Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Johno100

brat wrote: »

If "decided to" means "intended to" then the offence is complete. If someone intentionally drives into another, especially a vulnerable road user, that is dangerous driving.

I think you may have misread the post you are replying too, I think the poster is referring to the actions of the cyclist and not the driver. And why the assumption that the driver "intentionally" drove into the other road user.

Johno100

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Was it reported? Failure to report a RTC and leaving the scene is taken seriously.

Of course even if it was an injury RTC, there is no requirement for the cyclist to stop or report only the motorist.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

I think you may have misread the post you are replying too, I think the poster is referring to the actions of the cyclist and not the driver. And why the assumption that the driver "intentionally" drove into the other road user.

I'm sure I'm reading this correctly. Cycrow (a cyclist) moved into a primary (centre lane) position behind the car in front because he wanted to turn right at the roundabout. He then said that the car behind "decided to" drive into him.
If someone chooses to drive into someone, that's road rage - dangerous driving.

What am I getting wrong?

Johno100

brat wrote: »

What am I getting wrong?

Cycrow stated in their description of the incident that they signalled their intention and moved to primary.

Marco Panettone then stated:

Hard to tell that from the information given. Signalling intention doesn't mean that there's the time or space to make the manoeuvre safely.

Cycrow made no mention of the car signalling so I assume Marco Panettone is referring to the cyclist. Just because a road user signals a manoeuvre it doesn't give that driver/cyclist carte blanche to complete the manoeuvre and sod everyone else around you.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Cycrow stated in their description of the incident that they signalled their intention and moved to primary.

Marco Panettone then stated:



Cycrow made no mention of the car signalling so I assume Marco Panettone is referring to the cyclist. Just because a road user signals a manoeuvre it doesn't give that driver/cyclist carte blanche to complete the manoeuvre and sod everyone else around you.

Ah, so you misunderstood my post.

Cycrow moved into the position he needed to be in, then he said the motorist chose to ("decided to") drive into the back of him. Cycrow was making the point that this motorist didn't like the cyclist taking the space of a car in the lane, and that he should remain in a subordinate position on the nearside. I therefore accept that his use of the words "decided to" inferred an intention to hit him when he needn't have done, therefore dangerous driving.
We have to assume that Cycrow's manoeuvre into the primary position was acceptable, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't give a motorist any right to choose to hit him.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

We have to assume that Cycrow's manoeuvre into the primary position was acceptable, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't give a motorist any right to choose to hit him.

I always prefer to go with Hanlon's razor (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity) unless I know otherwise.

Cycrow

i dont believe they ran into me deliberately, they did it out of ignorance.

They saw a cyclists on the road and just tried to get past them, which they couldn't do because the car in front would have blocked the overtake as there wasn't enough room between me and the car in front, and as i was traveling with the traffic as the same speed, the gap would never open up

The main problem was that they believed cyclists should keep as close to the curb as possible so cars can go along side them, even if they are turning right

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

I always prefer to go with Hanlon's razor (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity) unless I know otherwise.

Until the clarification by Cycrow, it was reasonable to suppose that if he said a person "decided to" do something, that it was their conscious choice, having alternative options at their disposal.

hugheskevi

Are you sure it was a failed overtake, it would also be consistent with distraction, for example from using a mobile 'phone.

Had something similar myself today, as a car overtook very close to the entrance to a roundabout and veered across me to turn left, passing less than a foot or so from my front wheel (I was proceeding straight on).

He was considerate though - he had his indicator on to let me know I was going to get left hooked as well as dangerously overtaken, many don't do that

brat

hugheskevi wrote: »

Are you sure it was a failed overtake, it would also be consistent with distraction, for example from using a mobile 'phone.

Had something similar myself today, as a car overtook very close to the entrance to a roundabout and veered across me to turn left, passing less than a foot or so from my front wheel (I was proceeding straight on).

He was considerate though - he had his indicator on to let me know I was going to get left hooked as well as dangerously overtaken, many don't do that

Must admit, having experienced the same, I never enter a roundabout unless I'm centre lane. I like to keep them behind me, I'm generally faster round the roundabout than they are anyway.