A London cyclist sent police footage of the moment he was knocked from his bike last September as he rode through a junction by a van driver who was turning right, leaving him with a serious shoulder injury – but police have told him they will not be taking action against the driver.
The cyclist, Matt Cooper, tracked down CCTV footage filmed from a nearby pub of the shocking crash and forwarded it to the Metropolitan Police.
However, he was told that no further action would be taken since “there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of prosecution.”
The crash happened as the 53 year old, who was on his way to meet friends for a ride in Surrey, was filtering past queueing vehicles, with the van driver, who had been travelling in the opposite direction, taking advantage of a gap in the traffic to turn right.
The impact destroyed his bike and resulted in him sustaining torn ligaments in his shoulder, which he is still receiving treatment for more than five months later.
Matt told road.cc: “Despite providing detailed CCTV footage to the police showing the van to be clearly at fault, they have decided not to charge the driver. This I am afraid is all too typical.
“I was riding west on New Kings Rd at 8am, on Saturday 26 September 2020. It was a clear and bright morning with very light traffic.
“As I passed Parsons Green, the van turned right across traffic without signalling, and hit me on the right side as I crossed the intersection of the junction with Peterborough Road.
“I was knocked to the ground and unable to move, while the driver got out of the van and started shouting at me about ‘fucking cyclists’. When I finally did get up, I photographed his licence plate and took his insurance information.
“I was then taken to the ER, where I was diagnosed with a grade 3/4 shoulder separation. Meanwhile, the police said there was nothing they could do without witnesses.”
He continued: “I managed to obtain CCTV footage from the pub on the corner, but the police, even with that evidence, have written to me saying they would not charge the driver (see attached letter).
“Now, five months later, I have had extensive physical therapy and a series of steroid injections. I am still in constant low-grade pain, which increases when I cycle and makes it difficult to sleep.
“I am afraid this is all too typical of what happens when cyclists are hit and injured, and I hope increased coverage might change some attitudes,” he added.
His story has gained exposure in the mainstream media, including the Mail Online and The Sun.
The letter Matt received from the Metropolitan Police saying that they would not be referring the incident for prosecution added that “The decision does not affect any civil action you may wish to initiate.”
He confirmed to the Daily Mail that he will be bringing such an action, saying: “It will be a big claim. My bike was worth £10,000 and so far the claim would be for about £30,000 when my medical expenses are taken into account.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
48 thoughts on “Video: Right-turning van driver crashes into cyclist – but escapes prosecution”
“As I passed Parsons Green,
“As I passed Parsons Green, the van turned right across traffic without signalling, and hit me on the right side as I crossed the intersection of the junction with Peterborough Road.”
It doesn’t look as though he could have seen whether or not the van was signalling. In fact, it doesn’t look as though he could have seen the van at all until it was too late, or vice-versa, at the speed he was cycling. If he could see the van, it would have been obvious that it was turning irrespective of a signal. Being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear applies equally to cycles as it does to motor vehicles.
I’m afraid in this instance, the cyclist has to be held at least partially liable.
Unfortunately I have to agree
Unfortunately I have to agree here too. Whilst the van should have given way, this sort of incident shows how dangerous “filtering” is, and why it really shouldn’t be allowed. It also shows how dangerous “flashing someone out” can be when it causes someone to be where (according to the rules of the road) they shouldn’t be. However, filtering is allowed, and anyone doing it has to take appropriate responsibility by riding at a speed within which they can stop if/when they have to.
Filtering is allowed, but
Filtering is allowed, but personally I’d never filter on the inside, especially passing a vehicle larger than me.
I’d always go up the outside; at least then you are visible to oncoming traffic.
If the vehicle in front was indicating, I’d just sit behind and wait.
Oldfatgit wrote:
I vary inside or outside filtering depending on how much space there is but it can be tricky if the traffic is varying between going faster than you and going slower than you. That means you either overtake on the outside when you can and drop to the inside when they start moving again or stay on the inside and watch out for known hazards.
