the sound on. If the driver had enough time to hit the horn [i]that early[/i] then he certainly had enough time to brake and let the cyclist make the maneuver safely. A brief blip of the throttle thereafter would have taken him back up to the rest of the procession.

watch these films with a preconception that anyone who rides around filming their commute is probably an overly rightious asshat and riding like a cock

Nice.

Except that those asshats with cameras are a pretty big part of the reason that road safety for bikes is getting discussed in media and therefore parliament at the moment.

I'm grateful to them.

the idea of that the cyclist should pull over and let the cortege past is preposterous. How would you know ? the first car to pass where no one is wearing black ?

[quote=ton ]MSP....you seriously think that they delideratley drove into him to knock him off?

give you head a shake ffs 🙄

Stopping distance at 30mph is 23m including thinking distance. So the difference between him using the horn and use the brakes is negligible (lets say 5-10 metres of road covered). Either he's such a shitty driver and needs more than an awareness test or he did it intentionally and needs more than an awareness test.

I don't know which it is, but it wasn't an accident (i.e. nobody's fault) it was a vehicle hitting another vehicle in the rear which, according to most insurers and the police, usually has the vehicle behind as the offending party.

A funeral is no mitigating circumstance in this case and a "decent thing to do" recommendation around funerals is hardly the law.

hitting someone from behind, and driving into someone from behind on purpose is a totally differant thing mate.

accidents do happen.....just seems to me when it happens to a cyclist it is far far worse...no?

Can someone please recommend me a reasonably priced camera that I can purchase to help protect me against car drivers?

[quote=ton ]hitting someone from behind, and driving into someone from behind on purpose is a totally differant thing mate.
accidents do happen.....just seems to me when it happens to a cyclist it is far far worse...no?
Given that we can hear the driver hitting the horn, why didn't he stop in time? Could it be that he thought he could merely scare the cyclist off the piece of road he was planning to use?

no idea Colin, maybe he thought he could get through the gap, and was honking just to warn the cyclist....maybe?

He thought the soundwave from the horn would push the cyclist along faster.

Ton - Any reason why you're ignoring the question why the driver had time to beep but not push the brake pedal? (p.s. sometimes you could even do both at once)

Nice.

Except that those asshats with cameras are a pretty big part of the reason that road safety for bikes is getting discussed in media and therefore parliament at the moment.

I'm grateful to them.

I (clearly) disagree. In far too many of these 'proof drivers are ****s' videos you see posted up you see the riders themselves acting like arseholes - banging on the sides of vehicles, shouting obscenities, enticing a reaction. I would say they are often part of the problem. It's not the recording per se, just the type of people who feel inclined to record. It's like the poor 'unlucky' bloke at work who always seems to be the one having the accident; except when you look at how he behaves (around machinery etc) he doesn't seem to use it with a great deal of defensive awareness.

I hesitate to say, not in every case and it certainly does not appear to be the case in this.

edit - bails, just seen your response. A reasoned argument - I'm probably wrong and put too much emphasis on the high profile evangelical bloggers.

no idea Colin, maybe he thought he could get through the gap, and was honking just to warn the cyclist....maybe?

Please, you really believe that, with the way they confronted him afterwards.

Cyclist wants to turn right. looks, decides it's safe, signals, and starts to move over.

Driver of car doesn't like this and drives into cyclist. seems quite simple to me.

ton - Member

accidents do happen.

even if it wasn't a deliberate collision, crap driving is not an 'accident'.

R2 now - I am screaming at the radio again!!

for every asshat vigilante video blogger, there are 10 quiet riders going about thier own defence in private.

For every ride I take on the road, I come across asshat drivers.

Cars (et al) are truly lethal weapons and cyclists must be protected more from the hot headed drivers. It really is that simple.

it looked like a accident to me, i may be wrong.

I pray to God you arent sitting in a jury panel should I ever go to court.

So the driver couldn't have avoided it? An accident means NOBODY was to blame. Misjudging a gap is not an accident as you had to make a judgement to go for it. An accident in this case would be his brakes failed or the rider hit a pothole and swerved into his path.

how serious do the injuries have to be before the police would prosecute?
I only hope that the cyclist got a reasonable payout from the insurers.

