- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Clapham Common driver rams cyclist (via Riviera Rider on Twitter)London driver rams cyclist after traffic light filter turns green (+ video, includes swearing)
A cyclist in London who had not realised that a left-hand filter traffic signal had turned green because he was unable to see it from his position behind the advanced stop line has posted a video to Twitter of the moment he was rammed from behind by a driver.
The incident, which highlights how poor junction design can put cyclists in danger, happened where Cedars Road meets the A3 at Clapham Common North Side, and while the cyclist was shaken up, luckily he was uninjured.
Video of the incident was posted to the social network by user Riviera Rider, who said that the driver, who leant on the vehicle’s horn before then driving into the rear wheel of the bike, “was enraged that I failed to notice the green left filter arrow whilst in the ASL.”
Explaining the background to the incident, he said he was “waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away and didn’t realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that’s why he [the driver] was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
He said that “very disappointingly,” the Metropolitan Police Service had decided that there was “insufficient evidence for prosecution,” although Met Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, in a reply to the tweet, asked Riviera Rider to send him a direct message so he could look into the issue.
Background: was waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away & didn't realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that's why he was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 27, 2022
While Riviera Rider said he was looking at the traffic light ahead of him, rather than the one to the left, the image below, from Google Street View, shows how the hoods on the latter make it difficult to see any of the three main signal lights when positioned immediately behind the advanced stop line – and near impossible to see the left-hand filter arrow.
And while the left filter arrow can be seen on the video from the bar-mounted camera, it’s likely that the higher position of the rider’s head means that in any event it may well have been obscured from his point of view.
One thing that the video also highlights is how essential early start bicycle-only traffic lights are for cyclists in junctions such as this, where drivers can only turn left or right, but cyclists are permitted to ride straight on, in this case to take the cycle path across Clapham Common.
Such lights, which are nowadays installed as standard on the segregated cycling infrastructure being rolled out across London, play a vital role in minimising conflict between cyclists and motorists – particularly at locations where there is no dedicated lane for someone on a bike who wants to go straight ahead, as Riviera Rider pointed out to one Twitter user replying to him.
There was no “right” lane for me: only left/right turn lanes. The design of the junction and positon of ASL for cyclists made it hard to see the green arrow. No thought was given at design stage to cyclists going straight on at this junction.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 28, 2022
The footage was captured by a forward-facing camera, and some suggested that in circumstances such as these, a rear-facing camera may have proved more valuable in terms of evidence – and Riviera Rider has now put one on his shopping list.
Background: was waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away & didn't realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that's why he was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 27, 2022
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 13 min ago
It can be viewed in all its glory here, happy shopping!
- anotherflat 2 hours 8 min ago
That sign is pretty clear!...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 26 min ago
What about all the computer misuse? Stop with the downloading already!
- brooksby 3 hours 49 min ago
"Professional Triangle tire Punctured tire Nail for Spike Anti-Theft car Safety Emergency car" Sorry, but WHAT??
- HollisJ 5 hours 43 min ago
Have you seen the size of Micras these days? Now, it it were a Micra from the 80s...
- thax1 6 hours 52 min ago
Not quite long enough for him to have a think about what he'd like to say on stage when collecting the award apparently. Which you have to love him...
- LeisureRider 6 hours 55 min ago
As an amply-figured female leisure cyclist, the comfort of a slightly downward angled saddle has long been known for avoidance of mincing one's...
- stonojnr 7 hours 32 min ago
Certainly membership trippled in numbers between 2012 to 2019.i think it's been in decline since so theydon't tend to shout about the numbers...
- OnYerBike 8 hours 16 min ago
The Sora groupset seems very expensive for what it is. Even without going down the AliExpress route, you can get 11spd 105 for £360 (https://www...
Add new comment
73 comments
Indeed. It's much easier for them to just dismiss it because there is no rear-facing camera. Somewhat depressingly even some usually cycle-friendly posters on here seem to agree with them.
