rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
no idea. I have no recollection of the incident.
Driving without reasonable consideration
- Thread starter rudebhoy
- Start date
Crow
Crow Person
As a neutral viewer, my initial look says that you're overtaking another road user on single lane road when traffic is coming in the other direction.
Would you do that if the cyclist were a car?
The cyclist looks to be some way from the kerb and your car is still largely on your side of the road. I'd guess that you're closer than 1.5 metres.
Would you do that if the cyclist were a car?
The cyclist looks to be some way from the kerb and your car is still largely on your side of the road. I'd guess that you're closer than 1.5 metres.
pendodave
Tour Rookie
The 3rd picture looks a bit dodgy to me.
You appear to be overtaking the cyclist at exactly the same time as oncoming traffic is passing on a 2 way street at a junction.
I wouldn't be happy if I was the cyclist or the other driver.
Incidentally, I would repost with your number blanked out - this is the internet!
** edit.
I hope this doesn't come across as super virtuous or antagonist. I'm sure I've made lots of decisions when driving that are v poor. I think its helpful to think about other points of view/road experiences and try to do better. The trouble is, it's really hard to have these types of discussions in public. Things often go sideways fast.
You appear to be overtaking the cyclist at exactly the same time as oncoming traffic is passing on a 2 way street at a junction.
I wouldn't be happy if I was the cyclist or the other driver.
Incidentally, I would repost with your number blanked out - this is the internet!
** edit.
I hope this doesn't come across as super virtuous or antagonist. I'm sure I've made lots of decisions when driving that are v poor. I think its helpful to think about other points of view/road experiences and try to do better. The trouble is, it's really hard to have these types of discussions in public. Things often go sideways fast.
Last edited:
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
If some part of the bike isn't in any of the pictures how is it possible to even estimate how close you were to it..?
There's nothing to reference...
To be fair, your car is getting on 2 metres wide and it looks, from the last pic, that you're about a car's width from the kerb.
That only leave the cyclist half a metre of space and that isn't enough.
I always taught to kids to treat a cyclist as the size of a parked car and leave that 1.5 metre gap.
So, on the face of it, you probably were too close....too close to be prosecuted for it..?
I'd call it harsh...a warning would suffice in my book.
There's nothing to reference...
To be fair, your car is getting on 2 metres wide and it looks, from the last pic, that you're about a car's width from the kerb.
That only leave the cyclist half a metre of space and that isn't enough.
I always taught to kids to treat a cyclist as the size of a parked car and leave that 1.5 metre gap.
So, on the face of it, you probably were too close....too close to be prosecuted for it..?
I'd call it harsh...a warning would suffice in my book.
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
I agree, but the 1.5m is a guide, not mandatory if I understand correctly. The key thing to me is am I endangering him (or her)? It's a pretty wide road.
The oncoming car looks to me like where they’ll get you. You probably shouldn’t have overtaken with the red car there. You seem to cut back in very quickly, too, but still images are tough to judge.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
Agree with what has been said about the red oncoming car. Part of the idea of road position for cyclists is to encourage (force?) drivers to only overtake when the other lane is clear of traffic. It looks as either they, or the cyclist, is going to be squeezed or move to allow you room...
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
I've posted the photos in the wrong chronological sequence. looking at the timestamps, the first 2 pictures are as the red car passes me. I don't appear to have cut back in sharply - as I said it's a pretty wide road. But I take your point that I shouldn't have overtaken the cyclist when the car was coming. But is a poor driving decision automatically an offence?
You look pretty far out to me, well over the central line. You don't look particularly close to the footage / camera either. It certainly does not look like you have buzzed the cyclist.
I'd be wanting to view the live footage, that does not look enough to take a fine for.
I'd be wanting to view the live footage, that does not look enough to take a fine for.
Patster1969
Assistant Pro
Also, difficult to tell without knowing how fast you were travelling - if you are crawling past at 10mph, does the same "guide" apply?
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
Ahh I see and no I don't think a poor driving decision, which we all make, constitutes an offence when there is no harm done. You are certainly taking steps to allow the cyclist room and agree with Imurg that how can we/you judge without the bike being in the frame?
I would really hope the police are acting on a complaint which will be viewed as not enough to prosecute.
HeftyHacker
Well-known member
Hard to say without seeing the full video but it looks as though you may have initially given them enough room at the start of the overtake before they moved out to avoid the manhole ahead. This looks to have happened whilst you were alongside the car and probably why you don't remember the incident as you won't have had any awareness of how close they had got.
Unfortunately, it's one of those things that happens every journey so I'm amazed that they felt the need to formally complain about it.
