Appealing a PCN

[TooMany2cvs]

I'm just wondering what would have happened if there'd been a car coming the other way.

The OP's story seems to suggest that it would have been a choice between a head-on or flattening the cyclist.

20mph zone. Cyclist doing, what, 10mph? So that's a closing speed of about 2.8 metres per second. HC braking distance from 20mph is six metres - only a little over a car length.

[blueg33]

In reality the op had to make a quick decision, he could see that there was no car coming the other way, unfortunately the snap decision was probably the wrong one and he should have stopped, But for many people swerving is more instinctive than doing an emergency stop if you can see that the way is clear, and sometimes even if its not (see the various car crash vids on youtube)

[TooMany2cvs]

blueg33 said:

In reality the op had to make a quick decision

No, he didn't. He was doing 20mph and closing on a bicycle at a closing speed of 5-10mph. Sure, the cyclist didn't have lights, but there are streetlights, as well as the headlights on his car.

[blueg33]

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

In reality the op had to make a quick decision

No, he didn't. He was doing 20mph and closing on a bicycle at a closing speed of 5-10mph. Sure, the cyclist didn't have lights, but there are streetlights, as well as the headlights on his car.

See previous stuff about how hard it can be to see someone

[TooMany2cvs]

blueg33 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

In reality the op had to make a quick decision

No, he didn't. He was doing 20mph and closing on a bicycle at a closing speed of 5-10mph. Sure, the cyclist didn't have lights, but there are streetlights, as well as the headlights on his car.

See previous stuff about how hard it can be to see someone

Yes, it's very hard to see another vehicle on the road if you aren't actually looking.

[walm]

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

In reality the op had to make a quick decision

No, he didn't. He was doing 20mph and closing on a bicycle at a closing speed of 5-10mph. Sure, the cyclist didn't have lights, but there are streetlights, as well as the headlights on his car.

See previous stuff about how hard it can be to see someone

Yes, it's very hard to see another vehicle on the road if you aren't actually looking.

So it may have been a quick decision then?

[xjay1337]

I have to be honest at 20mph I can't see why you wouldn't have slowed down, but it's unfortunate.

Try an appeal but I don't think it'll go anywhere.

[KevinCamaroSS]

walm said:

So it may have been a quick decision then?

Nothing is quick at 20mph. No excuse in my book, either driving without due care and attention or failing to conform to road signs.

[blueg33]

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

In reality the op had to make a quick decision

No, he didn't. He was doing 20mph and closing on a bicycle at a closing speed of 5-10mph. Sure, the cyclist didn't have lights, but there are streetlights, as well as the headlights on his car.

See previous stuff about how hard it can be to see someone

Yes, it's very hard to see another vehicle on the road if you aren't actually looking.

And when you are looking.

[KevinCamaroSS]

blueg33 said:

And when you are looking.

Pehaps you need an eye test then?

[ashleyman]

blueg33 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

blueg33 said:

In reality the op had to make a quick decision

No, he didn't. He was doing 20mph and closing on a bicycle at a closing speed of 5-10mph. Sure, the cyclist didn't have lights, but there are streetlights, as well as the headlights on his car.

See previous stuff about how hard it can be to see someone

Yes, it's very hard to see another vehicle on the road if you aren't actually looking.

And when you are looking.

Difference between looking and seeing. You can look but not necessarily see something until it's too late.
I've been in a situation plenty of times where you're driving along and all of a sudden out of nowhere a cyclist with no lights and dark clothing appears. They were probably there all along but just invisible until they catch the light and being visible. Sounds silly but you just need to look at the image posted earlier of the cyclist. Totally invisible except for where the headlights show his trousers.

Excuse my ignorance but in this situation why is the camera there? Is there any signage? Can you even be given a PCN for driving on the wrong side of a bollard or is it more a police matter for DWDCA or something?

There's a bollard similar to this in a road near me. People park so close to the bollard that in anything bigger than a Fiesta/Polo you need to go round it on the other side of the road. Even the buses go round on the right side sometimes depending on parked cars

Edited by ashleyman on Tuesday 17th January 11:11

[blueg33]

KevinCamaroSS said:

blueg33 said:

And when you are looking.

Pehaps you need an eye test then?

Not at all thanks

See what I posted about my Gran further up. Everyone was adamant that under street lighting in a pale blue coat she would have been easily visible to the driver. The driver was being prosecuted for causing Grans death.

The police ended up recreating the incident in the same conditions. A police driver could not see the person in the coat until it was too late.

There are circumstances that you may not expect where a person cannot be easily seen regardless of streetlights, headlights, 20/20 vision etc.

None of us where there with the Op, none of us know what he could or couldn't see, all we have is his word. I see no reason to automatically assume he is lying about the difficulty of seeing the cyclist.

The main issue was his avoidance strategy correct? The PCN would suggest not but if the cyclist was hard to see I can understand when he ended up going that way

[Pip1968]

blueg33 said:

Not at all thanks

See what I posted about my Gran further up. Everyone was adamant that under street lighting in a pale blue coat she would have been easily visible to the driver. The driver was being prosecuted for causing Grans death.

The police ended up recreating the incident in the same conditions. A police driver could not see the person in the coat until it was too late.

There are circumstances that you may not expect where a person cannot be easily seen regardless of streetlights, headlights, 20/20 vision etc.

None of us where there with the Op, none of us know what he could or couldn't see, all we have is his word. I see no reason to automatically assume he is lying about the difficulty of seeing the cyclist.

The main issue was his avoidance strategy correct? The PCN would suggest not but if the cyclist was hard to see I can understand when he ended up going that way

What we are missing is the driver says he was doing 20mph and came upon a cyclist who we estimate was doing 10mph in the same direction and must have been very close to the street lamp in the picture when he had his near miss. In essence he approached a hazard at the pace of a fast runner would have approached the cyalist

At that speed and therefore plenty of time to react, the cyclist would have to be something like that alien out of Terminator not to be seen. He also says another driver went past him so how come that driver missed the cyclist but managed to stay on the correct side of the road.

Personally I think the driver was speeding and could not be arsed to wait until a safe point for an overtake and thought he would overtake on the wrong side of the road. He is now looking at options to get out and seeing what the general consensus is.

If the original poster had carried out the manouevre and hit an 'unlit' pedestrian who was crossing at the 'stay Left' bollard and there for not looking to traffic on the wrong side of the road, (perfectly reasonable assumption) what would everyone have said.

It was a silly but dangerous mistake. Pay the fine and learn from it. Driver slower and perhaps look into buying one of those cars that has automatic braking on it.

Poster has not said whether he has 20/20 vision, wears glasses is long or short sighted or how old he is. Over forty - eye test recommended.

Pip

[GravelBen]

Pip1968 said:

What we are missing is the driver says he was doing 20mph and came upon a cyclist who we estimate was doing 10mph in the same direction

You speculate the cyclist was doing 10mph, you'd have to observe the movement to estimate speed.

Its quite possible the cyclist was going far slower, especially if they had just pulled out from between those parked cars.

[mdglen]

I've attached another image from the CCTV. This time I haven't highlighted where the cyclist, nor is it against a light coloured background as it was in the original.

See if you can spot the cyclist now.

It also show the preceding car, which, in my opinion didn't move much over to the right when passing the cyclist, which would have been a big hint to the following driver that there was a hazard to avoid, as I would not have direct line of sight.

At this point, I have pulled over to the right to avoid the cyclist. There's not enough space for me and the cyclist to both go through the gap safely, so should I have waited on the wrong side on the road and then pulled in behind the cyclist (no oncoming traffic, but there is a car behind), or do what I did which was pass on the right.

There was absolutely no benefit in passing the cyclist, as just past the camera, was a line of stationary traffic waiting at traffic lights.

I was wearing glasses at the time, and the prescription is correct (last checked in September, and no change in the past 5 years)

[walm]

Pip1968 said:

At that speed and therefore plenty of time to react, the cyclist would have to be something like that alien out of Terminator not to be seen. He also says another driver went past him so how come that driver missed the cyclist but managed to stay on the correct side of the road.

I think you mean Predator not Terminator!
Also don't forget that the car in front didn't have to make a choice about which side of a traffic island to go.

[KevinCamaroSS]

mdglen said:

I've attached another image from the CCTV. This time I haven't highlighted where the cyclist, nor is it against a light coloured background as it was in the original.

See if you can spot the cyclist now.

Spotted the cyclist as soon as I looked at the picture. It also shows you have time/space to move back and pass the island to the left. You are already well past the cyclist. You could also calculate the relative speed differential between the two photos if you wanted to.

[amancalledrob]

In spite of the automatic naysaying that seems to have become PH tradition I agree with the OP - worth an appeal. The PCN is issued automatically before any opportunity for the driver to explain his actions. Unlit cyclists are incredibly hard to spot (which is why lights are required, is it not?) and an emergency stop from 20mph on a wet greasy road isn't as quick and simple as some appear to believe

[blueg33]

amancalledrob said:

In spite of the automatic naysaying that seems to have become PH tradition I agree with the OP - worth an appeal. The PCN is issued automatically before any opportunity for the driver to explain his actions. Unlit cyclists are incredibly hard to spot (which is why lights are required, is it not?) and an emergency stop from 20mph on a wet greasy road isn't as quick and simple as some appear to believe

I totally agree. The automatic Op flamers do my head in. Why not trust people a bit, especially if you weren't actually there.

I posted info that shows even someone in pale colours can be hard to see, but all that is glossed over because there is an opportunity have a go at the op.

[walm]

blueg33 said:

amancalledrob said:

In spite of the automatic naysaying that seems to have become PH tradition I agree with the OP - worth an appeal. The PCN is issued automatically before any opportunity for the driver to explain his actions. Unlit cyclists are incredibly hard to spot (which is why lights are required, is it not?) and an emergency stop from 20mph on a wet greasy road isn't as quick and simple as some appear to believe

I totally agree. The automatic Op flamers do my head in. Why not trust people a bit, especially if you weren't actually there.

I posted info that shows even someone in pale colours can be hard to see, but all that is glossed over because there is an opportunity have a go at the op.

The problem is that with an alarming regularity the naysayers are right.

I can well believe the emergency stop would have been a problem but only because I simply cannot believe he was going 20mph.
Have you ever driven at 20mph??? Honestly, it is RIDICULOUSLY slow.

And your incessant bleating about the pale coat completely ignores the speed of the cyclist making the speed differential even less likely.