Hit from behind.

kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by kwackers »

SA_SA_SA wrote:I haven't heard motorcyclists complain about drivers seeing a single rear lamp and deciding to treat it with less respect than the two of a car.

I learned years ago the safest thing to do on a motorcycle was to travel at the same speed as or slightly faster than the vehicles around you. If nothing else that way your safety is in your hands and not dependent on some myopic driver behind.

However I'm not a fan of stupidly bright lights. IME if the driver is looking they'll see you even if you don't have lights and if they're not there isn't much better lights can do. The downside is they can be blindingly bright and mask things in the immediate vicinity with the effect of reducing overall safety.
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by beardy »

Sometimes on a motorcycle you can get a bit apprehensive if sat at a traffic light for example.
I did always wear a reflective hi-viz, I had a home made second rear light (as bulbs can fail without you knowing).
Then you have the light pool in front of your bike from your headlamp.

As for drivers deciding that one light means no danger and can be ignored, I doubt that, the first reaction on seeing one light at the same speed ahead is that a car is down by one tailight. It is after they identify it isnt a car that your problems may start.
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by AlaninWales »

Whilst riding motorcycles I have twice been driven into when sat stationary at traffic lights - the second time was by a bus! Drivers who won't see cyclists (and I've had a couple of close shaves in the last few years - there's nothing to beat the adrenalin rush of cycling quietly along and hearing the screech of brakes behind, to stop and turn around to see a car stopped within a car-length of your rear whee) will often not see motorcyclists. Human brains are very good at manufacturing a scene they expect (which is why TVs work - we blank out the rest of the room quite easily whilst watching an absorbing film); drivers are not taught (this or) the implicatioins for driving.
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by merseymouth »

Hello again, To cut to the chase I have a single question to ask? If the Coroners Court report states that the impact mark on the motor vehicle involved was "Slightly off centre towards the offside of the car" how could the statement of the driver that "I never saw him" be accepted without question? This leaving aside all of the variable witness statements is a fact that can be nailed down! Smack in front of the drivers field of view, so inattention or refusal to pay due regard to the cyclist's presence is all that is left to decide about. I say this because she has already eliminated the option of him veering in he path with her having no time to react!
So all that is needed is for which charge to lay the driver to answer for, "Driving without due care & attention", or "Dangerous Driving"? The CPS should decide ASAP!
Further reading of interest should be "Court of Appeal - Haddock V Thwale, What is a car". OK, It is by A.P. Herbert, but as a Barrister (Never Practised), an M.P., with a record for Legal Reform. Worth a read. TTFN MM
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by beardy »

The later posts by Shootist do introduce the possibility that the cyclist may have come from behind the car and cut infront of it possibly very close up. My impression from the post on Porter's website was that the cyclist was stood at traffic lights.

If a cyclist with a low rear light (mudguard mounted not unusual on bikes ridden by long time cyclists) did overtake, close up, it is possible that the light was never even within the motorists field of view!
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2360
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by SA_SA_SA »

beardy wrote:The later posts by Shootist do introduce the possibility that the cyclist may have come from behind the car and cut infront of it possibly very close up. ....


That would seem a rather "brave"(err foolish?) cutting in movement at 20-30mph: surely an experienced cyclist is going to leave enough space behind that their rear lamp is visible? Anyway, under streetlights, a driver should be able to notice someone immediately in front.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by kwackers »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
beardy wrote:The later posts by Shootist do introduce the possibility that the cyclist may have come from behind the car and cut infront of it possibly very close up. ....


That would seem a rather "brave"(err foolish?) cutting in movement at 20-30mph: surely an experienced cyclist is going to leave enough space behind that their rear lamp is visible? Anyway, under streetlights, a driver should be able to notice someone immediately in front.

It would also infer a relatively low impact speed between the car and the bike otherwise either the bike wouldn't have got in front or the car wouldn't have had much space to accelerate.
Which would mean the injuries were a result of coming off the bike and hitting something else rather than collision with the car and you'd imagine they'd be able to figure that out...
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by beardy »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
beardy wrote:The later posts by Shootist do introduce the possibility that the cyclist may have come from behind the car and cut infront of it possibly very close up. ....


That would seem a rather "brave"(err foolish?) cutting in movement at 20-30mph: surely an experienced cyclist is going to leave enough space behind that their rear lamp is visible? Anyway, under streetlights, a driver should be able to notice someone immediately in front.



Possibly his game plan was based on her either remaining slow or at least not accelerating, he got it wrong and was caught closer than he planned. It does happen to the best of us.
The witness statement seems to make it less obvious what happened than was first implied.
She may well have been cleared if it went to court.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by Vorpal »

I have almost posted on theis thread any number of times....
I am glad to see that the CDF has taken interest, and hope that something comes of it.

