Driving Without Due Care & Attention - Plea advice
Discussion
mudster said:
You think a vehicle turning across a dual carriageway, across the path of another vehicle, would go 50/50?
3 lanes of traffic, 2 & 3 stationery leaving room for traffic to cross junction, crossing traffic moving cautiously across lanes 2 & 3 into lane 1 with view obscured, lane one collides with bonnet of crossing traffic on junction. Lane 1 going to quick? crossing traffic unable to see lane 1 but assumes lane 1 would slow for junction as they as passing stationery traffic on a junction that they do not have sight of.Both should proceed with more caution.
mudster said:
21TonyK said:
crossing traffic unable to see lane 1 but assumes lane 1 would slow for junction as they as passing stationery traffic on a junction that they do not have sight of.
I feel the assumption should be lane 1 wouldn't slow.Anyhoo... just an opinion and not advice to the OP.
21TonyK said:
pretty sure if it was two vehicles colliding in a similar situation insurance would go 50:50
cyclist should have been more aware of the junction, driver should have been a bit more cautious
the cyclist hit the car, the car didn't hit the cyclist
don't expect to be popular with this view
The cyclist "strikes" the car on its front left. Now that could be saying the cyclist was hit with the left hand side of the front of the car, then what?cyclist should have been more aware of the junction, driver should have been a bit more cautious
the cyclist hit the car, the car didn't hit the cyclist
don't expect to be popular with this view
50:50? Would both be done for DWDCA then? I doubt it very much.
48k said:
gazza285 said:
48k said:
gazza285 said:
herewego said:
48k said:
I'm not defending the car driver but if I was cycling along past two lanes of stationery traffic and reached a junction I'd like to think I wouldn't be going so fast that if someone pulled across me I'd be thrown over the bonnet.
I agree. The cyclist should have seen that the cars to his right had left room at the junction for vehicles to cross and slowed sufficiently to ensure everyone had time to negotiate.How fast was the cyclist going?
Actually - don't feel obliged to answer, I can see where this straw man is going. Ahhm ooot.
I always find these arguments about helmets strange. I have had to sack people for not wearing PPE at work and yet they were safer at work than cycling to it!
In this case he may as well plead not guilty if he feels that there was nothing more he could have done and then prepare to receive bad news. At least he has stuck to his principles, just like the teenager getting the 65 years. The law and principles do not always mix.
In this case he may as well plead not guilty if he feels that there was nothing more he could have done and then prepare to receive bad news. At least he has stuck to his principles, just like the teenager getting the 65 years. The law and principles do not always mix.
A question for the people who know the law.
What happens if he writes back and say he is conflicted? On the one hand the accident happened but he genuinely feels there was nothing more that could be done? Can he then change his plea and enter no plea and what would be the implications of that?
What happens if he writes back and say he is conflicted? On the one hand the accident happened but he genuinely feels there was nothing more that could be done? Can he then change his plea and enter no plea and what would be the implications of that?
Well the car driver is at fault there is no doubt.
However, not every fault may equate to a criminal offence. In this case I think it does but the driver could try the argument that it doesn't because of the contributing factors. He could quote the advice to cyclists.
"Although Rule 211 states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’ which could be taken to mean that drivers have responsibility for looking for riders before performing a manoeuvre, it is important for cyclists to anticipate the actions of other road users and avoid risks at all times. There is no specific guidance in the Highway Code about when it is or is not safe to filter through traffic, however there are some basic pieces of safety advice that cyclists should have in mind when on the roads.
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
It is also important to note that it is far more dangerous to filter on the left hand side of a vehicle, or ‘undertake’, than it is to filter on the right hand side, or ‘overtake’, this is the case even where there is a designated cycle lane on the left of the road. "
He might get a sympathetic magistrate but personally I doubt it.
However, not every fault may equate to a criminal offence. In this case I think it does but the driver could try the argument that it doesn't because of the contributing factors. He could quote the advice to cyclists.
"Although Rule 211 states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’ which could be taken to mean that drivers have responsibility for looking for riders before performing a manoeuvre, it is important for cyclists to anticipate the actions of other road users and avoid risks at all times. There is no specific guidance in the Highway Code about when it is or is not safe to filter through traffic, however there are some basic pieces of safety advice that cyclists should have in mind when on the roads.
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
It is also important to note that it is far more dangerous to filter on the left hand side of a vehicle, or ‘undertake’, than it is to filter on the right hand side, or ‘overtake’, this is the case even where there is a designated cycle lane on the left of the road. "
He might get a sympathetic magistrate but personally I doubt it.
