[Closed] HGV + trailer & cyclist dead- accident?criminal? acquitted anyway

During proceedings, the court heard that accident investigators were unable to prove that Mr Stewart had acted illegally.

In his closing speech on Thursday afternoon, defence advocate Steve Love described Mr McNicoll's death as "sad" - but said the evidence surrounding the incident pointed to it being a "tragic accident" as opposed to a criminal act.

Hmm I find it hard to believe an experienced cyclist got boxed in by a lorry and couldn't stop before he ran into a parked car. Trailer cutting him up and running (or actually knocking) cyclist into parked car seems much more likely. Sounds like the investigation couldn't prove it was the latter and seeing as how so many much more cut and dried [i]looking[/i] cases come out with a not guilty verdict I wouldn't be surprised if most of the jury went with the former scenario.

Mike do you not think there seems to be a lot of bias for drivers in jury cases? I think something should be done about that. Charging and sentencing would appear to be inconsistent too. Driver hits someone it's careless driving, cyclists hits someone it's [url= http://road.cc/content/news/103569-12-months-jail-red-light-jumping-cyclist-who-left-9-year-old-girl-fractured ]GBH[/url].

I know I wasnt there, I wasnt a witness but if youre clipped by the trailer attached to a lorry then it seems to me that logically the driver didnt overtake safely, didnt leave enough room or allow enough time to overtake, probably misjudged the cyclists speed, thought he was safe to move back in and clipped the cyclist. all a guess of course. either way tragic. maybe not criminal but fault sounds like it lies with the driver.

its actually pretty horrendous for everybody involved and that includes the driver who has to come to terms with this to BUT the underlying trend where drivers seem to get away with this is the biggest worry. it doesnt re-enforce to drivers that they must take care/attention around vunerable road users. thats what annoys me.

A tragic accident, very sad.

The driver was tried by a jury of his peers and was found "not proven".

Mike do you not think there seems to be a lot of bias for drivers in jury cases? I think something should be done about that.

Ignorance but not bias.

What ti_pin_man describes has happened twice to me - once the t-bar at the back of the trailer caught my jacket and made a hole, the other time I had to steer into the bushes to avoid it.
Now, i know the drivers didn't do it on purpose but isn't there a law against DANGEROUS OR CARELESS DRIVING?
No-one causes accidents on purpose, so that makes almost every death on the road a "tragic accident" and "oh well"..?

Mike do you not think there seems to be a lot of bias for drivers in jury cases? I think something should be done about that.

It's tragic and difficult but there is a very fine line between justice and a police state.

In the circumstances I would say there is no way the lorry could have been overtaking safely.

That location is a downhill 40mph zone with two lanes in each direction, parked cars in the inner lane and a traffic island just before where the collision occurred. Cyclist would have probably been doing 25-30mph down that hill.

Google map of location [url] https://goo.gl/maps/s9lw3 [/url]- check streetview to see the traffic island. The Lanark Road sign in the photo from the BBC news article is just behind the silver Ford Ka.

In that case how would you have convinced a jury of your peers that the driver had committed the offence?

In the circumstances I would say there is no way the lorry could have been overtaking safely.

I'm not defending killing cyclists or bad driving but the legal principles.

Didn't say anything about changing innocent until proven. Driving cases (not just driver v cyclist) presided over by a jury full of drivers? A lot of whom could thinking "that could be me in the dock"

"There but for the grace of god go I" seems to be a recognised problem with juries. Have a google. For cases where the jury is liable to be biased do we need to adjust the system a little? Panel of judges instead? professional jurors? In driving cases maybe just a standard jury with atleast 50% none drivers? (if you can find that many)

[i]Can you equate that to the law?[/i]

Thats what the prosecutors did. It was decided that they were wrong. By a jury of drivers.
God this has made me angry. If the driver that clipped me had actually hit me properly, he couldv'e got away with it for the same reasons. I actually spoke to the driver - he had actually seen me! but had no idea that he'd hit me.
Wish I hadn't opened this thread.

