About my hit and run on 22/05/2003



Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James Hodson

Guest
Hi all

Re my thread "Jerk in the Merc - Local Loco Lefty Lurch - Time to Die", dated 22/05/2003:

which I was involved on Thursday, 22 May, 2003. I have no trouble in filling out most of the form
but I do have a tad of trouble regarding where on the road a competent rider should cycle.

How would you guys phrase what we all know very well: One should not ride in the gutter. In my case,
I was about four or five feet away from the kerb when the car overtook me - it had to move out to
the right and then it swerved left and swiped my front wheel - and then swiped me as it (the car)
turned back across and through my front wheel - I then crashed - to my best advantage?

BTW, sorry for the repitition above.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, James Hodson
<[email protected]> writes
>Hi all
>
>Re my thread "Jerk in the Merc - Local Loco Lefty Lurch - Time to Die", dated 22/05/2003:
>

>which I was involved on Thursday, 22 May, 2003. I have no trouble in filling out most of the form
>but I do have a tad of trouble regarding where on the road a competent rider should cycle.
>
>How would you guys phrase what we all know very well: One should not ride in the gutter. In my
>case, I was about four or five feet away from the kerb when the car overtook me - it had to move
>out to the right and then it swerved left and swiped my front wheel - and then swiped me as it (the
>car) turned back across and through my front wheel - I then crashed - to my best advantage?
>
>BTW, sorry for the repitition above.
>

The position you were in was close to the "primary riding position". See John Franklin's Cyclecraft
(pp58-59). The primary riding position is the centre of the left most lane. He says this should be
your normal position away from junctions when you can keep up with traffic or need to emphasise your
position or prevent drivers from passing dangerously. He goes on to say that it is reasonable to
adopt the secondary riding position (not closer than 0.5m to the edge of the road) when this could
help others, _as long as your own safety is not impaired_.

The book is excellent and every cyclist should have a copy..

--
Michael MacClancy
 
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
Franklin's Cyclecraft - primary cycle position???

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Clean up the waste & get rid of the trapped wind to send a reply

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~
 
C

Cicero

Guest
"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi all
>
> Re my thread "Jerk in the Merc - Local Loco Lefty Lurch - Time to Die", dated 22/05/2003:
>

> which I was involved on Thursday, 22 May, 2003. I have no trouble in filling out most of the form
> but I do have a tad of trouble regarding where on the road a competent rider should cycle.
>
> How would you guys phrase what we all know very well: One should not ride in the gutter. In my
> case, I was about four or five feet away from the kerb when the car overtook me - it had to move
> out to the right and then it swerved left and swiped my front wheel - and then swiped me as it
> (the car) turned back across and through my front wheel - I then crashed - to my best advantage?
>
> BTW, sorry for the repitition above.
>
> James
>
> --
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

===========
Also a legal decision in the 1960s which said, '........... a cyclist is entitled to his
wobble......'

Cic.
 
D

Dave Kahn

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:41:16 +0100, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi all
>
>Re my thread "Jerk in the Merc - Local Loco Lefty Lurch - Time to Die", dated 22/05/2003:
>

>which I was involved on Thursday, 22 May, 2003. I have no trouble in filling out most of the form
>but I do have a tad of trouble regarding where on the road a competent rider should cycle.
>
>How would you guys phrase what we all know very well: One should not ride in the gutter. In my
>case, I was about four or five feet away from the kerb when the car overtook me - it had to move
>out to the right and then it swerved left and swiped my front wheel - and then swiped me as it (the
>car) turned back across and through my front wheel - I then crashed - to my best advantage?

Why complicate matters by attempting to justify your perfectly correct positioning? It puts you
automatically on the defensive, and there is no need. Simply state, "I was riding about four or five
feet from the kerb." If the other side try to claim this is bad positioning then you counter with
Franklin and also point out that the cager overtook you anyway. If they then say, "but not safely"
then that's tantamount to an admission of fault. If the driver was not able to overtake safely then
he, she or it should not have overtaken at all. Keep your statement simple and factual.

--
Dave...
 