I always like to look at any close calls / incidents I have, and replace me on a bike with a car. I always try and ride like a car would drive, and I expect to be treated like a car, with regards to overtaking / junctions etc.

so in this instance, would that car have crashed into a car turning right?

No, they wouldn't have done.

it looked like a accident to me, i may be wrong.

Dunno about you - but if I accidentally knocked someone off a bike I'd get out of the car saying something like [i]"Jesus, sorry mate, are you okay? Are you hurt?"[/i], not [i]"Do you 'ave a f***** deff wish or what? Eh?"[/i]

the riders themselves acting like arseholes - banging on the sides of vehicles, shouting obscenities, enticing a reaction. I would say they are often part of the problem.

Depends whose videos you watch I guess.

There are [i]some[/i] like that I grant you, but I've watched a lot of YouTube cycling vids and most seem to ride pretty sensibly to me and only really flare up when their lives have been put in danger which is understandable.

That said: if a van squeezes past me so close enough to risk catching my bars then I'd bang on it too!

Having driven behind a hearse a couple of times, I can without doubt testify that driving behind a hearse does not exempt you from any road rules that apply to other road users. I don't think I would expect to be treated any differently, because as several other posters have said, nobody can tell that an ordinary car is in fact part of the procession. Therefore, you have no special "I am allowed to drive like a douche" rights.

If you are so upset by the death in question that you cannot drive safely, you should not be driving. Get a taxi, get someone else to drive, whatever. Because someone close to you died, it doesn't give you the right to endanger the lives of others.

Baffled, utterly baffled by the police response.

Cyclist was in the right and driver was wrong to try and overtake that close to an island and while the cyclist was moving over to turn right.

thing is, common decency might incline you to let the two vehicles following the hearse, that look clearly to do with the hearse, out together at a junction. But doesn't mean they get special overtaking rights, and if he was signalling to turn right, than that doesn't even enter into it. Makes the police suggestion even more baffling and hard to understand.

However, being an inconsiderate cock isn't a crime, where as knocking someone off their bike deliberately is. I would therefore prosecute the driver with dangerous driving.

well put

Sun was in my eyes

was the excuse when my friend was killed and no charges were bought.

R2 debate descended into the "there are lots of dangerous cyclists about, not surprised this sort of thing happens" type conclusion. I am now hoarse with ranting at the idiots they seem to recruit to these panels where the **** is the cycling lobby?

@ton - even the plod have stopped calling things an RTA because there is, in almost every case, a person in the right and a person in the wrong. No matter what the excuses may be, the car was in the wrong.

in my real job I occasionally prosecute people , yesterday I as prosecutor accepted and indeed pointed out that the defendant had some mitigation his lawyer banged on for ages about the mitigation the judge agreed that the defendant had mitigation and sent the defendant to prison for 16 months.

It is not really for a police officer to try and pre judge the impact of the mitigation and to decide that because mitigation may reduce the sentence then the criminal can avoid prosecution.

I know exactly where that is- I sometimes ride that way to Asda.

What an absolute trollop that driver is- your grannies not gonna get any more dead in the 10 seconds you might be delayed is she FFS!

mind you, cyclist did seem to be exercising his right to ride 'primary' for quite a long time there. could he have not got further over to right to let car pass on inside? especially as it was her grandmothers funeral.

mind you, cyclist did seem to be exercising his right to ride 'primary' for quite a long time there. could he have not got further over to right to let car pass on inside?

Eh??

The first few cars pass him, even when there are traffic islands in the road.

So he's not in the primary there (I would have been!)

When the last car hits him the cyclist is trying to turn right into the side street. Doesn't look like there is room to get far enough right to allow the car up his inside - but we won't know because the driver hit him before he got there!

Personally I'd have been in the primary all the the way down that street. Too many traffic islands to sit in the secondary.

An accident means NOBODY was to blame

No, it doesn't.
It means there was no intent.
I do wish people would take on board that the term accident doesn't absolve anyone of fault.

ah **** it no, post deleted I'm not getting drawn in again 🙁

It means there was no intent.

I guess the thing here is that there was clearly intent - the driver sounded their horn as a sign of aggression, shouted, "I'm with the funeral" (despite being a good distance behind), then drove into the cyclist regardless, instead of waiting for an appropriate time to overtake (which generally isn't at a pinch point when traffic is indicating to turn right). The passenger then threatened the cyclist with violence.