A similar scenario happened to my dad.
In his case he was trying to leave a sunday market turning right. Traffic coming from the right was queuing, and as he was on a slight uphill his view was restricted.
He was edging out slowly to await a clear opportunity to complete the manoeuvre, unfortunately interrupted by a motorbiker filtering at a rather high speed colliding with the bonnet.
He was prosecuted for without due care and attention and got some points.
OP circumstances are a bit different so this may be of no use.
In his case he was trying to leave a sunday market turning right. Traffic coming from the right was queuing, and as he was on a slight uphill his view was restricted.
He was edging out slowly to await a clear opportunity to complete the manoeuvre, unfortunately interrupted by a motorbiker filtering at a rather high speed colliding with the bonnet.
He was prosecuted for without due care and attention and got some points.
OP circumstances are a bit different so this may be of no use.
There are three statements here that caught my attention:
" a minor skull fracture but no other or lasting injuries"
"Cyclist was wearing a hi-vis vest but it was open and flapped back so not exposing any reflective"
"cyclist strikes the front left of his car and is thrown over the bonnet"
If this is his evaluation of the situation, then it tells you all you need to know about his attitude. I do hope he tries this kind of "mitigation" in court.
" a minor skull fracture but no other or lasting injuries"
"Cyclist was wearing a hi-vis vest but it was open and flapped back so not exposing any reflective"
"cyclist strikes the front left of his car and is thrown over the bonnet"
If this is his evaluation of the situation, then it tells you all you need to know about his attitude. I do hope he tries this kind of "mitigation" in court.
Mojooo said:
I would expect a cyclist to slow down/stop where the road breaks for exactly this type of reason.
What, d
heads not looking before crossing lanes? I would expect people crossing lanes to check first, you know, like it says in the Highway Code and that, then maybe they wouldn't be up for DWDCA.gazza285 said:
Mojooo said:
I would expect a cyclist to slow down/stop where the road breaks for exactly this type of reason.
What, dheads not looking before crossing lanes? I would expect people crossing lanes to check first, you know, like it says in the Highway Code and that, then maybe they wouldn't be up for DWDCA.But the cyclist now has a fractured skull.
herewego said:
We know the witness statements said the driver was moving slowly but it would be interesting to know what the witness statements had to say about how the cyclist approached the junction.
If the witnesses are anything like the average driver, they'll have no idea how the cyclist approached the junction. The first they'd have known there was even a cyclist there would have been at the moment of impact. Much like the DWDCAA driver in the OP. 
"He just came out of nowhere, officer..."
yellowjack said:
If the witnesses are anything like the average driver, they'll have no idea how the cyclist approached the junction. The first they'd have known there was even a cyclist there would have been at the moment of impact. Much like the DWDCAA driver in the OP.
"He just came out of nowhere, officer..."
Exactly this, although it’ll be compounded by the other bits of “I saw him and noticed his hi viz vest was flapping in the wind and not fastened up. He also didn’t have a helmet on, so for both those reasons I pulled in front of him and knocked him off, but he definitely came out of nowhere.”"He just came out of nowhere, officer..."
Even if the cyclist can be shown to have been cycling in a criminal manner ('furious cycling' springs to mind), it doesn't mean the driver didn't commit an offence as well, happened in a case close to where I live.
Prosecution costs for a contested trial start at £620 versus £85 for a guilty plea, the fine is likely to be about £750 so the saving for a guilty plea about £250, plus there is the surcharge, so all in he will be close to £1000 worse off if he defends it and looses, and I would strongly expect him to lose.
Prosecution costs for a contested trial start at £620 versus £85 for a guilty plea, the fine is likely to be about £750 so the saving for a guilty plea about £250, plus there is the surcharge, so all in he will be close to £1000 worse off if he defends it and looses, and I would strongly expect him to lose.
x type said:
Being blunt here 
sorry if it offends others but
Was there a cycle lane to the left of the cars in the queue ?
No , cyclist should obey highway code and not undertake cars
not drivers fault
Yes , driver of car should allow for cycle lane but how would they know there was a third lane ?
possibly their fault
I am genuinely concerned that someone who posts the quoted drivel has a driving license let alone has the though process to type that out and think its right.sorry if it offends others but
Was there a cycle lane to the left of the cars in the queue ?
No , cyclist should obey highway code and not undertake cars
not drivers fault
Yes , driver of car should allow for cycle lane but how would they know there was a third lane ?
possibly their fault
God help us, no wonder the roads are a dangerous mess for all types of road user as sadly you are all too commom
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff