Video: Right-turning van driver crashes into cyclist – but escapes prosecution

Dingaling wrote:

After initially looking at this thread I decided to stay out of the discussion because, generally, opinions are pro cyclist and anti motorist and I often think the cyclist is more responsible than generally felt and I can't be bothered to argue the toss. However, in this case, I have to say that I think the cyclist is at least 50% at fault (with respect to the rules of the road) and, wrt his own safety, entirely at fault. I would never race up the inside of traffic into a blind spot in a crossroads like that. A stupid move.

Your opinion raises the question of how cycle lanes are supposed to work.

Edit: Thinking about your comment, I've come to the conclusion that you're victim blaming here.

If you swap the roles around and imagine a bus/taxi travelling in its lane and a cyclist wants to turn right across them, with another motorist leaving space for them to do so. If the cyclist makes the turn and hits the bus/taxi, my opinion would be the same - the turning vehicle has to make sure that it's safe to do so. However, would you still apportion at least 50% blame to the bus/taxi driver and state that they were making a "stupid move"?

Also, it's not a crossroads.

I think in this scenario, fault can be apportioned 4 ways:

- Right turning van driver should have stopped
- Queuing van driver should not have flashed lights without checking mirror
- Cyclist should have anticipated turning traffic
- Road design should be better

The largest contributer in my view is the road design. Cycle infrastructure is so inconsistently implemented in the UK, and what may or may not consitute a cycle lane so variable in appearance, that this layout is just an accident waiting to happen. I suspect if I delved into the road marking regulations, that this would not comply.

Kind of like, cyclists should accept some of the blame when they come a cropper on roundabouts, because they should know the dangers and take precautions?

I understand your argument, and had that been my son riding the bike I'd have been pissed with myself for not teaching him better. But just because it was foolhardy of the cyclist does not reduce the culpability of the motorist. The Highway Code unambiguously tells drivers turning right to look out for cyclists.

These things happen fundamentally because, in the minds of motorists who pay road tax, cyclists are illegitimate road users tolerated on the streets entirely at their own risk. The reaction of the van driver said it all.

Dingaling wrote:

After initially looking at this thread I decided to stay out of the discussion because, generally, opinions are pro cyclist and anti motorist and I often think the cyclist is more responsible than generally felt and I can't be bothered to argue the toss. However, in this case, I have to say that I think the cyclist is at least 50% at fault (with respect to the rules of the road) and, wrt his own safety, entirely at fault. I would never race up the inside of traffic into a blind spot in a crossroads like that. A stupid move.

(“I was knocked to the ground and unable to move, while the driver got out of the van and started shouting at me about ‘fucking cyclists’)
Seems you have CONFUSED your little (anti-cylist) mind despite the evidence proving this (entiled) crash van driver has serious issues with vulnerable groups, who may also be school children on 2-wheels that he would have harmed or worse.
And then, darting directly into the path of a vulnerable victim, without pausing to make precautionary checks of the lane he intends to cross.

Dingaling wrote:

After initially looking at this thread I decided to stay out of the discussion because, generally, opinions are pro cyclist and anti motorist and I often think the cyclist is more responsible than generally felt and I can't be bothered to argue the toss. However, in this case, I have to say that I think the cyclist is at least 50% at fault (with respect to the rules of the road) and, wrt his own safety, entirely at fault. I would never race up the inside of traffic into a blind spot in a crossroads like that. A stupid move.

At least 50%?
The priority lay in the direction of traffic. In no circumstance is it ok to proceed blind, but doing so whilst crossing a lane, priority clearly lying with the approaching traffic, is either incompetent, grossly entitled, negligent, insane, or a mixture of all 4. Any doubts about the potential consequences of this action are dispelled by watching this video.

I couldn't tell from the video, but you're right about that cycle lane. It's clearly marked before the bus stop (e.g. the direction the cyclist was travelling from) but then the markings disappear, though the zig-zags are notably painted a distance away from the kerb i.e. on the outside of the cycle lane. The lane markings continue after the crossing zig-zags.

In my mind, that puts the blame wholly onto the turning van driver. (Although the other van driver invited the collision, they didn't technically do anything wrong and weren't even moving at the time).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Although the other van driver invited the collision

I don't see how, unless he encouraged the other driver by signalling with his lights or hand. Stopping in a position where you do not block a junction is simply considerate driving, as is not moving forward when it costs you nothing to wait for the other driver to safely execute his turn.

Signalling to the other driver to make the turn would muddy the waters, the HC says not to do it. But even then, if people airily wave you through, you can take that as no more than a signal that they are happy to yield.

Sriracha wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Although the other van driver invited the collision

I don't see how, unless he encouraged the other driver by signalling with his lights or hand. Stopping in a position where you do not block a junction is simply considerate driving, as is not moving forward when it costs you nothing to wait for the other driver to safely execute his turn. Signalling to the other driver to make the turn would muddy the waters, the HC says not to do it. But even then, if people airily wave you through, you can take that as no more than a signal that they are happy to yield.

This.

Unfortunately, the requirement not to obstruct junctions is one that is more honoured in the breach, and as a result when someone does abide by it it's treated as some sort of act of largesse on their part. Often that then encourages the turning driver to do so as quickly as possible, so as not to inconvenience their benefactor any more than necessary, right when you need them to be negotiating the turn with as much care and caution as possible.

