- 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
Upperkirkgate, Aberdeen (Google Street View)“If he’d stayed in his lane, I would have seen him”: Pavement parking taxi driver banned for injuring cyclist after pulling out without indicating – but barrister blames cyclist’s poor “lane discipline” for crash
A taxi driver who was banned from the roads for 12 months after pulling out without indicating and hitting a cyclist, leaving him with a “horrific” arm fracture, blamed the injured rider for the collision, arguing in court that if “he’d negotiated the roundabout properly I would have seen him”.
Stephen Bennett, a 50-year-old taxi driver in Aberdeen, was parked on the pavement at the top of the city’s pedestrianised Upperkirkgate, after dropping off passengers, when he pulled out in front of cyclist Alan McKay.
McKay, who had turned onto the street from Gallowgate, had no time to react when Bennett merged onto the road without indicating, sending him flying over his handlebars, the Aberdeen Press and Journal reports. The cyclist suffered a “horrific open fracture” to his arm in the collision.
At Aberdeen Sheriff Court, Bennett denied a charge of causing serious injury by careless driving, and instead told the court that McKay had failed to negotiate the roundabout linking Gallowgate with Upperkirkgate “properly” and that he would have spotted the cyclist if he “had stayed in his lane”.
> Screaming and swearing taxi driver cuts off and hits cyclist before speeding away
When asked by his defence counsel Gregor Kelly what procedures he’d undertaken before driving off the pavement, the 50-year-old said: “After my passengers left, I’m waiting to get another job. I’m given another job and check over my right shoulder and there was nothing there.
“I checked my rear-view mirror and wing mirror and forward to make sure there was nothing coming and slowly manoeuvred out doing less than one or two miles an hour, and I hear the thud of the cyclist.
“I didn’t indicate because there was no one else there whatsoever. The cyclist has come just after I checked over my shoulder.”
Bennett claimed that McKay had “cut the corner” and navigated the roundabout in the wrong lane, and if he had approached in the left lane “I would see him”.
The approach to the roundabout from Gallowgate, with Upperkirkgate to the right (Google Streetview)
“He obviously appeared after I have looked over my shoulder,” he continued. “I felt really bad about it. I got out of my vehicle straight away. I was trying to help him, I asked if there was anything I could do.
“I wanted to take his bike home for him or pick his wife up and take her to the hospital. I would have done anything to help him.”
> Taxi driver given suspended sentence for deliberately hitting cyclist who called him a “fat f**k”
While watching CCTV footage of the incident in court, Kelly asked Bennett: “What commentary would you give regarding Mr McKay’s lane positioning?”
“If he’d negotiated the roundabout properly he’d have been behind me and I would have seen him,” the taxi driver replied.
Questioning Bennett, Fiscal depute Claire Stewart said: “I’m going to suggest had you carried out the necessary checks this collision would not have happened.”
“I did carry out the necessary checks,” Bennett said. “It wouldn’t have happened if he’d come round the roundabout the proper way.”
While also providing evidence to the court during the trial, cyclist McKay said that Bennett had failed to indicate before the collision and added that he “disagreed” with defence counsel Kelly’s assertion that he had not navigated the corner properly or kept his “lane discipline”, and that he had “contributed personally” to the crash.
> Taxi association warns drivers of "sneaky" cyclists with cameras catching law-breaking behaviour
Finding Bennett guilty of causing serious injury by careless driving, Sheriff Kevin Duffy told the court: “This is a very unfortunate situation both for Mr Bennett and indeed Mr McKay,”
“The question for the court to decide his whether the quality of Mr Bennett’s driving fell below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
“Looking at it from the CCTV, I have reached the conclusion that while Mr Bennett may well believe he carried out all the checks required, my conclusion is that he didn’t do so immediately prior to pulling out because if he had done so he would have been aware of the presence of the cyclist. Furthermore, he didn’t indicate.”
Following the guilty verdict, Kelly argued that the mandatory driving disqualification would have a huge impact on his client as it would leave him unable to work, and asked the sheriff to keep the ban to a minimum.
Sheriff Duffy disqualified Bennett from driving for 12 months – the minimum length of ban legally required for the offence – and fined him £790.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 1 sec ago
Is it just me who thinks that Jeremy Vine is a bit of an attention seeker and that he actually likes it when people drive dangerously around him....
- wtjs 2 min 45 sec ago
getting law enforcement to change their mindset shouldn't be expensive at all...
- wtjs 32 min 31 sec ago
It's no coincidence that the number of signatories almost doubled once the story was featured in the Daily Mail...