Definitely think it's one for the IPCC if the police won't take action, because they blame the cyclist for a) not telepathically knowing that the car approaching from behind is a part of the funeral party that passed some time beforehand and b) not giving way, even though they had no obligation to do so.

Going to a funeral doesn't give you the right to overtake dangerously, or threaten other road users.

but clearly, that behaviour is fine if the victim is a person on a bike.

- banging on the sides of vehicles, shouting obscenities, enticing a reaction.

[quote=imnotverygood ]
Really? I have seen a fair few videos where people have done this...but only after a driver has done soemthing dangerous. They are reacting to what is happening, not provoking it. The effect of 1 1/5 tons of metal nearly squishing you can provke an adrenaline reaction which is why you see cyclists doing what they do. I'm not saying it is right, but it is understanderble and isn't the initial cause of the conflict.
But sometimes the "initial cause of the conflict" is simply inconsiderate cycling. Whether I'm cycling or driving, I try to think about how my actions will affect other road users. Sometimes, that means slowing down, giving way etc. [i]even when I'm not obliged to[/i] (e.g. letting someone out of a side road or perform a u-turn). Some of these videos features riders too preoccupied with their entitlement that they fail to exhibit even the slightest amount of consideration.

.... So the car driver is still at fault then?

[quote=imnotverygood ].... So the car driver is still at fault then?
In the case of the above video, yes, but the discussion was moving on to some of those regularly posting "look how bad my commute is" videos.

Sometimes, that means slowing down, giving way etc. even when I'm not obliged to

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclist-knocked-off-his-bike-and-abused ]Recursion[/url]

Some of Teh Grauniad comments are thoroughly depressing, particularly the [i]"I'm a cyclist but.."[/i] ones!

Tingler
08 August 2013 11:43am
..
The cyclist is clearly unaware of how he interacts with his environment and in this instance he should have pulled over and stopped.
..
if you choose a high risk mode of transport, then you accept the consequences...
..
Leave cycling to the professionals.

fivewindows
08 August 2013 11:26am

I'm a cyclist and a driver. This is going to be unpopular on this thread, but as far as I'm concerned cars have precedence on the road, and cyclists who ride insensitively to this are a pain.

Dodo56
08 August 2013 1:45pm

Whenever I see a cyclist brandishing a helmetcam I have a pretty good idea of what to expect - aggressive filtering, ignoring red lights, road markings treated as optional, followed by a display of antagonism and whining victim mentality when something predictably happens.
..
I seem to have managed to ride a bicycle for 40 years in town and country without incurring a single road rage incident
..
Sticking your arm out and diving into the middle of the road is asking for trouble, but then that's what helmetcams are for isn't it?
..
he evidently decided to do what many cyclists seem to, he took a position in the middle of the road to try and prevent anyone passing him. Perhaps on this occasion he didn't want to risk being squeezed against the kerb where the traffic island prevented the car from passing him. Then again perhaps he could have tolerated this, because swerving out into the middle of the road to block the car from passing is what led to him being hit.

FFS. We've a long way to go!

As in so many videos like this, I think that the driver(s) get all shouty and aggressive, because they know they are in the wrong and are over-compensating.

To be honest, funeral processions REALLY grind my gears as I live and work near a large crematorium, so traveling anywhere during the day becomes a nightmare.

Poor you 😐

csar driver at fault they ranover someone
Their reaction is worse than their initial behaviour though perhaps they were upset

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and perhaps the cyclist should have pulled over and let them all through but the law is clear that they do not have to do this though car drivers do have to give way and not run over cyclists

Another example of better to be alive than right sadly
it is deeply disturbing to see the police take this view

I assume had he run into the back of a walking funeral procession then threatened the walkers it would be the same outcome ?

It scares me that you can have this evidence and still **** all happens

warton - Member

as I said before, how do you know a red hatchback is a funeral car?

You really need telling? 😯

How about by the way the occupants are dressed? <insert turbobelm smiley here>

I would have given way to the procession, because I'm nice like that and I'm sure in other circumstances the punishment would have been (deservedly) greater, but any half decent lawyer will play on the fact the driver was on his way to a funeral, hence the lenience.

Many people are thick c**ts, thats all.

It'll continue to happen until they start getting prosecuted, all but the very thickest can usually figure thats not a good thing.