N

Nick Kew

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> The position you were in was close to the "primary riding position". See John Franklin's
> Cyclecraft (pp58-59). The primary riding position is the centre of the left most lane.

ISTR Richard Ballantine says the same (Richard's Bike Book), so that's another authority for it.

I wonder if our government publish any relevant guidelines?

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
In news:[email protected], Nick Kew <[email protected]> typed:
>
> I wonder if our government publish any relevant guidelines?

Cyclecraft is published by The Stationary Office (formerly known as HMSO)

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
In news:[email protected], James Hodson
<[email protected]> typed:
> Hi all
>
> Re my thread "Jerk in the Merc - Local Loco Lefty Lurch - Time to Die", dated 22/05/2003:
>

> which I was involved on Thursday, 22 May, 2003. I have no trouble in filling out most of the form
> but I do have a tad of trouble regarding where on the road a competent rider should cycle.
>
> How would you guys phrase what we all know very well: One should not ride in the gutter. In my
> case, I was about four or five feet away from the kerb when the car overtook me - it had to move
> out to the right and then it swerved left and swiped my front wheel - and then swiped me as it
> (the car) turned back across and through my front wheel - I then crashed - to my best advantage?
>

In the Police report you should simply state the facts. So just say as you did above "I was about 4
- 5ft out from the kerb when the car passed me and pulled sharply left hitting my front wheel with
its rear wing" or however it happened. Its irrelevant whether that is a competent place to cycle,
its where you were and the driver should have waited until it was safe to pass. And just stick to
the truth, whether it helps your case or not. The truth has an inevitable logical self consistency
to it that is hard to break. Over the years I have seen more people than I care to remember get
tied up in knots in Court trying to tell it how they would have liked it to have been rather than
how it was.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 05:41:51 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In the Police report you should simply state the facts. So just say as you did above "I was about 4
>- 5ft out from the kerb when the car passed me and pulled sharply left hitting my front wheel with
>its rear wing"

I strongly agree that sticking to the facts rather than trying to justify oneself is crucial at this
stage, but the report may be used by the Cager Protection Service to decide on whether to prosecute,
so a degree of - how should one put it? - clarification may be indicated.

So I might be inclined to mention the words "primary riding position." Plus, no measurements were
being made, so it's an estimate. Also I think it looks less in metres :)

So maybe something along the lines of: "I estimate that I was between 1m and 1.5m from the kerb (in
the "primary riding position"), when..."

Sadly in a Police report you can't use the proper technical term for the driver, namely: "clueless
f**kwit cager *******."

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
J

Jim Price

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I strongly agree that sticking to the facts rather than trying to justify oneself is crucial at
> this stage, but the report may be used by the Cager Protection Service to decide on whether to
> prosecute, so a degree of - how should one put it? - clarification may be indicated.

I might go further than that, as when I stuck exclusively to the facts on a police report,
mentioning the traffic lights location up ahead, the idiots failed to see that the CFCB had
obviously seen the lights go red ahead, and made a split second decision to try and find a rat run,
thus turning left immediately in front of me without indicating. Either that or they did'nt give two
hoots that my witness (looking in his mirror as he stopped at the lights) described the CFCB as
"driving like a tw*t". The police sent me a letter saying they were not going to press charges. I
don't get to re-phrase the accident report.

Jim Price
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes
>In news:[email protected], James Hodson
><[email protected]> typed: In the Police report you should simply state the
>facts. So just say as you did above "I was about 4 - 5ft out from the kerb when the car passed me
>and pulled sharply left hitting my front wheel with its rear wing" or however it happened. Its
>irrelevant whether that is a competent place to cycle, its where you were and the driver should
>have waited until it was safe to pass. And just stick to the truth, whether it helps your case or
>not. The truth has an inevitable logical self consistency to it that is hard to break. Over the
>years I have seen more people than I care to remember get tied up in knots in Court trying to tell
>it how they would have liked it to have been rather than how it was.
>
>Tony
>

Personally I would refer to 'the primary riding position'. It demonstrates an understanding of
correct road craft, justifies your position on the road and makes it clear that the driver was at
fault. If you omit it the facts don't change but the message may not be received as reliably. It is
relevant whether it's a competent place to cycle. If it were not a competent place to cycle many
people would conclude that you were, to some extent, at fault.
--
Michael MacClancy
 
R

Richard Goodman

Guest
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... ..
> Personally I would refer to 'the primary riding position'. It demonstrates an understanding of
> correct road craft, justifies your position on the road and makes it clear that the driver was at
> fault. If you omit it the facts don't change but the message may not be received as reliably. It
> is relevant whether it's a competent place to cycle. If it were not a competent place to cycle
> many people would conclude that you were, to some extent, at fault.