What's really tragic is that (had the collision not occurred) the lorry would have arrived at the traffic lights 500m down the road about 15 seconds earlier by overtaking the cyclist rather than waiting behind like he should have done.

A life needlessly lost so that the lorry could save 15 seconds (or nothing at all if the lights had been red).

This piece of road should be a 30 zone in my opinion.

The driver was tried by a jury of his peers

with a good chance many of them were prejudiced against cyclists?

Cyclists are viewed as scum by a huge majority of drivers. The odds are high that a few find their way onto jurys and their minds are made up before the evidence is even heard.

Cyclists are viewed as scum by a huge majority of drivers.

Really?

their minds are made up before the evidence is even heard.

Seems like your mind is made up about how juries are all flawed.

In which case the prosecution should have raised concerns about the jury.

The chap in question lived just along the road from me.

There was some doubt about whether or not he had done a "lifesaver" before pulling to pass the parked car. Given my experience of commuting in and out of Edinburgh he would have been in a very small minority if he had done so.

That section of the Lanark Road has a 40 mph speed limit and yet there are lots of unlit parked cars on it. I believe this is in violation of traffic law. However, as far as I can understand this, possibly contributory factor, did not come up in court.

isn't there a law against DANGEROUS OR CARELESS DRIVING?

There is, but in any criminal case you have to prove it. This is not always easy, unfortunately.

Cyclists are viewed as scum by a huge majority of drivers.

I really don't think that's true. By some, yes, and those are the ones you notice, and remember, but the majority? I really don't think so.

I think "scum" is probably minority view but would wager "cyclists are a nuisance" would be a fairly widely held view amongst drivers, which is still pretty negative and not a world away from "shouldn't be there" from there you have nice easy transition from "if I had been driving more carefully..." to "if the cyclist hadn't been there..."

isn't there a law against DANGEROUS OR CARELESS DRIVING?

There is, but in any criminal case you have to prove it. This is not always easy, unfortunately.

That's because it's a very difficult and subjective thing to define.

Should someone go to prison for making a "genuine mistake"?

Accidents happen. Unfortunately for us, if we are cycling and come in to contact with a larger, heavier vehicle then it's usually serious and sometimes fatal.

how many cyclists have to die before a judge will make an example of a driver who drives without due consideration to a cyclist who winds up dead as a direct result of their actions?

a judge will make an example of a driver

That doesn't seem like justice to me.

The judge can only work with in the parameters set by the law.

Also, are you aware that other drivers and pedestrians also die as the result of poor driving?

Should someone go to prison for making a "genuine mistake"?

That's because it's a very difficult and subjective thing to define.

I have had a lot of close passes from drivers and while there were probably a few punishment overtakes I reckon a lot of drivers thought they were driving safely. A lot of drivers appear to be ignorant of the law and what safe driving is - and these are the ones deciding whether drivers who maim/kill are guilty or not

a judge will make an example of a driver
That doesn't seem like justice to me.

the really issue is that many jurors are drivers and think it could have been them, dont cycle and consider us to be a nuisance and dont reach great conclusions

What we do - no idea but the law seems to disproportionately favour drivers i assume because juries are largely made up of them rather than cyclists.

when genuine mistake amounts to gross negligence then yes they should.

I agree.

However gross negligence is long way from careless.

The judge can only work with in the parameters set by the law.

but those parameters aren't black and white are they?

The judge has SOME discretion to vary the sentence for the crime of which a person is convicted. But no-one was convicted in this case.

However gross negligence is long way from careless.

Everyone guilty of careless driving should have their licence removed and atleast have to retest - plus whatever ban judge feels adequate, at the moment some careless drivers appear to be driving away from court. TBH I think every driver who injures someone should have to do a retest within a month of the incident (no pass and you get your licence taken away until you can - irrespective of any bans you may or may not receive from legal action) to show they can actually drive to test standard.

true but you asked about prison, careless driving covers a large remit and I'm not suggesting every careless driving charge should receive a jail term but gross negligence should definitely equal prison.

The point is should the sentence reflect the level of negligence or the outcome of the incident?

Somebody is driving and on their phone and speeding, they hit a cyclist and he suffers some broken ribs, should they go to prison?

Somebody hits a cyclist in a "genuine" mistake type accident, careless driving passing too close or similar, the cyclist falls, hits their head and dies. Do they deserve a prison sentence?

Also, what is the purpose of the sentence, deterrence or punishment for their actions?

If it's deterrence o you really think it will make any difference?

every driver who injures someone should have to do a retest within a month of the incident

Sort of agree with your sentiment but that isn't at all practicable. The DSA can't cope with new drivers nevermind a load more.

Define injury?

What about both the driver and the other party both being to blame?

Its a tricky one but the answer is probably both, the 1 punch deaths show that. Outcome does make a difference.

Compulsory retest can work both ways, shows whether you can drive safely or not when required, if you can't manage it when your licence depends on it should you still have a licence? Pedestrian stepped out in front of driver, sure it happens you can't retest pedestrians tho besides when its car v pedestrian the pedestrian normally has enough to worry about without further action. Driving licence is something you earn not a right and its messed up how difficult it is to lose it. Retests every 5/10 years are a good idea too.

Lots of jurors have got angry and wanted to thump someone - do we automatically assume that they are biased in favour of someone charged with assault?

We may not be happy with the outcomes on some of these cases but on this occassion it seems to me that in the absence of any evidence - that thing in the law that protects all of us from witch hunts - then the driver was rightly not convicted. None of us know the facts, not all accidents causing tragedies are criminal matters.

Lets focus on supporting campaigns to improve the laws that affect us and their enforcement

[quote=gobuchul ]Somebody hits a cyclist in a "genuine" mistake type accident, careless driving passing too close or similar

You consider passing too close to be a "genuine mistake"? 😯

That right there is a big part of the problem.

[quote=gobuchul ]

every driver who injures someone should have to do a retest within a month of the incident

So where are all the new drivers coming from? Are you suggesting that this would be inconvenient for those compelled to do a retest?

I commute that road every day - in fact I was about five minutes behind the guy when that happened. Quite a chilling thought that if circumstances were different and I was earlier...

The lanes are wide enough for one vehicle plus a bike if you're prepared to risk the car door zone, and there is a horrible seam in the road between lanes so you can't easily ride down the middle - you're either on one side of the lane or the other.

It's impossible to know whether the cyclist looked before moving out, however do we know whether he moved into the outside lane or remained in the inside and was clipped by the lorry crossing over? Either way, shouldn't a following driver always anticipate the movements of a vehicle in front? If the situations were different and it were two cars driving down there, would the second driver be expected to let the first driver overtake the parked car, and thus would its prevention of this be considering unsafe driving?

Don't forget the result was 'not proven' - a get out clause for a gutless jury

^^ @imnotverygood -- I don't see it like that at all in general. If you mean this case, don't know, but I would uphold the 'not proven' verdict as a meaningful one.. means what it says IMO.

Edit - my take is 'not guilty' equates to no case to answer, 'guilty' is strong belief in conviction on evidence and law - and 'not proven' is that, on evidence presented there is not enough belief in a fair convicted verdict. I always read it as " quite possibly, but need more evidence or present a better case - which is really then down to the police / fiscal..

a get out clause for a gutless jury

Or the conclusion they drew from the evicence - just a thought, like.

I've always assumed "not proven" means they think he did it, but there was insufficient evidence - which given the information in that article doesn't seem that unreasonable. I'm certainly not about to go round screaming about the injustice of this case, when I suspect he might be acquitted even if the law was changed in the way I'd like (that hitting a cyclist with a vehicle is a statutory offence unless you can prove the cyclist was at fault - and for all the advocates of our current legal system who might complain about shifting the burden of proof, such a shift is far from without precedent).