- David9694 3 hours 35 min ago
Driver rescued from overturned vehicle after Wiltshire crash https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/24827313.driver-rescued-overturned...
- Jakrayan 9 hours 37 min ago
In what way? My Émonda has Dura Ace Di2 - admittedly 11 speed as it's 4 years old - but I can fit an Ultegra GS rear mech to run a bigger sprocket...
- ErnieC 10 hours 41 min ago
Most media has confirmation bias - they need it to keep their revenue stream open.
- lonpfrb 12 hours 20 min ago
Anybody brave or knowledge enough can pick up a bargain in the online cycle sale groups and take it to their lbs or preferred mechanic to check out...
Add new comment
63 comments
In a specific and limited way?
They should make it a legal requirement to indicate before pulling out from a parking sport and turning into/out of side roads. Personally, I don't get why so many drivers don't bother as it's not exactly onerous to flick a lever to indicate.
(I have heard previously on here that some driving instructors actually berate learners for indicating when there's no-one visible around - that's just plain stupid).
It seems common sense to me to assume that I might not be fully aware of everything that's happening, and that there could be somebody there that I haven't noticed.
When I'm cycling I'm extremely wary of taxi drivers. They seem to think that the rules don't apply to them. In fact you might assume that any driver who has pulled up on the pavement thinks that they are above the rules and may do something else equally inconsiderate.
I'm similarly wary of taxi drivers - they're more likely to want to stop and/or turn around. They're also often using multiple devices: a GPS, either built-in or fixed to the windscreen and often they're on a handheld phone as well.
I wouldn't classify all pavement parkers as inconsiderate as they're often trying to be considerate to other drivers. The problem is that they prioritise drivers and fast roads over the health and safety of pedestrians.
The first sentence is still going too far even with the second - "I wouldn't classify all speeding drivers as inconsiderate as they're often being considerate to their passengers or the people they've said they'll meet at a certain time".
Yes - it could be seen as "be considerate of other drivers" but it could also be "if I don't pull out of the way another driver could clip my motor..."
Or we can just call it "social convention" I guess?
IME a lot of motorists only seem to bother indicating if they see other cars.
Even if pedestrians waiting to cross who might have liked to know that you intend to turn into a side road and they could have crossed the road after all
Quote:
"(I have heard previously on here that some driving instructors actually berate learners for indicating when there's no-one visible around - that's just plain stupid)."
I recall reading this, and hearing it from my daughter when she was learning to drive. It is of course utter bollocks, but fits with the myth that drivers are all-seelng and all-knowing, and the only reason they hit other road users is because it's the victims fault or they 'came out of nowhere!'
Most in my local town only indicate after the act that they are supposed to tell others, pull into the left lane then indicate left, mind-boggling daft I know they will or should be turning left but I did not know that they were moving from the righthand lane until they did and stopped at the red light.
thats odd! I don't get why they would do that.. years ago when I had a driving instructor he would tell me to indicate regardless as you can't tell who can see you.. are they worried about using up the light bulbs??
The theory behind it as I understand it is that the learner should be constantly thinking about their driving and the traffic around them. If they always indicate before turning etc. then it is apparently demonstrating that they aren't thinking about who they're indicating for.
However, that's just obviously dangerous to not be encouraging learners to always indicate when performing a maneouvre with the exception being when indicating could be ambiguous (e.g. overtaking vs turning though that implies that they're overtaking near a junction which isn't great).
no its encouraging them to think and use the concious part of the brain to check the traffic around them properly, something we as cyclists criticise drivers alot for not doing, rather than letting the brain automatically switch off the decision making aspect and just treat it as repetition.
its a very valuable lesson to be taught.
This is where I disagree with the advanced driving guidance - it seems this is being used as much as a "sign of knowledge". And in fact whatever you practice likely becomes habit over time (brain is *excellent* at saving expense by swapping doing work every time for "here's one i made earlier").
Neither indicating or deliberately not indicating necessarily correlate with you actually checking sufficiently. And your indication or lack of it is only one of the inputs other road users need to consider.
But hey - if it acts as mental meta-tool to cue awareness then that's all good I guess.
That would be okay if it actually worked like that, but this incident demonstrates that some drivers don't check sufficiently and don't indicate. It's particularly dangerous when they pull out of a parking space as there might be very little clue as to what they're doing. Failing to indicate when it is appropriate just compounds the problems with their lack of observation. They don't see an approaching cyclist, think that they shouldn't indicate and then cause a collision that could so easily have been avoided if they had indicated "just in case".
A colleague who did an advanced driving course was told the same thing. If there is no one around you don't need to indicate.
Yes, a friend of mine did an advanced driving course and got marked down for indicating where the instructor deemed it was unneccessary. I think the logic was that if he'd done all the required checks of mirrors etc (which he had done) then he would know that there's nothing around to indicate to. But what's the downside of indicating, just in case there was something which you didn't or couldn't see (e.g. in a blind spot)?
Even a pedestrian needs to know the intentions of a bicycle let alone a two-ton 150 HP SUV etc Some pedestrians are moving faster than four MPH like runners etc. They have eyes to see indicating traffic but not the mind-reading bit yet.
I've heard the same from the police. My problems with it are drivers don't always see everyone, it becomes a bad habit, and there's no upside.
There used to be a statement: Mirror Signal Manoeuvre.
Covered everything from pulling away, to changing gear, to changing direction and to stopping.
A *professional* driver would be using glance - look - glance - fecking *look* ... there really is no excuse for colliding with anything when in *control* of a motor vehicle.
Indicators are funny things ... some people don't use them as they know where they are going and they don't need the little arrow on the dashboard to tell them.
I remember a few decades ago on Look East; they were interviewing the head honcho of Suffolk Police Road Unit and the biggest gripe was that police officers didn't indicate when pulling back in from overtaking.
He replied with [paraphrasing so not a direct quote] it forced the driver to check their mirrors and also, because you should return to the left when finished overtaking, other road users should expect it, and thus no need to signal the intent.
Ideally it should be Mirror Signal Mirror Manoeuvre. The second "Mirror" is also known as the life-saver.
Yes! I was taught that I should indicate early enough to ensure people saw it before moving, which required a further check. I wasn't to indicate where it could be ambiguous, and that included waiting to pull out from a parked space into moving traffic until I was ready to move. I should be waiting for the cars to pass, and indicating might give the impression that I was going to pull out in front of someone, causing them to break etc. The exception for that rule is buses.
I have heard that not indicating when there's 'no-one to see' is acceptable/good practice now, but far too many people just don't indicate unless they think it's to their advantage. More often than not they don't indicate where it would benefit pedestrians, but I see it a lot when I'm driving. While you shouldn't assume that someone indicating to turn into a side street will definitely do so, an indicator along with judging the car's speed and position can make the difference between getting out of that side street in a timely manner.
I think it's just good practice to stick to mirror-signal-mirror/shoulder check-manouvre as habit unless you have a good reason for doing something different. At least that way if you are a bit distracted for whatever reason then you are giving those around you a fighting chance.
That's a good point about completely trusting that because someone has indicated that they definitely will perform a maneouvre. It's more about intention - they use their indicator to tell others that they intend to turn or pull out etc. which allows others to be better prepared for them changing direction etc.
When cycling I often indicate twice - once before changing speed for a manoeuvre, and again when I've slowed down just before making the turn.
When cycling, I'll sometimes not indicate for a fast left turn as I'd rather keep both hands on the controls and it shouldn't make any difference for other traffic behind me. I do however indicate if I think it's useful info for pedestrians/drivers such as if they're waiting to turn into a side road that I'm also going to be turning into.
Using the cycle lanes in Copenhagen introduced me to the concept of always indicating when pulling away from stationary as there's so many people using the lanes and you don't want to veer straight into someone.
Presumably to make sure that you draw attention to yourself?
You should follow the letter of the law, find an envelope of space and put your stamp on it.
And if the professional had done that there would have been no crash, no severe injuries and no ban.
When I had some accompanied drives with IAM (couple of decades ago) that was their stance.
Mine is that I need to regular habit because not signalling makes more likely not to do it when I need to, and if I don't see someone they at least know what I am doing and can mitigate my mistake.
What snaps my cranks is that they could take that stance, but also encourage drivers to indicate anyway whilst stating "indicating just in case" which would fulfil their objective of getting a driver to think about the traffic and also provide the rest of us with a blinking light so that we can at least try to avoid a collision.
To be honest, I think they're just being obstinate in pushing their "ideal driver" stance over the practicalities of avoiding collisions. They're letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good". Also, they're promoting the idea of the omniscient driver - if they can't see anything, then there's nothing there.
Oddly stiff punishment - by which I mean relative to the normal slap on the wrists. Is this a Scots law thing? Are driving penalties harsher up there?
Causing serious injury by careless driving is a relatively new offence, with stiffer penalties. Previously this would simply have been careless driving and the horrific injury suffered by the cyclist would be largely irrelevant.
Pages