To my mind the 1.5m guide is there to allow the cyclist to make these kind of movements safely so it could be argued that the fact you gave then enough space initially actually enabled them to carry out their avoidance of the manhole.
As I say, it's incredibly hard to make a full judgement from stills.
Unfortunately, it's one of those things that happens every journey so I'm amazed that they felt the need to formally complain about it.
To my mind the 1.5m guide is there to allow the cyclist to make these kind of movements safely so it could be argued that the fact you gave then enough space initially actually enabled them to carry out their avoidance of the manhole.
As I say, it's incredibly hard to make a full judgement from stills.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
This was my immediate reaction.
The cyclist already appears to be wide in the road to avoid the poor surface. You have chosen to overtake him, putting yourself on the wrong side of the road, with clearly visible oncoming traffic, opposite a junction from which a vehicle or other road user may have emerged into your path. All three of these things are hazards that would make me wary about overtaking the cyclist.
The only mitigation I could possibly see is that it appears that the cyclist has drifted slightly from being maybe 1/3rd of the width of the lane from the left in the first image (sorting them for actual chronological order) to being in the middle of the lane in the final frame....but I guess they could claim that they "wobbled" due to the closeness of overtaking. Unfortunately stills don't show you what really happened and remove some of the context around the actual path that the cyclist took. Also they don't show the behaviour of the cyclist in the few seconds before you passed...they could easily have been within a foot of the kerb and pulled out unexpectedly...but that wouldn't be highlighted in the stills as shown.
Last edited:
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
I've sent the form back admitting I was driving, and I'm hoping the next step will be to invite to view the footage (well actually I'm hoping they will drop it), but who knows? If it does go to court, my gut feeling is to fight it, but that may not be the wisest course of action, giving the likely costs.
Whereditgo
Journeyman Pro
The way I am looking at the photo's (and as others have said the stills do make it difficult to be certain) the cyclist appears move to the right to avoid the sunken grate (I'd have aimed left of it had I been the cyclist), the red car travelling in the opposite direction is a bit of a problem possibly, as it could be said you could/should have waited until there was no oncoming traffic to make the pass. But then looking at the last photo in the sequence (which is the 2nd one in your post) it appears that there is plenty of room for a cyclist.
Hopefully just a minor finger wagging will suffice.
GB72
Money List Winner
In all honesty, the chances are the CPS really do not have the time and the manpower currently and nor do the courts, to prosecute cases where there was no harm, no damage and there is any doubt over whether an offence was comitted. The CPS make their decision on whether to prosecute on whether the action is within the public interest and I cannot see how this falls within that category. If it were a statutory offence (less than 1.5m then you are guilty) then maybe a fine but as it is a guideline and no apparrent harm was caused, it will be kicked in to touch pretty quickly.
Looking at the road position of the cyclist in the 2nd last photo and last photo, and then your position in both photos, especially with the red car coming in the opposite direction, it’s tight.
Your car is just under 2m wide. The cyclist looks to be around 1.5m off the kerb, and then add 1.5m gap, and a typical street is around 5m wide. It looks too tight to call.
Equally, the line from the cyclist to the manhole suggests he has moved out.
Your car is just under 2m wide. The cyclist looks to be around 1.5m off the kerb, and then add 1.5m gap, and a typical street is around 5m wide. It looks too tight to call.
Equally, the line from the cyclist to the manhole suggests he has moved out.
As what is referred to as a Summary Only offence (triable in the magistrate’s court), the CPS have no involvement in the decision whether or not to charge in cases of careless driving - it will be a matter for the police.
There are two tests which must be met before someone is charged with an offence. First, there must be a realistic prospect of a conviction. Bear in mind that the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. So it is not a question of whether it is more likely an offence has been committed than not - the threshold is far higher.
When that test has been passed the decision maker then applies the public interest test. As you rightly say, it must be in the public interest to charge with an offence. This test is not quite as straightforward as it might appear but, speaking in general terms and without knowing the full facts in this instance, it would be very unusual not to charge someone if the commission of an offence has jeopardised the safety of a third party.
As for this case, I would say it is nigh on impossible to comment on the basis of still images as they do not show the full context.
EDIT:
Post charge the CPS do sometimes opt to discontinue cases prior to them reaching court, but there have to be pretty good grounds for doing so, and these are generally focused on the charging decision and supporting evidence - not the availability of court time and staff.
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
Thanks for this.
So is the decision strictly to whether to charge and proceed to court or not? Or am I likely to be offered a fixed penalty / points?
upsidedown
Tour Winner
If as a cyclist riding that particular section of road I'd be in the centre of the lane to avoid the sunken grate/inspection cover and from the stills I'm sorry but you are way too close, especially with the oncoming red car.
