Hit and Run - Cyclist Wanted !

[TaxiWarrior]

http://youtu.be/0pB5d4IedjU

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0pB5d4IedjU[/youtube]

[Flinders]

Vehicle hit seemed to be in the bike lane.

[binsted]

Vehicle hit seemed to be in the bike lane.

You don't see anything in the video but if the cyclist did hit the taxi I do not think infringing the bike lane is an excuse. By the way the cyclist walked off would not be surprised if he nicked the bike.

[661-Pete]

You might get a bit more of the picture if you watch some of this guy's other videos.
I don't think he's over-fond of cyclists - or any other road users!

[kwackers]

So the guy has caught the taxi trying to squeeze past - but then what happens? Has he really dumped the bike and walked off?

(Wasn't me anyway, I was 200 miles away!)

[kwackers]

You might get a bit more of the picture if you watch some of this guy's other videos.
I don't think he's over-fond of cyclists - or any other road users!

Obviously doesn't care for cycle lanes, probably doesn't think much of ADSL's either if my experience is anything to go by.

[sirmy]

Odd that in amongst all the noises on his videos not once can you hear an indicator click

[Bicycler]

What crime is being investigated by the police? A scratched car is a civil matter surely?

[Graham]

It would not be one of us !! . . .. . CTC forumites would risk life and limb to keep hold of their cherished bikes.

[Bicycler]

Also did you run into the cyclist at 25 seconds into the video?

Really this does show how people are slightly too fussy about their cars. Maybe if they weren't such cherished possessions so closely related to our self-esteem and social status we'd realise that they are just a tool (and no-one has ever bothered about a scratched hammer). Its why I'm actually quite relieved when a new bike gets a scratch on it, it means I can stop worrying about getting a scratch on it

[Psamathe]

I thought I recently read on this forum somewhere (recent'ish post) that a cyclist is not obliged to provide/exchange contact details. Ok, maybe morally a cyclist should but I thought somebody said not legally required to.

And in the video it looks like the cyclist is tugging at his bike like the cab driver is holding on to it. So, ignoring the moral aspect (and assuming the "not legally obliged to exchange contact details" is correct), then the cabbie is in effect illegally detaining the cyclist.

And if he was accusing the cyclist of scratching his cab, then he would need some independent witness or it would end-up with cabbie claiming "oh yes you did" and cyclist claiming "oh no I didn't" and with no other evidence I doubt and insurance company or court would be able to hold the cyclist to blame based on the "oh yes you did ... oh no I didn't".

Ian
Edit: Found the post I was thinking about http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=89673&p=812699&hilit=exchange+contact+details#p812638

Welcome to the forum.

If you have such a crash (not "Accident" as accidents are unavoidable :lol: ) then you need to exchange details with the other party just as you would with a two car crash.
If it is found to be your fault then you will be billed for repairs by the other party's insurer. If you are not insured then it'll come out of your pocket.

No.
Motorists are under a legal obligation to give contact details but but cyclists are not.

Amongst other things the OED defines an accident thus :-

"An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury" and "A crash involving road or other vehicles".

[661-Pete]

Really this does show how people are slightly too fussy about their cars.

Too true they are. Sorry about this, but I couldn't help but be reminded about this infamous advert!

[gaz]

It does appear that the taxi has been painted black, classic "cause" of SMIDSY. Better road positioning and use of hi-vis paint may have helped to avoid the incident .

An incident occurred and I don't doubt the cyclist's moral obligation to stop and exchange details. It would appear that the police have asked the taxi driver to mount his own investigation into the incident, in line with current policing practice.

I do not recognise either the cyclist or the bike.

[thirdcrank]

It's true that the duty to stop and report accidents under s 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies only to the drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles ie it does not include cyclists, but in the circumstances of this thread, s 168 of the same Act probably applies:-

168 Failure to give, or giving false, name and address in case of reckless or careless or inconsiderate driving or cycling..
Any of the following persons— (....)
(b) the rider of a cycle who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 28 or 29 of this Act, (ie dangerous or careless cycling) who refuses, on being so required by any person having reasonable ground for so requiring, to give his name or address, or gives a false name or address, is guilty of an offence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/168

Having said that, it's not an indictable offence so I don't think "any person having reasonable ground for so requiring" can arrest a cyclist who doesn't comply.

[kwackers]

And in the video it looks like the cyclist is tugging at his bike like the cab driver is holding on to it. So, ignoring the moral aspect (and assuming the "not legally obliged to exchange contact details" is correct), then the cabbie is in effect illegally detaining the cyclist.

Ah, that would explain it. I couldn't figure out what was going on! I'd be interested in knowing how the driver could prove the damage occurred earlier and not whilst trying to detain the cyclist. (It can't be easy hanging onto a bicycle like that and not sustaining paint damage).