I’ve had a driver in a stationary traffic queue suddenly (no indicators) turn across my path and cause a collision when I was filtering on the outside (luckily I was quick on the brakes and only got a bruised finger out of it). I also posted a NMOTD a while back where after the close pass, I was filtering on the inside of a big skip lorry (which incidentally was the close passer) and they motioned for a ped to cross the road but the ped and I both reacted quick enough to stop any incident.
The real answer is to wait for all the government’s promised investment into active travel – they’ll be building segregated infrastructure everywhere.
Oldfatgit wrote:
In my motorbiking days I name came a cropper when filtering up the outside when the van to my left stopped to let someone out of a side road and turn right, crossing my path.
There is always somewhere you can’t see when big vans are involved, whichever side you choose
I needed a new wheel when
I needed a new wheel when doing that in my bike years ago (driver never stopped). Which is why I come to a near stop at junctions if overtaking (filtering).
wycombewheeler wrote:
In my motorbiking days I name came a cropper when filtering up the outside when the van to my left stopped to let someone out of a side road and turn right, crossing my path.
There is always somewhere you can’t see when big vans are involved, whichever side you choose— Oldfatgit
A number of years ago while sitting in heavy traffic waiting to turn right an oncoming motorist opted to flash me into the side street. I refused and he flashed and waved me more frantically, again I refused as I had clocked a motorcyclist filtering towards us in my wing mirror. After he passed I received an apologetic wave. If somebody can’t see a motorcyclist travelling towards them. What hope is there that a vulnerable road user can be spotted in any of their mirrors!
That may make the cyclist
That may make the cyclist foolhardy, but does not make it his fault. The highway code clearly says that the driver of the vehicle turning right has to make sure it is safe to proceed. If they can’t see then they should not go.
The problem here is that cyclists are assumed not to exist, and the police appear to be condoning motorists proceeding on that basis, almost as if the HC had said something like, “so long as you can see that no motor vehicle is in contention then you are safe to ignore the possibility of any cyclists since they use the road only at the sufferance of motorist.” In fact it says, in this specific situation, “watch out for cyclists”. The van driver did not and that is on him alone.
Smiffi wrote:
Nonsense, it’s the equivalent to motor vehicles travelling in queues.
Certainly filtering at speed is not wise, however, the fact remains that the car driver didn’t thave priority to cross the opposing stream of traffic. I’ve been in teh cars position before when a driver of a large vehicle driver has flashed their lights. My response has been to shake my head and hold my position, for the simple reason I can’t see what’s coming.
It should be done with care.
It should be done with care. I would have slowed because I expect turning traffic to not think about cyclists.
But legally speaking the driver is the one who is leaving their lane and moving across a section of road where others have priority. The primary responsibility is absolutely his to carry out thay manoeuvre safely and considering what might be in the lane.
The cyclist is proceeding on a clear section of road where he has priority. The speed may have been unwise given basic knowledge of human nature, and I would generally imagine someone who’s prepared to drop 10k on a bike to be aware of this.
That is not to blame him, but just a bit surprised that he didn’t seem to anticipate the potential danger.
If filtering wasn’t allowed
If filtering wasn’t allowed then I’d just have to ride everywhere in Primary. Cool 😉
One might say the cyclist
One might say the cyclist could have read the road better, and seeing the vehicle in front of him stopped before the junction might have assumed it was leaving the junction open for someone turning right.
However the highway code is clear, when turning right it is for the van driver to be “reading the road” and allowing for the possibility of a cyclist:
[I]When turning right
Rule 180
[I]Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. [B]Watch out for cyclists,…[/b][/i]
Sriracha wrote:
Nice.
My understandinmg is that any
My understandinmg is that any accident where injury is sustained meant the police should be called to attend. Also, the 3.5t vehicle that let the smaller van across is partly liable for not checking the van was safe to cross before letting him across. And there were witnesses ther unless the IP didn’t get their details.