It's much easier for them to just dismiss it because there is no rear-facing camera
This is indeed an established favourite on the police dodge-list. A NIP was in force (hard to believe in Lancashire!) for over a year over an indisputable offence when a big BMW came down the wrong side of the road and completely over an unbroken white line leading to a right bend over a humped bridge with no visibility. He was obviously well over the 30 limit and my GPS speedo confirmed what was also obvious: I was going over 20 myself. He was so close, you can read the small BMW engraved at the bottom corner the rear passenger window on the video. Court date was all arranged when the Filth cancelled the whole prosecution a couple of weeks before (with the usual 'it's the CPS, squire' dodge) because they'd suddenly realised there was no rear view camera- the disingenuous trick was an 'enquiry': do you have any rear-facing footage?, when they knew all the video and stills had gone to LC 18 months before. The point of all this is the completely new 'law' the police had invented: they had to have the rear view because they couldn't be sure the BMW had crossed over an unbroken white line from L to R, and without that just being on the wrong side of the UWL wasn't an offence. So, in Lancashire, you can travel a long way down the wrong side of the road, the wrong side of the UWL, and it's not an offence unless you hit an oncoming vehicle.
If you only have one camera, make sure it's a rear facing camera; I have a go-pro mounted on the end of my rear rack, not only to capture incriminating vision, but the very obvious large camera pointing at following drivers has a salutary effect on most to pass with care..
It is six of one and half dozen of another though. In my accident, if the camera was on the rear, then the driver would have gotten away with his hit and run as it was only the front handlebars spinning and centering the camera on his reg that had him. I've also had drivers pull out at junctions and another decide to drive across a central reservation and drive the wrong way down the carriageway for 100m to beat the queue of traffic at the lights.
theres nothing obviously camera shaped on Google view covering that side of the junction, there might be a traffic light camera on one side of the A3 lights but it wouldnt give you coverage of Cedars Rd.
This is the one I'm thinking of, on top of the traffic lights facing straight down Cedars, though whether it's wide angle enough to catch goings on in the ASL I don't know. It may be focussed further down the road for bus lane transgressions.
looks like an ANPR camera, I dont know what kind of quality/type of footage they serve up
I wonder what would have happened if the cyclist had reported this as an assault? Is there anything preventing the police and courts treating it as such? If they had driven at a pedestrian would it be treated as trivially as this?
Iirc people have tried this and the police wait 14 days to tell you it's actually a traffic offence but it's too late now.
Yes, but why did the police not treat it as an assault?
I know this junction well, use to live in the area and use the road as a commute route for years afterwards.
The left filter light often catches cyclists out who don't realise it comes on six seconds ealier. The markings for the ASL are very worn and the ASL right lane is often blcoked by cars.
Interestingly there was a question to the London Assembly back in 2010 (when the left filter light was put in) about the safety for cyclists. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions...
Not sure if anything was changed after this.
It does highlight signal placement and the ASL, however it doesn't look like it is rivieras first rodeo in that neck of the woods to know about the cycle path continuing on in the park. So I'm surprised he was unaware of the early allowed left-turn filtering for people in that lane.
It is a shame that Streetview doesn't catch whether this cyclist/ driver combo waiting at the red lights had a similar issue with the early filter change or not. There must have been 20 seconds difference minimum between that picture and the next one showing all vehicles having green.
Met Police in another episode of "Police, Camera, Inaction".
It wouldn't have mattered if he did have a rear camera - there was already enough evidence to show what had happened, and who did it, but the police were firmly ensconced in the 'it's his own fault for not rushing out of the way of the hard-working driver, as soon as he received the horn warning, he deserved all he got' world. They would have simply invented another reason, no matter how ludicrous, why they 'couldn't do anything'. All they had to do was visit the registered driver and ask for his side of the story, but they couldn't be bothered.
Scary experience, a hoon in a hurry, and yet
another reason for a rear camera.
Perhaps someone else will come forward to witness now it has a little publicity.
My question about the junction, in addition to the question on what people on bikes are supposed to do, is what is the purpose of the green traffic light on the left hand pole if there is no straight ahead option on that side?
Standard driving around Clapham Common
I'll bet there was available CCTV covering that junction though I can't imagine the police have any interest in retrieving it. Why on earth would there be any public interest in taking steps to remove a motorist with alleged anger management issues allegedly using their vehicle as a weapon. It's only a scumbag cyclist after all, nothing to see here.
Easy to be wise after the event and certainly not easy to think straight in the immediate aftermath of such an unpleasant incident, but it would have been useful to ask the other cyclist or cyclists there if they would be prepared to be witnesses: there's a section on the Met reporting form for the names of any witnesses, possibly the police would have been more willing to take action with them.
Clear footage of someone deliberately driving into someone else, perfectly aware of what they were doing, but the police decide there isn't enough evidence to prosecute?
Institutionally anti-cyclist
But the footage does not show that.
All there is is the cyclist's version. We can deduce stuff, but that isn't going to be court standard. Hence the article refering to rear camera being useful.
Beyond reasonable doubt in my mind but there does seem to be a higher standard of evidence in the case of car driving offenses which is ignore unless someone died.... Then if they did maybe a suspended sentence....
You're not usually a driverist apologiser Hirsute. Not sure what video you're looking at but the video I'm looking at doesn't show 'a cyclist's version'. It shows a series of events where a cyclist is stopped at a red light and a car driver beeps at and then drives into said cyclist. It certainly appears deliberate to me. The car driver clearly knew the cyclist was there (hence the beeping). And the car driver was completely stopped before driving into the back of the cyclist. What about that seems any less than deliberate and perfectly aware to you?
Correct.
a car driver, yes, THE car driver, I expect so but all he would have to state was it was another car.
Unfortunately the point Hirsute and the article itself is making is that the video doesn't show any impact. Any movement of the bike/camera is from an impact, but could easily have been from a cyclist turning around to see the commotion etc. As Ren mentioned, the OP should have queried the cyclist behind him who would have seen all of it and could be a witness to the collision etc.
no the video doesnt show that, thats the problem, the video doesnt prove it was the car behind the cyclist that beeped at them, cars beep all the time in London, for a variety of reasons, prove it was that specific car & driver from that video alone in relation to that specific incident.
The video also doesnt prove the cyclists forward motion was definitively because that specific car was driven by that driver forward into the cyclist to do that, again prove that happened from that video alone, you cant.
Naturally we can all fill the gaps from the testimony of the cyclist and how we expected the situation came about, but if it went to court it would just be the cyclists word against the drivers, without any independant witnesses willing to offer any more evidence or cctv with a different view of the incident, the police cant do anything with that.
The camera faces forward; it does not show a collision between car and bike.
We may deduce or infer all we like but that isn't admissible evidence. That is the point.
What the cyclist knows is not going to stand up as without clear footage or witness statements, it's he said/ they said.
Isnt that where interviewing the driver and 'beyond reasonable doubt' comes into play rather than 'we cant be fucking bothered'.
Absolutely. It's obviously far easier to expect all cyclists to have cameras facing in all directions recording at all times. I'm surprised by the ridiculous excuses offered up by people on here. Despite having video evidence, it's still not enough for people. Those people should get a grip.
3 separate people have explained the issue. If you think you are right then post a still from the video which shows the car hitting the cyclist.
Driver says "no". Or rather - driver says nothing.
Now what?
I'm not a policeman or lawyer so speculating, but:
a) Unless the driver is very odd or ill-advised and suddenly gave a full confession nothing would result from this. I imagine the police won't deem it court-worthy. Nor will the CPS.
b) Even if that happened some more "evidence" is likely to be wanted, in case they change their tune.
c) All the above takes a lot of time and resources. I bet there's a priority list somewhere, if only in the heads of the police. That will change according to the political / societal weather and the views of higher-ranking police! Recall the awful "nothing to see here" police response to the serial killings of four men in London in 2014 - 15 - not so long ago. I imagine road crime - especially with no "blood on the ground" - is probably at the very bottom of the pile.
I'd love it not to be this way but I suspect politicians and police are mostly just reflecting general societal views. So it also needs bottom-up change e.g. campaigns to change the social acceptance of this.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean, beyond any doubt
The prosecution would put forward the multiple pieces of evidence, including the cyclists witness statement, and out it to the defendant that the collision was a deliberate act
if the defendant says nothing, an adverse inference can and will be taken. For example, why did they screech off so fast and dangerously if they'd done nothing wrong?
so, the defendant would have to perjure themselves. And, trust me, people lying becomes really obvious.
younjustbhave to get it that far. And having other witnesses would definitely help.
Pages