I mean if I'm not complaining too much about the verdict, then it really can't be that bad.

a proper accident inquiry into a death should investigate all the other factors, the position (&legality) of other vehicles, the quality & appropriateness of the infrastructure, the corporate culture of the company of any employee who was involved in the accident.

That would have a better chance of establishing "why" an accident happened, and so ultimately provide evidence for those who want to stop this sort of thing happening again.

Plane crash investigations are much better at this sort of thing...but people don't investigate "why" people get killed by road traffic.

Don't forget the result was 'not proven' - a get out clause for a gutless jury

You sound like a Daily Mail reader talking about a benefit fraud case.

Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary.

So you would prefer to convict people despite a lack of evidence? Ot should we just make the evidence up?

These threads always bring out the "holier than thou" who never make any mistakes when driving, riding, operating tools etc. Their concentration is always 100% and never do anything if they are not 100%.

People make mistakes, accidents happen, people get hurt. Human error is always the cause of an accident, do we have to find out who's "guilty" and apportion blame with a suitable punishment for every accident?

You consider passing too close to be a "genuine mistake"?

Not seeing someone is an honest mistake. I do my best, but there have been a few times I've not seen other road users. Including a cyclist once, although it was not a high risk situation.

The lorry shouldn't have been passing if it wasn't safe to do so, looking at the picture of the incident it is not a dual carriageway, if there are parked cars then it is not safe to overtake.

It is actually rather clear, it is just that the legal system is geared to treat cyclists as second class road users. The application of the law is wrong. It is about time that judges and legal staff were given instructions to protect vulnerable road users, it doesn't need new laws (although some would be good) it just needs some guidance on how current laws are applied.

Look. We all know what happened: An experienced cyclist on his regular commute at a place where there are normally parked cars inexplicably steers into one of them. At high speed. It is just a coincidence that an HGV was overtaking.... This is I just a variant of the Single Witness Suicide Swerve. 'Not proven ' allows a jury who are reluctant to convict enough leeway to wriggle out of it and I notice that even in this case it was a majority verdict. Sorry, this is an insult to the victim and his family.

If the situations were different and it were two cars driving down there, would the second driver be expected to let the first driver overtake the parked car, and thus would its prevention of this be considering unsafe driving?

not aware of the detail in this sad case but a couple of points

currently living in Melbourne Aus and in this situation the vehicle behind has to and does give way to the vehicle in front if indicating a lane change - the exception seems to be when I as a driver choose to allow a cyclist to change lanes to pass a parked vehicle - this results in tailgating and loud horn blasts - exactly the same as in the UK - vehicles will allow other vehicles to merge/turn/perform odd manoeuvres but giving space and time to cyclists or pedestrians isn't the social norm and jury decisions sadly reflect this

edit should have written sadly and wrongly reflect this

Look. We all know what happened:

No we don't. Neither did the jury, that's why it's not proven.

'Not proven ' allows a jury who are reluctant to convict enough leeway to wriggle out of it

They would of been directed by the judge. If there is no evidence then how can you convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

FWIW I agree with you that the driver was probably at fault in this case but there is no way of being certain.

No we don't. Neither did the jury, that's why it's not proven.

do we have to find out who's "guilty" and apportion blame with a suitable punishment for every accident?

Their concentration is always 100% and never do anything if they are not 100%

They would of been directed by the judge. If there is no evidence then how can you convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Because the judge should direct them that the law states that you can only overtake if it is safe to do so, the jury should then decide if the lorry was safe in overtaking at that point. Overtaking on a single lane carriageway where there are parked cars would quite clearly fail that legal test.

I would like to know if this question was actually put to the jury.

The jury can be prejudiced by the legal system and judge by what they are and are not asked to deliberate on. This is where the system currently seems to be failing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The guidance of the system is supporting the "car is king" mentality at the cost of far too many lives.

I wasn't familiar with "not proven", quick google suggests it means "you maybe did it but we're not sure", if so, why no option of another trial?

MSP - Member
They would of been directed by the judge. If there is no evidence then how can you convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Because the judge should direct them that the law states that you can only overtake if it is safe to do so, the jury should then decide if the lorry was safe in overtaking at that point. Overtaking on a single lane carriageway where there are parked cars would quite clearly fail that legal test.

I would like to know if this question was actually put to the jury.

The jury can be prejudiced by the legal system and judge by what they are and are not asked to deliberate on. This is where the system currently seems to be failing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The guidance of the system is supporting the "car is king" mentality at the cost of far too many lives.

+100 and a bit more well put

why no option of another trial?

Not proven always leaves an option of another trial with new evidence.

Overtaking on a single lane carriageway where there are parked cars would quite clearly fail that legal test.

Really? So there is an obvious miscarriage of justice. This would allow the re-trial option. He must have a pretty shoddy lawyer if this doesn't happen.

[quote=gobuchul ]These threads always bring out the "holier than thou" who never make any mistakes when driving, riding, operating tools etc. Their concentration is always 100% and never do anything if they are not 100%.

I'm certainly never going to hit a cyclist in the way a lot of motorists do (and in the way which almost certainly happened in this case). Not because I'm perfect - I have after all caused my fair share of crashes and will happily concur with molgrips that I have sometimes failed to see other vehicles - but because I wouldn't CHOOSE to pass a cyclist close enough that there was any possibility of me hitting them. If it wasn't possible to pass with enough space then I would CHOOSE to wait behind until it was.

These incidents aren't tragic accidents resulting from a momentary mistake, they're the result of drivers deliberately positioning their vehicles in a way which is unsafe. I'm really not sure why an attempt shouldn't be made to stop people CHOOSING to drive in such a way, including severely penalising those who injure and kill people due to the deliberate choices they made.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you consider passing too close to be a "genuine mistake" BTW.

<applause> for MSP

This is the reason why we need similar laws to Germany, if a driver hits a cyclist or pedestrian, they are at fault. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian the cyclist is at fault (unless pedestrian wanders into a cycle lane, then they are at fault). Also at junctions the stop/give way is pushed back so that pedestrians and cycle lanes can cross the junction at which car drivers have to give way.
In resedential areas there are usually no road signs & markings as the law states you must give way to the right therefore as a vehicle driver you have to take care. It forces drivers to be more aware of those road users around them. Simple you are either in the right or wrong, no grey area's.
Unfortunately the luddites in the UK will not alter the law, the strupid thing is these idiot drivers are dangerous to all. I regularly see plenty of poor driving on my way to work, with very little done by the authorities to clamp down on it and send a clear message.

He must have a pretty shoddy lawyer if this doesn't happen.

It is quite likely to be a public prosecution by somebody who is overworked and not particularly specialised in these types of incidents and has no particular motivation to fight the system.

I have said many times, that if people cycle on roads with any regularity then take out legal insurance. Have someone who represents you directly and guide you (or in the worst case scenario) your family through the legal system. And get them fighting for you right from the beginning, even if reporting what appears to be relatively minor accidents to the police.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you consider passing too close to be a "genuine mistake" BTW.

In my post "genuine" was in inverted commas. Mistakes and errors are very complex and it's impossible to define a "genuine" mistake.

Somebody could pass a cyclist too close for numerous reasons, failure to anticipate another oncoming vehicle which causes them to move towards the cyclist, misjudging the position of their vehicle in the road, driving an unfamiliar vehicle which is wider than what they are used to, failure to notice the cyclist etc.

None of the reasons you suggest are "genuine" mistakes - the fact you appear to think they are is another symptom of the problem. If giving as much space as recommended in the HC, then the width of the vehicle and an error in judging where you are on the road wouldn't come into it (unless you're so incompetent that you can't judge where you are on the road to within 2m). The correct course of action when encountering an unexpected oncoming vehicle is not to move towards the cyclist.

This is the reason why we need similar laws to Germany, if a driver hits a cyclist or pedestrian, they are at fault. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian the cyclist is at fault (unless pedestrian wanders into a cycle lane, then they are at fault).