We do not know, and cannot know what happened, as we weren't there. However, whatever the circumstances, I find it incredible that the driver wasn't even aware of the cyclist. How can someone who is driving with care move in traffic, and not be aware of a cyclist so close to the vehicle?
Shootist wrote:As I read it, I think that it meant if fatal collision files are sent to CPS any decision must be made by someone of seniority within CPS, not necessarily that all fatal collisions should be sent to CPS. That in itself poses the question why was this not sent to CPS for consideration rather than some police officer making his mind up? Some of the rubbish that requires a CPS approval to prosecute is so trivial by comparison that this decision looks worse and worse every time I think about it.


You mean that a police officer decided it was just a tragic accident, and no one reviewed that decision? I find it inconceivable that a cyclist was struck from behind and killed, whatever the circumstances, and that a single individual could decide that there would be no points and fine, no opportunity for driver improvement, no prosecution.

I know two people who were recommended for driver improvement over shunts in which there were no, or only minor injuries.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by Vorpal »

The CDF is funding a challenge, and it seems that a private prosecution may also be under consideration...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/c ... 42758.html
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
JohnW
Posts: 6667
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by JohnW »

thirdcrank wrote:I've just seen this on Martin Porter's blog about the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Michael Mason, a cyclist who was hit from behind by a car driver who apparently did not see him.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... mason.html

A detective from the Serious Collisions Investigation Unit confirmed to the Coroner that there were no criminal proceedings taken against the driver and that decision had been taken by the Metropolitan Police without reference to the CPS.


I'm not quoting from some vague media report, written by some hack with half an idea what was said and sub-edited for brevity and sensation. This is a summary by a Queen's Counsel so we can take it as an accurate report of the evidence which was given.

This case now seems to be closed but surely there needs to be some sort move to get the Metropolitan Police to review its procedures for the inevitable future cases.

I've searched the CTC website for the name of the deceased and I can find no reference to this rider's death.

==========================================================================
Edit to add:

I've found this from a media report, just after Michael Mason died.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/f ... 96427.html

The life support machine was switched off four days later after he slipped into a “permanent vegetative state” three weeks after colliding with a black Nissan in Regent Street (My emphasis.)
.

WARNING
The link contains a picture of the casualty in intensive care.


How many points in the "Motorist of the Year" competition did he get for that?
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2360
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by SA_SA_SA »

The offending driver was a she.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by Flinders »

We do all have a blind spot in our vision, this is apparently well known by people like fighter pilots etc. The only way round that is to keep your eyes moving across the field of view, so the blind spot moves about. If something appears suddenly in front of you in that blind spot, you may not see it*. I gather this is sometimes the problem with drivers not seeing cyclists/motorcyclists on roundabouts. It's not a defence, because you should be moving your eyes about to check all the hazards anyway, and should only act if you can see things are clear, not when you can't see an obstruction, but maybe more drivers need to learn about this problem.
Not saying that's what happened here, but it could be a factor.

If the cyclist had been in front of the car for some time, then this is not going to be anything to do with it, but from the statements it isn't clear how long he'd been there.

I like to signal well before moving across a road, and try to eyeball drivers where possible to confirm they've seen me. But of course you can't always do that. And some drivers definitely do see you, but it doesn't actually 'register' as something they need to take into account in terms of their own actions, so they still behave as if you aren't there.

* this blind spot is not very large, though, so a cyclist directly in front of you could hardly be hiding in it
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5832
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by RickH »

Flinders wrote:..The only way round that is to keep your eyes moving across the field of view, so the blind spot moves about...

It is actually further complicated by the fact that you do not actually see anything at all while your eyes are actually being moved, only when they have stopped, and any changes in a scene during the actual eye movement can be missed completely. I've seen it done with simulated scenes, that changed only during eye movement, where the person being tested was completely unaware of the appearance or disappearance of things like double decker buses & whole buildings.

Rick.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3413
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Hit from behind.

Post by CJ »

DaveP wrote:It's hard to credit isn't it?
The cyclist was legally lit up.

OR WAS HE????

First let me say that I do not doubt in the slightest, that Michael Mason was perfectly conspicuous to any following driver who was keeping a proper look-out. I am only trying to find an explanation for the reluctance of the Police to forward this case to the CPS for prosecution.

Martin Porter says: "The evidence was quite clear that he had the required lights" but he mentions only a "brightly flashing rear light fixed above a red reflector". I do not doubt that these devices performed perfectly well, but assuming the flashing light also had a steady mode (as virtually all flashing lights do) this light, as well as the reflector, is required to be made to an approved standard and marked accordingly.

Very few of the rear lamps now on the market have a valid approval mark. The situation is better with reflectors, but not when those reflectors form part of a non-approved lamp. So I think it is more than likely that this bike was not equipped with any approved rear lamp.

Pedal reflectors are also relevant for rear conspicuity and also required by law (unless the bike is more than 30 years old). But these are nearly always absent from the pedals of 'serious' cyclists.

So it seems to me more likely than not, that Michael Mason, in common with many other responsible and well-lit cyclists, whilst complying pretty well with the spirit of the law, was actually riding illegally.

Might the technical illegality of the rider's lighting equipment explain the reluctance of the Police to prosecute the driver?

I've tried to ask Martin Porter about this, but he has not replied.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
Post Reply