No, nothing to do with the
No, nothing to do with the driver of the 3.5t van. If somebody “lets you across” it is still 100% your responsibility to check it is safe to go. They are not your ‘banksman’.
tigersnapper wrote:
That liability would at best be extraordinarily hard to demonstrate….
This is where British Cycling
This is where British Cycling (or Cycling UK) membership can come in – I sustained a dislocated collar bone joint in a similar-ish incident where someone pulled out of a junction and hit me. In my case, the driver’s vision of what was coming down the road he was turning on to was impaired by a 4×4 turning left in front of me – he didn’t think there might be a cyclist behind the 4×4. It took a year to regain full movement in my shoulder and my front wheel was knackered. I got his details and those of a witness; the police didn’t pursue but through my BC ride membership I made a claim against the insurers which settled after we filed court action, paying out to cover my costs and in consideration of the injury sustained.
Hi Joanne, may i ask what
Hi Joanne, may i ask what your settlement was as I am currently negotiating a settlement as a member of BC for a very similar RTC with a grade 5 separation, would appreciate a PM if you like?
£4k – we got it up by I think
I got £4k – we got it up by I think £1.2k from the original valuation by filing a court claim. I think it was a reasonable settlement and more than I expected.
With regard to process – I called BC the same day or the next day, can’t remember exactly; Leigh Day, which handles their claims, called me 10 days later. It took about six months to get a response from the driver’s insurer denying liability and I had an appointment with a doctor at the same time to assess my injury; and then it took about another 10 months (!) to get a valuation from the insurers. But we settled about four months after that. So in total, 21 months from accident to receipt of funds.
Thanks for sharing this
Thanks for sharing this Joanne. How long did the legal process take? From BC getting involved until the settlement.
Definitely. About 8 years ago
Definitely. About 8 years ago in London I faced a mile long queue or I could use the bike lane. I chose the latter but went at a really slow pace, especially when I approached a supermarket entrance. I should have went at a descent pace then I would have been clear but walking pace left me in the gap for too long. After 3 or 4 secs a right turning driver hit me. Leigh Day handled my case too. Initially the driver denied it even happened until they were given the police report. I don’t know what happened it went quiet for nearly a year. Then I got sent to a physio for an evaluation. I was honest with him and said I was lucky and bounced so I escaped with bruising. Whatever he wrote in his report within a week it was settled ?
It’s one of these tricky ones
It’s one of these tricky ones where a well-thinking but misguided motorist “lets” another driver turn in but neglects to look out for filtering cyclists.
I reckon the van driver was at fault for not checking that it was safe to perform the maneouvre but in their defence, the cyclist was most likely hidden by the other van. However the turning van driver should have spotted the cyclist at the last moment and prevented the collision, so I don’t think they were being very observant.
The cyclist had priority as he was travelling straight ahead with the flow of traffic but this is one of those instances where you need to consider why a vehicle is stopped and whether it’s safe to continue filtering. As the van had stopped due to congestion, it would have been tricky to predict so this is a cautionary tale to always second-guess drivers when you’re filtering, especially when it’s a vehicle that you can’t see around and you’re approaching a junction.
Alexis – I don’t agree with your interpretation of “the distance you can see to be clear” as the cyclist could see that his path was clear for quite a distance – until it suddenly wasn’t. Yes, they could have been going slower, but that’s hindsight.
I had a similar one where I
I had a similar one where I was filtering up the left of traffic at this bit of road leading to the lights. As can be seen there is two lanes and a bus stop which I hate as cars assume you are not in the lane and try to squeeze past. It was one of those days I was in a rush and accept I was going too fast but the extra speed probably saved my life. The traffic had started going and a car turned into the gated area from the opposite direction as both lanes of traffic had decided to let them through. No attempt to brake from them and because I had the extra space I could turn into the bus stop area slightly to give more room. He missed my rear wheel by milimeters.
He missed my rear wheel by
He missed my rear wheel by milimeters
Can’t resist it: millimetres.
wtjs wrote:
HoarseMann wrote:
Van driver should have
Van driver should have proceeded with caution, in London there will always be cyclists.
Cyclist should have proceeded more carefully as this is London. I don’t filter at speed anymore at junctions – too many potential hazards. Don’t like filtering up the inside either – too high a risk of dooring.
Civil case the cyclist will win, not so sure about a criminal one.
I think the van driver “fell
I think the van driver “fell below the standard expected of a competent driver”. I think there is a realistic prospect that a magistrate / jury would come to the same conclusion, and the driver should have been prosecuted.
The police appear to be taking the view that cyclists are inherently difficult to see, so it’s OK to run them over.
Tom_77 wrote:
there is zero chance that a jury would come to the same conclusions, as there will be 10 drivers, and you have to convince at least 8 of them that it wasn’t reasonable to make the right turn as the large van coming the other way had stopped for them. Most of them would have done the same and they will consider themselves to be competent drivers.
There would be talk in the jury room of the cyclist undertaking.
The van driver is at fault, but I would not expect there to be a succesful prosection if a jury was involved. Maybe magistrates might find against them.
wycombewheeler wrote:
The test for proceeding with a prosecution is meant to be “that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged”.
Cases shouldn’t be dropped on the basis that the jury or magistrate are likely to be biased (however true that might be).
Tom_77 wrote:
I’m not suggesting that the jury would be biased, they are not thinking “cyclists deserve it, don’t convict a driver” only that most jurors will be drivers, most drivers consider themselves to be confident, and I suspect a good proportion would carry out the same manouver considering it cautious at the time.
50% of drivers are below average, but 85% consider themselves to be above average, even the ones who crash frequently.
Judges will typically direct the juror to consider their own level of driving as competent and weigh the case in question against that.
Until juries for motoring offences are not packed with shit drivers who think they are good the hances of motoring convictions for careless/dangerous driving remain very small. Generally one of the following 3 needs to be involved
drink/drugs
sleep deprevation
HGV
In all other cases the chain of logic in jurors minds goes like this. I am a good driver, I might have done this, therefore this driver is not falling below the standard of a good driver. With only 3 of the 12 jurors following this chain of thought the driver will be aquitted. So a conviction requires 2 non drivers and 8 drivers who either would not do as the accused had done, or recognise that even if they would have done it, that it falls below the standard of careful driving.
See the following sorry tale,
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-incompetence-paradox/
Magistraite? Ha! They are
Magistraite? Ha! They are mostly retired busybodies and if anything more likely to side with driver.
The only case I had that went to magistrate, the driver was acquitted of careless driving because according to the magistrate, the fact that he didn’t actually hit me showed that the manoeuvre was safe. I’ll let you judge for yourself … https://youtu.be/ubWXuI9Ent4
Even the traffic officer who sat in on the hearing was surprised. But this is exactly the kind of thing that then leads Met to conclude that the case above is unlikely to secure a conviction.
Probably also true, but you
Probably also true, but you only need to convince one, and maybe you get a safer driver, whereas the chance of getting 10 safe drivers of 12 jurors is much smaller.
I’m betting the police
I’m betting the police actually figured a jury or magistrate would be thinking, “how was the poor van driver supposed to know there was a bloody cyclist there, I’d have done the same.” And the truth is, many if not most motorists would probably feel sympathy for the van driver.
Of course, we all tend to assume that what we don’t see isn’t there, even cyclists. The French have a sign that warns, “Un train peut en cacher un autre.”
https://youtu.be/f8TqI2alLcg
The cyclist is not simply
The cyclist is not simply filtering. He is in an intermittently marked cycle lane – a fact of which the the turning driver should have been aware, since they appear on both sides of the road on his approach (see https://goo.gl/maps/guzhxeEGFH3vXiRh8).
The Highway Code advises drivers to be aware of cyclists, and he was crossing the path of oncoming traffic. The other van driver is neither qualified nor equipped to direct traffic (it isn’t obvious to me in the footage whether the other driver did signal to the turning driver in any way), nor should the turning driver have taken any direction from him; he should have anticipated the possibility of the cyclist, per HC, and taking into account both the opacity of the waiting van and its distance from the kerb.
The cyclist was not travelling very fast – iro 15-17mph, based on measuring the junction layout, camera angles and timings, and allowing for reasonable error. I don’t think that is too fast. If he had been slower, it would have given all parties more time to react, but that is true of the turning van, too. And you can take that to extreme: if he had been at walking speed, the collision might have been avoided; but he was on a bike and it was reasonable to be making reasonable progress in his own lane.
I would like to imagine that I would have the experience to consider, as the cyclist, that I would have taken a clue from the fact that traffic in front of the large van had moved on but the van had not; but that might not have been evident to the cyclist, since the cars had only just set off in front. Nevertheless, the cyclist was in his own lane and the turning driver had the duty of care. A duty which he exercised in brisk fashion: turning almost as soon as he got there after the briefest pause; and with swift acceleration, given he was turning across a blind spot.
Equally, if I had been the turning driver, I would have been very concerned at the lack of visibility of the large gap on the nearside of the big van, and I would have turned as cautiously as possible, or even waited until the large van cleared my line of sight.
“…the driver got out of the van and started shouting at me about ‘fucking cyclists’…”
And that tells you all you really need to know, after all that.
I couldn’t tell from the
I couldn’t tell from the video, but you’re right about that cycle lane. It’s clearly marked before the bus stop (e.g. the direction the cyclist was travelling from) but then the markings disappear, though the zig-zags are notably painted a distance away from the kerb i.e. on the outside of the cycle lane. The lane markings continue after the crossing zig-zags.
In my mind, that puts the blame wholly onto the turning van driver. (Although the other van driver invited the collision, they didn’t technically do anything wrong and weren’t even moving at the time).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t see how, unless he encouraged the other driver by signalling with his lights or hand. Stopping in a position where you do not block a junction is simply considerate driving, as is not moving forward when it costs you nothing to wait for the other driver to safely execute his turn.
Signalling to the other driver to make the turn would muddy the waters, the HC says not to do it. But even then, if people airily wave you through, you can take that as no more than a signal that [i]they[/i] are happy to yield.
Sriracha wrote:
This.
Unfortunately, the requirement not to obstruct junctions is one that is more honoured in the breach, and as a result when someone does abide by it it’s treated as some sort of act of largesse on their part. Often that then encourages the turning driver to do so as quickly as possible, so as not to inconvenience their benefactor any more than necessary, right when you need them to be negotiating the turn with as much care and caution as possible.
no further action would be
no further action would be taken since “there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of prosecution”
They love ‘insufficient evidence’! That’s what they’ll try when you are killed or injured: ‘Ere, Sarge, I reckon we can swing an ‘insufficient evidence’ on this one- that BMW driver says he didn’t stand a chance and the cyclist just hurled himself across the road, and he didn’t see him anyway, and he didn’t mean to do it and he’s a cyclist himself’
the police said there was nothing they could do without witnesses
Absolutely standard dodges from The Filth. They used to say ‘sdorry, squire, nothing we can do without evidence’. We gave them perfect indisputable evidence, such as people crashing traffic lights 1.5 seconds after they turned red, and they still do nothing and claim they’re too busy to bother with trivial traffic offences.
Having freeze framed through
Having freeze framed through the video I think it is difficult to judge. The van moves approx half its length from when the cyclist first appears to when it comes to a stop after the collision. The cyclist was travelling much faster than the van.
Dashed cycle lanes are not well defined in law – so difficult to distinguish between it being cycling in your own lane – or filtering (which is a form of overtaking).
If cycle lanes are to be treated as a legal lane in their own right then the van is totally at fault (but the downside is all those crap narrow cycle lanes would allow cars to pass less than 1.5m as both parties would be in their own lanes).
If cycle lanes are merely a protected area within the one “lane” then the cyclist is at fault for careless overtaking/filtering (but at least we cyclists can insist on 1.5 m overtake distance on crap narrow cycle lanes).
As the law is unclear on the above I suspect the police are correct to walk away from this. I would also doubt if a civil case would stand up as the cyclists speed past a vehicle obstructing his view would be seen as contributory negligence, how much (70/30, 50/50 or 30/70) who knows, risky and I would want insurance to be funding that court case.
In my opinion it would be at best 50/50 for the cyclist possibly worse.
As others have said before being in the right and dead/injured is not the best outcome from a situation.
I filter on whichever side has more space – but always take it slowly and am prepared for vehicles to move as if they have not seen me.
I hate those bloody left hand
I hate those bloody left hand filter lanes, they cause more problems than they solve.
I’ve been squeezed up the kerb on them, smidsied, almost hit the same way this driver was, and unless you’ve been bitten a few times they give you a false sense of confidence that they are safe to use.
Then you get grief when you ignore them and filter up the outside.
After initially looking at
After initially looking at this thread I decided to stay out of the discussion because, generally, opinions are pro cyclist and anti motorist and I often think the cyclist is more responsible than generally felt and I can’t be bothered to argue the toss. However, in this case, I have to say that I think the cyclist is at least 50% at fault (with respect to the rules of the road) and, wrt his own safety, entirely at fault. I would never race up the inside of traffic into a blind spot in a crossroads like that. A stupid move.
I think in this scenario,
I think in this scenario, fault can be apportioned 4 ways:
– Right turning van driver should have stopped
– Queuing van driver should not have flashed lights without checking mirror
– Cyclist should have anticipated turning traffic
– Road design should be better
The largest contributer in my view is the road design. Cycle infrastructure is so inconsistently implemented in the UK, and what may or may not consitute a cycle lane so variable in appearance, that this layout is just an accident waiting to happen. I suspect if I delved into the road marking regulations, that this would not comply.
Kind of like, cyclists should
Kind of like, cyclists should accept some of the blame when they come a cropper on roundabouts, because they should know the dangers and take precautions?
I understand your argument, and had that been my son riding the bike I’d have been pissed with myself for not teaching him better. But just because it was foolhardy of the cyclist does not reduce the culpability of the motorist. The Highway Code unambiguously tells drivers turning right to look out for cyclists.
These things happen fundamentally because, in the minds of motorists who pay road tax, cyclists are illegitimate road users tolerated on the streets entirely at their own risk. The reaction of the van driver said it all.
Dingaling wrote:
Your opinion raises the question of how cycle lanes are supposed to work.
Edit: Thinking about your comment, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re victim blaming here.
If you swap the roles around and imagine a bus/taxi travelling in its lane and a cyclist wants to turn right across them, with another motorist leaving space for them to do so. If the cyclist makes the turn and hits the bus/taxi, my opinion would be the same – the turning vehicle has to make sure that it’s safe to do so. However, would you still apportion at least 50% blame to the bus/taxi driver and state that they were making a “stupid move”?
Also, it’s not a crossroads.
Dingaling wrote:
(“I was knocked to the ground and unable to move, while the driver got out of the van and started shouting at me about ‘fucking cyclists’)
Seems you have CONFUSED your little (anti-cylist) mind despite the evidence proving this (entiled) crash van driver has serious issues with vulnerable groups, who may also be school children on 2-wheels that he would have harmed or worse.
And then, darting directly into the path of a vulnerable victim, without pausing to make precautionary checks of the lane he intends to cross.
Dingaling wrote:
At least 50%?
The priority lay in the direction of traffic. In no circumstance is it ok to proceed blind, but doing so whilst crossing a lane, priority clearly lying with the approaching traffic, is either incompetent, grossly entitled, negligent, insane, or a mixture of all 4. Any doubts about the potential consequences of this action are dispelled by watching this video.
A little late, but just
A little late, but just chanced upon this in the HC (rule 151)