But that's not always the case is it?

None of the reasons you suggest are "genuine" mistakes - the fact you appear to think they are is another symptom of the problem.

I don't think there is such a thing as a genuine mistake.

All mistakes are caused by human error.

So what is the problem then?

As this involved an HGV & Trailer, there can be no excuse of 'genuine mistake' HGV is a seperate licence & test and usually only driven by 'professional' drivers. It is not like Joe Bloggs with grandfather rights on his licence, jumping into his Rover hooking up a caravan and popping off for the weekened and forgetting he has it on the back. It is time the law was changed to take into account people driving as part of their profession and harsher penalties as they should know better.

The problem is that the error is deliberate choice, not accidental, hence not a "mistake".

If giving as much space as recommended in the HC,

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

I will always give a cyclist more room than most drivers do but I do pass them with less than the full vehicle width that is recommended in the HC. Flame me.

Personally I think the problem is lack of segregation, we need more cycle lanes and better infrastructure.

I don't think there is such a thing as a genuine mistake.
All mistakes are caused by human error.
So what is the problem then?

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

It is time the law was changed to take into account people driving as part of their profession and harsher penalties as they should know better.

[quote=gobuchul ]I will always give a cyclist more room than most drivers do but I do pass them with less than the full vehicle width that is recommended in the HC. Flame me.

If you give them enough that you still wouldn't collide with them if they had to swerve, you were driving a vehicle that is wider than you expected or you misjudged your position on the road, then no flaming required. If not, then you are part of the problem.

[quote=gobuchul ]Personally I think the problem is lack of segregation, we need more cycle lanes and better infrastructure.

I'm not sure that's the problem, but it would definitely be a good solution (having used to be anti segregation I was converted by http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/ )

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

'never'? really? I can only assume you either don't spend much time on the road or live in a particularly bad area, it is certainly common to not be given enough room, but every now and again someone will surprise you buy doing it properly.

I will always give a cyclist more room than most drivers do but I do pass them with less than the full vehicle width that is recommended in the HC. Flame me.

Don't hide behind 'other people are worse than me' style excuses, if you have the self awareness to realise you're not doing it right and still CHOOSE to not give enough room then you are 100% part of the problem, you don't get brownie points for just being slightly less bad than the worst.

Every time you overtake a cyclist, horse, car, bus whatever you have the choice to do it safely or not, why not do it safely?

Personally I think the problem is lack of segregation, we need more cycle lanes and better infrastructure.

Where appropriate segregation can be beneficial but personally I think the problem is people choosing not to drive safely through many years of ingrained bad habits and a lack of respect for others. this doesn't just apply to actions towards cyclists, it's a general trend.

martib - Member

As this involved an HGV & Trailer, there can be no excuse of 'genuine mistake' HGV is a seperate licence & test and usually only driven by 'professional' drivers. It is not like Joe Bloggs with grandfather rights on his licence, jumping into his Rover hooking up a caravan and popping off for the weekened and forgetting he has it on the back. It is time the law was changed to take into account people driving as part of their profession and harsher penalties as they should know better.

My perception is people who are proffessional drivers - ie who can argue that they are reliant on driving in some way to earn a living, tend to be treated more leniently by the system. I would expect logically a system would expect those who were dependent on driving to earn a living to demonstrate better standards than average, and be held accountable to those standards.

you're original argument appeared to be "mistakes happen should they really all be punished?"

Sort of.

All accidents are caused by human error. There is a chain of events that leads to the incident. To prevent the incident you must break the chain.

If you have a problem with mosquitoes you can use a fly swatter or you can drain the swamp and get rid of the source of the problem.

What's causing the deaths of cyclists on our roads? IMO it is a lack of understanding and awareness of cycling and poor driving standards, throw that into the mix of human fallibility, over crowded roads, crap infrastructure and lack of segregation, then there is a problem.

Are we going to improve driving standards? Probably not. Even if people are thrown in jail, it will make no difference.
Any chance of improving awareness? A possibility.
Human fallibility? Always going to happen.

IMO The only realistic solution is segregation. We need more cycle lanes that are physically separated from the other vehicles.

[quote=gobuchul ]Are we going to improve driving standards? Probably not.

The question should be "can we improve driving standards?" which might have a different answer. Is about as likely as us getting proper segregated infrastructure IMHO.

Are we going to improve driving standards? Probably not. Even if people are thrown in jail, it will make no difference.
Any chance of improving awareness? A possibility.
Human fallibility? Always going to happen.

The only factor there that [b]cannot [/b]be influenced is human fallibility, the others are [b]difficult[/b], [b]hard work[/b], and may [b]take time[/b] and [b]money[/b], but increasing awareness and improving driving standards are achievable goals.

Don't hide behind 'other people are worse than me' style excuses, if you have the self awareness to realise you're not doing it right and still CHOOSE to not give enough room then you are 100% part of the problem, you don't get brownie points for just being slightly less bad than the worst.

How much room do you need? How much is enough room?

I would argue that I can safely pass a cyclist depending on speed and road conditions, with less than the recommended full car width in the HC. This may show me as part of the problem, however, on certain roads, depending on the cyclist's position in the road, this would mean any overtaking would not be possible at all.

Are you seriously suggesting it is unsafe to overtake a cyclist on a clear, straight section of B road because I cannot give him a full car width? Seriously?

[quote=gobuchul ]How much room do you need? How much is enough room?

Let me quote myself

[quote=aracer ]enough that you still wouldn't collide with them if they had to swerve, you were driving a vehicle that is wider than you expected or you misjudged your position on the road

...thereby removing some of your list of "genuine" mistakes.

[quote=gobuchul ]Are you seriously suggesting it is unsafe to overtake a cyclist on a clear, straight section of B road because I cannot give him a full car width? Seriously?

Not enough room to overtake a car? Nothing to do with me then, that's what the HC says.

list of "genuine" mistakes

As I said.

I don't think there is such a thing as a genuine mistake.

aracer » enough that you still wouldn't collide with them if they had to swerve, you were driving a vehicle that is wider than you expected or you misjudged your position on the road

Swerve how far?

How much wider?

How badly misjudged?

It's all pretty subjective isn't it?

I've just come back from lanzarote. The driving ain't perfect, but what is striking is the respect given to cyclists. It is a question of attitude, not ability

[quote=gobuchul ]It's all pretty subjective isn't it?

Well not really. Enough space when driving a car that you wouldn't come close if driving an HGV (with a trailer). Enough space that in order to hit a cyclist through misjudgment you'd be hitting parked cars and lampposts the rest of the time. Enough space for a cyclist to swerve as much as a cyclist feasibly can and it still be a swerve. If you want an absolute figure then in Germany and Spain it's 1.5m http://road.cc/content/news/10734-3ft-not-enough-says-ctc-debate-about-safe-passing-distances-catches-fire

That bit of road isn't far from where I live and I'm very familiar with it. I've always felt that was a very strange accident as there should be plenty of room for a cyclist to pass a parked car without going into the outside lane, where I'd have expected the lorry to be.

Without witnesses I can see why it didn't result in a conviction because while it's very possible the accident was the lorry driver's fault it is also possible that it could have been the cyclist - especially as that's a very fast section on a road bike. My daughter had a car driver run into her car close to that point a few months back - the driver on the inside having pulled partially into her lane to pass a parked car without realising she was in the lane outside of him at the time.

What I don't get (was thinking about this just now while out riding), is How can it NOT be dangerous driving? What more evidence that the driver has done something dangerous do you need? - there's a body in the morgue.

aracer - That is an interesting link.

The HC photo seems to indicate that you must leave at about a car width although it's vague. The text isn't clear.

Personally, I would be happy to the French rule of 1.0m in town and 1.5m on other roads.

Does anyone know what happened to the campaign and petition? Looks like it died.