Driving Without Due Care & Attention - Plea advice

[Gavia]

skwdenyer said:

OK. So let's look at the scenario in the Mirror story. The Clio driver is sitting on the right side of the vehicle, some way from the front. The cyclist is moving well above walking pace. At what point can he see that it's clear to go?

He can’t. He should wait for the van to move. None of us are likely to do that, but that’s the risk we take by crossing a live lane blindly. More often than not we’ll get away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

[silentbrown]

gazza285 said:

Between the verge and lane 1, where the dedicated cycle path is, not through the stationary traffic, alongside them in a separate lane...

I think you're splitting hairs. "through stationary traffic" doesn't have to mean between two lanes of stationary traffic. At least, not to me. Would riding "past" stationary traffic make you happier?

[skwdenyer]

Gavia said:

He can’t. He should wait for the van to move. None of us are likely to do that, but that’s the risk we take by crossing a live lane blindly. More often than not we’ll get away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

OK, so in essence your belief is that each of us is guilty of DWDCA each time we make such a turn (since the offence is clearly made whether or not a cyclist is present).

I had thought that the definition of DWDCA was based upon what a hypothetical "reasonable" driver would do? My recollection is that the definition of the offence is "allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist".

On the basis of what you have said, it would seem you think that the prudent motorist in fact makes such a turn all the time. Does that not in turn make it certain that it cannot possible be DWDCA?

[Gavia]

skwdenyer said:

Gavia said:

He can’t. He should wait for the van to move. None of us are likely to do that, but that’s the risk we take by crossing a live lane blindly. More often than not we’ll get away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

OK, so in essence your belief is that each of us is guilty of DWDCA each time we make such a turn (since the offence is clearly made whether or not a cyclist is present).

I had thought that the definition of DWDCA was based upon what a hypothetical "reasonable" driver would do? My recollection is that the definition of the offence is "allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist".

On the basis of what you have said, it would seem you think that the prudent motorist in fact makes such a turn all the time. Does that not in turn make it certain that it cannot possible be DWDCA?

No and this discussion is bordering on farcical now.

Once again, for the final time. If you turn across a live lane blindly, then you are opening yourself up to grief. It might not be a DWDCA, it might be a simple fault insurance claim. However, you can’t claim that crossing a live lane and then colliding with a vehicle (any vehicle) that is proceeding correctly is anything other than DWDCA.

Just to clarify, here’s the definition of it, which you’ve stated incorrectly as well

1. Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
2. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.

[Mojooo]

BMWBen said:

Mojooo said:

No - he only knew the cyclist was being reckless when he did his checks and *the cyclist came out of nowhere*

If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then that does create some doubt as to whether he was not DWDCA. I would expect the Police to bottom that out as part of their investigation.

Its not clear whether the OPs mate was interviewed and given a chance to put forward such a suggestion - if he did I am sure the Police would have refuted it.

Things don't come out of nowhere (it's a physical impossibility). You can either see that it is clear, see that it isn't clear, or can't see and should not proceed.

When something "comes out of nowhere" it means that you weren't giving "due care and attention".

Not necessarily. If the 2 lanes of stationary cars goes back some bit and you have just enough space to pull out in front of them and drive across them there is always going to be a limited amount you can see down where the cycle lane is.

I agree the cyclist would have to be going quite fast but it is a possibility...

[nurseholliday]

Gavia said:

No and this discussion is bordering on farcical now.

Once again, for the final time. If you turn across a live lane blindly, then you are opening yourself up to grief. It might not be a DWDCA, it might be a simple fault insurance claim. However, you can’t claim that crossing a live lane and then colliding with a vehicle (any vehicle) that is proceeding correctly is anything other than DWDCA.

Just to clarify, here’s the definition of it, which you’ve stated incorrectly as well

1. Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
2. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.

To add to Gavia's comments, if it seems frustrating, I agree it is, but just because 90% of road users do it every day with no consequence, does not make it the right thing to do. If you're not 100% sure there is nothing on the inside of a vehicle coming towards you (or stationary) when you make a right turn across its path then you are taking a gamble. It's just that 99.99999999% of the time that gamble pays off.

[skwdenyer]

Gavia said:

No and this discussion is bordering on farcical now.

Once again, for the final time. If you turn across a live lane blindly, then you are opening yourself up to grief. It might not be a DWDCA, it might be a simple fault insurance claim. However, you can’t claim that crossing a live lane and then colliding with a vehicle (any vehicle) that is proceeding correctly is anything other than DWDCA.

Just to clarify, here’s the definition of it, which you’ve stated incorrectly as well

1. Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or
2. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways.

So we're clear, I don't want to flog a dead horse here. I asked for opinions, and I've received them! I didn't seek an argument, I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I have learned something in the process. Thank you.

I write the following in case anyone wishes to comment, not because I want to convince anyone!

Thank you for the clarification. Having now had a quick look, is this not the currently in-force provision?

RTA said:

(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
(4) A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving.

(BTW the last contradicts what I'd believed in my earlier post about DWDCA being made purely by the action - it in fact involves another road user, so I was wrong on that count - sorry)

Ignoring the OP's friend in particular, if I were driving on the section of road shown by the OP, then:

- I would not be aware of the cycle lane (because I could not see it, and where I could see there was no cycle lane marked)
- if there was MPV+ size traffic in lane 1, I could not see an approaching cycle (and the cyclist would know this because s/he could not see across the traffic either)
- competent and careful drivers make such turns every day

So on my lay reading of the law, I would not be guilty if I had moved carefully and kept looking, and stopped as soon as the cyclist came into view (who might have been travelling too fast to avoid hitting my vehicle).

But, I recognise that others here have said they believe I would have been guilty in any event.

In essence the result seems to be "do what you think you should, do it carefully, do it reasonably, but if it screws up then you're going to be at fault in any case."

Right now I driver a Land Rover 110. Visibility is not brilliant. I think I'm going to investigate bumper-mounted left and right facing cameras to try to fill the visibility gap, because the conclusion of this thread is that there is no other way in which I could reasonably avoid some accidents without attracting culpability! I had always believed that all road users had some sort of duty to take care (and I certainly do if I'm filtering - in a car or on my bike). I shall ride faster on the bike in future

For the record, I *hated* having had a motorcyclist hit my car (and been hurt), even though I was not held to be at fault (neither by police nor insurance). I've always tried hard to avoid it happening again.

On the note of cameras, does anyone know what the law is these days regarding having forward / side pointing cameras with screens in view of the driver whilst driving? Obviously reversing cameras are a thing these days, but ISTR that otherwise such things were not allowed - has that changed?

[Gavia]

You’ve gone to extremes again. I’m out.

[skwdenyer]

Gavia said:

You’ve gone to extremes again. I’m out.

OK, fair enough. I guess I'm seeking certainty that doesn't really exist.

[herewego]

skwdenyer said:

Gavia said:

You’ve gone to extremes again. I’m out.

OK, fair enough. I guess I'm seeking certainty that doesn't really exist.

You've had some fun and I, for one, appreciated it.

[BMWBen]

skwdenyer said:

BMWBen said:

skwdenyer said:

TooMany2cvs said:

skwdenyer said:

If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...

On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?

The big difference there appears to be that the cyclist hit the rear wing of the Clio, versus the front wing in the OP's ("friend's") scenario.

I agree that is a different functional difference. But it may only be due to the relative speeds of crossing - if the Clio was less cautious than the OP's friend then that would account for the different impact points, not the point at which the decision (based upon visibility) was made.

There's a simple solution to this - if you can't see that it's clear don't go?

OK. So let's look at the scenario in the Mirror story. The Clio driver is sitting on the right side of the vehicle, some way from the front. The cyclist is moving well above walking pace. At what point can he see that it's clear to go?

He can't, so he shouldn't. He needs to wait for the van to move on so he can see. Unless he's currently ferrying his mum who's in the process of having a cardiac arrest to hospital, his need to progress across the turning is far outweighed by his need to not injure other road users.

[BMWBen]

skwdenyer said:

Gavia said:

He can’t. He should wait for the van to move. None of us are likely to do that, but that’s the risk we take by crossing a live lane blindly. More often than not we’ll get away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

OK, so in essence your belief is that each of us is guilty of DWDCA each time we make such a turn (since the offence is clearly made whether or not a cyclist is present).

I had thought that the definition of DWDCA was based upon what a hypothetical "reasonable" driver would do? My recollection is that the definition of the offence is "allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist".

On the basis of what you have said, it would seem you think that the prudent motorist in fact makes such a turn all the time. Does that not in turn make it certain that it cannot possible be DWDCA?

I think you've made a hidden assumption here. Something the lots of motorists do does not mean that "prudent" motorists do it. Maybe the prudent ones are in the minority and they're the ones who aren't doing it. "Most people doing it" does not mean "it's ok to do it".

I certainly do not pull out when I can't see...