I think the 'primary riding position' is a technical term that is probably going to sound pretty
meaningless to non-cyclists or even most cyclists

better expressed something like "I was riding about 4' - 5' out from the kerb, as recommended in
Cyclecraft, Stationary Office ref..) etc.

Rich
 
T

Tony W

Guest
"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think the 'primary riding position' is a technical term that is
probably
> going to sound pretty meaningless to non-cyclists or even most cyclists

> better expressed something like "I was riding about 4' - 5' out from the kerb, as recommended in
> Cyclecraft, Stationary Office ref..) etc.

Why does the OP's position in the lane make much difference? Is it legitimate to drive a car up his
jacksey and then drive off without a bye your leave if he is in one position but not in another?

Surely drivers are meant to avoid the vehicle in front under all conditions.

What is wrong with 'I was cycling along minding my own business when this ***** rammed me from
behind.' (or whatever the exact event -- sorry I forget).

Keep the Primary Riding Position, Cyclecraft and anything else for later if the *****'s insurers try
to get shirty.

T
 
J

James Hodson

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:41:16 +0100, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

>How would you guys phrase what we all know very well: One should not ride in the gutter. In my
>case, I was about four or five feet away from the kerb when the car overtook me - it had to move
>out to the right and then it swerved left and swiped my front wheel - and then swiped me as it (the
>car) turned back across and through my front wheel - I then crashed - to my best advantage?
>

Thanks all. I'll prpbably go for both: "I was riding about four feet away from the kerb in the
"primary riding position" etc.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg
 
R

Richard Goodman

Guest
"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Why does the OP's position in the lane make much difference? Is it legitimate to drive a car up
> his jacksey and then drive off without a bye your leave if he is in one position but not in
> another?
>
> Surely drivers are meant to avoid the vehicle in front under all
conditions.
>
> What is wrong with 'I was cycling along minding my own business when this ***** rammed me from
> behind.' (or whatever the exact event -- sorry I forget).
>
> Keep the Primary Riding Position, Cyclecraft and anything else for later
if
> the *****'s insurers try to get shirty.

In principle you are right. You shouldn't have to justify your actions at this stage. It shouldn't
matter whereabouts in the road the cyclist was, a driver shouldn't just overtake and cut in front.
Also, I think to start justifying actions at this stage could be seen as being 'clever', saying what
you feel suits your case rather than simply being honest about what happened. Simple facts have a
certain "ring of honesty" about them - why complicate things? So far as what insurers might say, if
there is any need to defend/justify the position that can surely be raised later.

I think the only fear is that a prosecution is possible but if it fails to happen because of an
interpretation that is put on the reported facts in the mind of a mindless official who knows
nothing about cycling, and simply decides the cyclist was too far out, then that would be
unfortunate.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. I think I would just stick with the facts at this
stage - but if I was going to say something about my position other than measurement I wouldn't say
'primary riding position'.

Rich
 
R

Richard Goodman

Guest
"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:03:56 GMT, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >... I wouldn't say 'primary riding position'.
> >
>
> Too late unless I mug the postman and buy a bottle of Tippex.
>

Whatever, I don't think it's hugely important either way anyway. Good luck with your claim.

Rich
 
D

Dave Kahn

Guest
"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> I think the only fear is that a prosecution is possible but if it fails to happen because of an
> interpretation that is put on the reported facts in the mind of a mindless official who knows
> nothing about cycling, and simply decides the cyclist was too far out, then that would be
> unfortunate.

Whatever the cyclist was doing, I don't see how this can justify failing to stop.

--
Dave...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads