Near Miss of the Day 301: Police accuse cyclist of "cycling into the path of the van"

Kudos to the OP for reporting the incident and challenging a shit decision.

Was the initial decision ever properly reviewed???

The ‘rationale’ just seems to me to be the decision makers original thought process mapped out. A crap justification.

A proper review would mean getting the CPS to look at it and this would introduce a time element. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the registered keeper of the vehicle would need an Notice of Intended Prosecution sending to them within 14 days of the incident. I suspect that this never happened.

If you read the decision justification without watching the video first, you would think that the cyclist was at fault, so why have the police said that they  would ‘offer words of advice’ to the driver? Advice like what exactly?

I would re-contact the decision making sgt and see if the driver was ever spoken to and request the result of your complaint in writing. See what happens.

biker phil, the second quote was from near miss 299.

Shame there is no quick, easy way to pull up what someone has posted in this site. There might be slim chance nicmason has written something sensible.

nicmason wrote:
I don't think he/she was screwing wth the cyclist by braking I think he/she wasn't sure they could get through the gap between the oncoming traffic and the parked car. This is urban cycling you aren't whizzing round leafy lanes in Surrey.

Hey nic,
I don't know if you are from Lancashire, but this is not urban cycling. The cyclist turns off the main A59 at Rufford, which, although a main road, is very rural. The cyclist turns off onto very small leafy country lanes. This whole area is where a huge amount of growing is done, perhaps your carrots or potatoes have come from this area. If you are by chance from 'leafy Surrey', take a trip to leafy Lancashire. You will be very surprised that it isn't full of flat capped miners walking their whippets past the cotton mills.

Extremely poor driving with punishment pass after. There is something to take away from this. The police remarked upon it in their flimsy excuse not to prosecute. You held a line too close to the kerb .
Ride central or just left of central of your side. It has the affect of making drivers think before trying to overtake. In my experience most driver will then go over the white line completely to pass

In the case you publish, the driver might of hesitated in making a pass because he would of been blocked from passing whilst staying on his side of the road.

Basic roadcraft not to overtake at junctions, let alone into the junction. Just someone in too much of a hurry to give a fuck about someone else's wellbeing.

"should leave as much room as they would overtaking a car"

I interpret this as "would you overtake a car in the same situation".

I think in this case the answer would be NO.

Not seeing a problem here . Left turn not really crowding you then pretty clean overtake.

And that is the standard of police understanding of the highway code and how to drive correctly.
This needs to be escalated.

"should leave as much room as they would overtaking a car"

So, how much room should I give whilst overtaking a car in the course of making a left turn off the main road ?

<p>Lancashire Police are not fit for purpose. I have reported many drivers, the police never act on the video footage. They always make excuses why they will not pursue the complaint.&nbsp;</p>

<p>See my last post on road cc.&nbsp;</p>
https://road.cc/content/news/265532-near-miss-day-297-bus-driver-cuts-cy...
<p>&nbsp;</p>

I love the way ignorant police officers use the word 'rationale' for their refusal to deal professionally with drivers who endanger people on bicycles. It is staggering for a police sergeant to think it is OK to overtake a cyclist turning left at high speed and to expect that cyclist to remain in the gutter at all times to facilitate the overtake. The further problem is that the driver not only escapes prosecution but the sympathetic words of advice from the police will almost certainly reinforce his dangerous mindset.

Lancashire Police. nuff said.

If you have seen some of my close passes videos on here or my yiutube channel as far as I know no prosicutions. very ralely get back to me. May be 1 phone call to one mother of a driver and 1 section 59 (or what ever section number it is) and that is about it.

Lancashire police usless!!!

"should leave as much room as they would overtaking a car"

Ambiguous and not fit for purpose. A bit like the police officer in this case then.

And HC rule

167

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

“My rationale being that when you raise your left arm to indicate to turn left, the van driver took the opportunity to overtake on your outside, avoiding your path, whilst you hug the inside kerb, you then proceed to cycle into the centre of the carriageway, pulling into the path of the van driver, causing the van driver to abandon his overtake as it was no longer safe to perform that manoeuvre, when it was then safe to do so the van driver resumed his overtake and continued on his journey."

I've read some bolox in my time, but that is prime 24 carat, first water, 100% BS.  I read it and then looked at the vid again, just to make sure; it's a lie.  He didn't hug the kerb and didn't pull out to ride in the centre of the carriageway.

If it was me, I'd consider making a complaint, on two grounds.  The review should have been by different officers who did not know the result of the first report, and what the sergeant said is just not true.

But don't expect a police officer, especially one whose job is also to review decisions, to know aspects of the highway code.

This is one of the reasons I don't always signal a left turn.

highway code rule 182, Do not overtake just as you turn left...  it even has a picture !!!!