I'm betting the police actually figured a jury or magistrate would be thinking, "how was the poor van driver supposed to know there was a bloody cyclist there, I'd have done the same." And the truth is, many if not most motorists would probably feel sympathy for the van driver.

Of course, we all tend to assume that what we don't see isn't there, even cyclists. The French have a sign that warns, "Un train peut en cacher un autre."
https://youtu.be/f8TqI2alLcg

Tom_77 wrote:

I think the van driver "fell below the standard expected of a competent driver". I think there is a realistic prospect that a magistrate / jury would come to the same conclusion, and the driver should have been prosecuted.

The police appear to be taking the view that cyclists are inherently difficult to see, so it's OK to run them over.

there is zero chance that a jury would come to the same conclusions, as there will be 10 drivers, and you have to convince at least 8 of them that it wasn't reasonable to make the right turn as the large van coming the other way had stopped for them. Most of them would have done the same and they will consider themselves to be competent drivers.

There would be talk in the jury room of the cyclist undertaking.

The van driver is at fault, but I would not expect there to be a succesful prosection if a jury was involved. Maybe magistrates might find against them.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Tom_77 wrote:

I think the van driver "fell below the standard expected of a competent driver". I think there is a realistic prospect that a magistrate / jury would come to the same conclusion, and the driver should have been prosecuted.

The police appear to be taking the view that cyclists are inherently difficult to see, so it's OK to run them over.

there is zero chance that a jury would come to the same conclusions, as there will be 10 drivers, and you have to convince at least 8 of them that it wasn't reasonable to make the right turn as the large van coming the other way had stopped for them. Most of them would have done the same and they will consider themselves to be competent drivers.

There would be talk in the jury room of the cyclist undertaking.

The van driver is at fault, but I would not expect there to be a succesful prosection if a jury was involved. Maybe magistrates might find against them.

The test for proceeding with a prosecution is meant to be "that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged".

Cases shouldn't be dropped on the basis that the jury or magistrate are likely to be biased (however true that might be).

Tom_77 wrote:

The test for proceeding with a prosecution is meant to be "that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged".

Cases shouldn't be dropped on the basis that the jury or magistrate are likely to be biased (however true that might be).

I'm not suggesting that the jury would be biased, they are not thinking "cyclists deserve it, don't convict a driver" only that most jurors will be drivers, most drivers consider themselves to be confident, and I suspect a good proportion would carry out the same manouver considering it cautious at the time.

50% of drivers are below average, but 85% consider themselves to be above average, even the ones who crash frequently.

Judges will typically direct the juror to consider their own level of driving as competent and weigh the case in question against that.

Until juries for motoring offences are not packed with shit drivers who think they are good the hances of motoring convictions for careless/dangerous driving remain very small. Generally one of the following 3 needs to be involved

drink/drugs

sleep deprevation

HGV

In all other cases the chain of logic in jurors minds goes like this. I am a good driver, I might have done this, therefore this driver is not falling below the standard of a good driver. With only 3 of the 12 jurors following this chain of thought the driver will be aquitted. So a conviction requires 2 non drivers and 8 drivers who either would not do as the accused had done, or recognise that even if they would have done it, that it falls below the standard of careful driving.

See the following sorry tale, 

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-incompetence-paradox/

Magistraite? Ha! They are mostly retired busybodies and if anything more likely to side with driver.

The only case I had that went to magistrate, the driver was acquitted of careless driving because according to the magistrate, the fact that he didn't actually hit me showed that the manoeuvre was safe. I'll let you judge for yourself ... https://youtu.be/ubWXuI9Ent4

Even the traffic officer who sat in on the hearing was surprised. But this is exactly the kind of thing that then leads Met to conclude that the case above is unlikely to secure a conviction.

Probably also true, but you only need to convince one, and maybe you get a safer driver, whereas the chance of getting 10 safe drivers of 12 jurors is much smaller.

I had a similar one where I was filtering up the left of traffic at this bit of road leading to the  lights. As can be seen there is two lanes and a bus stop which I hate as cars assume you are not in the lane and try to squeeze past. It was one of those days I was in a rush and accept I was going too fast but the extra speed probably saved my life. The traffic had started going and a car turned into the gated area from the opposite direction as both lanes of traffic had decided to let them through. No attempt to brake from them and because I had the extra space I could turn into the bus stop area slightly to give more room. He missed my rear wheel by milimeters. 

He missed my rear wheel by milimeters

Can't resist it: millimetres.

wtjs wrote:

He missed my rear wheel by milimeters

Can't resist it: millimetres.

HoarseMann wrote:

wtjs wrote:

He missed my rear wheel by milimeters

Can't resist it: millimetres.

 

Hi Joanne, may i ask what your settlement was as I am currently negotiating a settlement as a member of BC for a very similar RTC with a grade 5 separation, would appreciate a PM if you like?

I got £4k - we got it up by I think £1.2k from the original valuation by filing a court claim. I think it was a reasonable settlement and more than I expected.

With regard to process - I called BC the same day or the next day, can't remember exactly; Leigh Day, which handles their claims, called me 10 days later. It took about six months to get a response from the driver's insurer denying liability and I had an appointment with a doctor at the same time to assess my injury; and then it took about another 10 months (!) to get a valuation from the insurers. But we settled about four months after that. So in total, 21 months from accident to receipt of funds.