Cumbria Police have urged motorists to give cyclists at least 1.5m of space when overtaking after releasing footage of a van driver clipping a cyclist while driving at 70mph. The driver responsible admitted driving without due care and attention and was handed six penalty points and asked to pay £350 in fines and costs.
– How to choose the right bike camera
On Wednesday July 24, at around 12.50pm, a 62-year-old cyclist was riding westbound on the A590 dual carriageway when he was hit by a passing van driven by 30-year-old Christopher Gadsden.
Police said the van hit the cyclist’s right elbow before a second impact between the cyclist and wing mirror.
The cyclist was knocked unconscious and ended up in the carriageway.
He suffered a fractured elbow and numerous lacerations and bruises on his body and face. He has no memory of the collision.
Police Constable Simon Smith said: “As the van approached the cyclist, the driver made no attempt to slow down or make adjustments to his course.
“The cyclist suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision. Thankfully there was an off-duty constable from Lancashire and an off-duty fireman from Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service were quickly able to come to the man’s aid.”
54 thoughts on “‘Give cyclists space when passing’ say police after releasing dashcam footage of 70mph collision …driver got six penalty points”
Why bother giving them room?
Why bother giving them room? What’s the point of making changes to your shocking driving? you are only going to get 6 penalty points and £350 fine after all.
the little onion wrote:
Yup, you could get the same penalty for using your phone whilst stationary in a traffic jam.
PRSboy wrote:
Judging by the attempt to move out as the cyclist was hit, phone usage was probably to blame!
the little onion wrote:
I had an old lady close pass me yesterday, that wasn’t the closest though, I got l got knocked off with a car pulling out on me from being parked. She said she never saw me. I think that looking and seeing might help.
Jimnm wrote:
Looking helps, and not having stupid tinted side windows, in the dark, . . lit up like a Christmas tree and this wan— erm . . inconsiderate soul, pulled straight out in front of me. I’m guessing it was as dim between the tinted windows as it is between the driver’s ears.
Jimnm wrote:
I know it’s easier said than done, but that’s the moment to bite back the anger and explain calmly and carefully to the old dear that she “has just caused an accident by her lack of awareness, and even though she probably thought she was fine, maybe it’s time to start considering surrendering that license”
A cynic may call it emotional blackmail, exploiting the moment, but if driving into someone isn’t powerful enough for people to consider the safety of others with them behind the wheel, we get to the situation in the OP: Courts need to intervene and strip licenses off careless / dangerous / lethal drivers.
the little onion wrote:
The guy who hit me did exactly that, dead straight road, good conditions and smashed me straight on from behind. Air lifted to hospital and left me with life long injuries and just about able to walk again almost two years later.
No fine, no points and he walked from county court as there was “no evidence” to prove his driving “fell far below the acceptable standard”. Unbelievable as only all of it did. I had amnesia so could provide no testimony and the evidence from my Garmin was thrown out as unreliable. The defence brief used Garmin’s own disclaimer to have it thrown out. Thanks a bunch Garmin looking out for us customers.
“The driver responsible
“The driver responsible admitted driving without due care and attention and was handed six penalty points and asked to pay £350 in fines and costs.”
I sincerely hope that they insisted on him paying rather than asking nicely.
The driver’s insurance will of course be paying out a large sum in damages, which while it is little consolation for the pain and suffering, is at least something, and his premiums will be rocketing, if only perhaps for a short time.
The question is, why did he drive like that? and the almost inevitable answer is that he was distracted. I’m assuming that his mobile phone was checked, but perhaps he was adjusting the radio or some other device; whatever, he put that above driving safely, collided with and injured a totally innocent person, and our justice system doesn’t even ban him for a week.
Had one a few weeks ago. 30
Had one a few weeks ago. 30 limit, car overtakes followed by another real close to the car in front and to me. At the next set of lights I asked the driver of the second car to give me more room when overtaking. He looked confused and said ‘What?’. I said when you overtook me back there you were really close. He said ‘Where the fuck were you then?’. He hadn’t even seen me. Dead straight road. Middle of the day.
The discussion continued but he swiftly moved on to ‘get a car’ and something about road tax blah blah blah.
Podc wrote:
Unfortunately, I suspect that’s par for the course (and I bet when the police asked the van driver in the story about it, I would lay actual money that their initial response was a simple “I didn’t see him”).
In this case, I know burt’s mentioned distraction above, and that’s likely TBH, but isn’t there also something that used to be called “highway hypnosis”? The van’s just driving along a straight road, not changing speed, not manoeuvering, and the driver’s not even having to move their hands or feet or anything, and they just follow the car ahead, not looking or noticing anything else.
brooksby wrote:
Well there is evidence to suggest drivers on elongated stretches of straight roads with little stimulus to engage them do then tend to lose concentration or attentiveness to hazards,its also more tiring which compounds it,but you cant drive in a straight line without some steering wheel input,so it could be more like they were driving on autopilot brain mode where your brain subconsciously takes over and as with the other example above a driver when queried will have no recollection of any hazards,traffic lights or anything they just drove past
I’m sure nicmason and
I’m sure nicmason and disherwood would be blaming the cyclist for not being in the gutter quite enough.
And if anyone would like to suggest “that taking the lane” would have prevented this, I would say, no, taking the lane in this instance would mean a dead cyclist.
Why is this driver allowed to keep their licence? Surely driving of this shockingly low standard should have been prosecuted at more than without due care and attention?
Did they stop? No mention of this.
ktache wrote:
If you want the full victim blaming bingo card set just go read some of the replies to the ITV Borders tweet that covered it… includes the cyclist should have worn hi-viz,run daytime lights & not taken their arm off the handlebars as well as the usual nonsense 🙁
ktache wrote:
Not at all. This is the sort of driving that warrants a banning from driving and a substantial fine. The driver clearly wasn’t looking at all.
My issue is with the urban low speed “close passes” that often feature on here . This is completely different and the cyclist is lucky to be alive.
My personal choice is to
My personal choice is to avoid these type of roads as the speed difference would cause the rare reasonable good driver to not react in time, let alone the poor ones like in this video.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Thing is, I know the rider looks like they’re doing their own personal TT, but what are the alternatives like? There are so many routes around the country where the roads have been dualled to make them more convenient for motorists, which means that a safe/non-dualled route for a cyclist might be two or three times the distance…
brooksby wrote:
I know, as I said my choice would be not to ride it. The other week when I went to see the ToB go past near me, the route I was going to take was diverted due to bridge work. I used Google Maps on cycle settings to see if the diversion was rideable and it stated yes. Unfortunately it turned out it led to a three lane dual carriageway which was motorway in all but name. My choice was to resign to the fact that I was missing the ToB and reversed course to look at another route. This was a single carriageway at 60mph which was probably just as dangerous in reality but I did feel safer for some reason. On viewing flybys later I noticed a couple had cycled along the dual carriageway for some of their route but rather them then me.
Depressingly lenient. You
Depressingly lenient. You could not ask for more in terms of good visibility and a whole extra lane to overtake.
It’s just as you come off the motorway, clearly the driver failed to adapt their driving to the new road conditions.
As the main route into the lakes from the south, I’ve encountered all sorts of traffic on it.
https://goo.gl/maps/KGNrHka2MLXDVB5r6
I nearly got taken out on
I nearly got taken out on Saturday by a Caterham overtaking another cyclist on a blind corner. When I had some choice words for the driver he apologised and said the sun was in his eyes so he couldn’t see.
He was shocked when I suggested that overtaking on a blind corner when you are blinded by the sun was a f*cking stupid idea
Where I am this type of road
Where I am this type of road would be rated as a motorway and you’re not allowed to access those on a bike or any vehicle that cannot do at least 70 kmph. But anyway, seeing this and similar videos and without wanting to start a flame war, an honest question:
Why do you guys choose to ride on such roads?? I cannot for the life of me conceive of anyone with the sense of self preservation granted to a snail riding there on a bicycle, even if allowed. In my continental eyes it’s not simply possible but highly probable that an accident would happen. I’d either ride a detour or simply not use a bike at all there. Is it because there are no smaller roads, no cycling infrastructure to speak of…why?? I’m looking to understand. Honestly, if I were to show that pic to 20 cycling buddies over here, at least 18 would think the cyclist either has a death wish or is crazy. It has nothing to do with the legality: even if perfectly legal to do so, I still wouldn’t ride there, rather than makeing a statement I’d make it home in one piece.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Well no outside of London there isnt much cycling infra,or what there is wouldn’t help you get anywhere safely,the point is the alt route would no doubt be a twisty windy country road where drivers would drive just as fast, so is it safer to be on a road with plenty of room to pass safely,good sightlines, or a road where every corner is unsighted ?
Last month I had a car overtake me before a blind corner on one of those country roads,totally unnecessarily as they took the next left immediately (one of those exits on the bend roads),had they waited 10 secs more to overtake theyd have had the choice of drive into me or a tractor nearly head on,they didn’t quite give me that much space 😉 but I know which option theyd have taken
Xenophon2 wrote:
I understand the sentiment of your post, and to be frank, I don’t think many would choose to ride on that type of road. However that is something of a moot point, as legally cyclists have every right to be there.
Now you can say just because you can, doesn’t mean you should, and I suppose I’d agree, but, and for me, its a big but, in the cold hard face or reality, dual carriageways (outside of rush hour at least), provide wide, open, roads with great visability. There is no justifiable reason why you shouldn’t see and be able to react to anything in teh carriageway (during daylight hours anyway).
In the crappy video above, teh cyclist is clearly visable for 5 seconds.
These road are only dangerous because drivers make them so with their lack of due care and attention.
so yes, whilst avoidance makes sense, in no way should we victim blame here. One day you may find yourself caught out with nothing but a mile or so of dual carriageway and getting home, if you want to walk across the fields thats up to you, but I personally will fight to retain my legal right to use this type of road safely when needs musts.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Because people have places to go and that’s the kind of road that goes to places.
Is the alternative to cede public infrasturcture to the bullies and just stay at home? Or to buy a car and join them?
I appreciate its not your intention but this is like the motorist who yells out “use the bike path” as they wizz past, depsite the bike path going somehwere you are not. It is more important that they don’t have to share than you get to your destination.
That said I completely sympathise with people who are too scared to use the roads but maybe every time you want to be shocked at someone being brave enough to do so, you could instead write to a politician or donate money to a campaign group to try and fix the situation? There are many reasons we can’t continue with this car obsession.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Not an ascerbic reply to you in particular. Just a general throwaway to ALL those victim-blaming the cyclist for being there on the A590.
Please – before you victim blame, have a look on Google Maps? 2 seconds effort? Not much to ask?
And then think – just how far would the guy have had to ride to AVOID the A590?
Would I ride it? I’m lucky – here in W Yorks I can find generally find at least a couple of options that avoid such roads. So it’s 30 miles to York, instead of 25 – no brainer.
But look at Google Maps!
It’s not the cyclist’s fault that THERE IS NO ADEQUATE, CONVENIENT, AND FUCKING SAFE OPTION.
Xenophon2 wrote:
I regularly cycle on the dual carriageway section of the A370 in Weston-super-Mare, though it’s a short section and there’s a roundabout at each end so traffic doesn’t go as fast.
I choose to cycle along it, despite there being a shared footpath/cyclepath going parallel with it, mainly for speed and convenience. If I use the shared path then I’d have to go slower or risk hitting children and pets and the ending of the shared path dumps you out on a different road, so I’d have to then cross a busy road (4 lanes of traffic) in order to rejoin the roundabout (there is a pedestrian crossing if I want to wait a minute ot two). If I take the A370, I just go with the traffic and the main danger is from vehicles overtaking and then taking the left turning lane (i.e. a left hook).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes, and, when dual carriageways are quiet, they’re generally lovely. For example, a trip I did into London used a 3 lane section of the A40 (until it merged with the end of the M40), then a fair bit of DC A4020 through Uxbridge. Despite it being [i]London[/i], and the 3 lane section was moving at 50, it wasn’t at all concerning. Nobody tried splitting L1 that time.
The same goes for DC sections of the A38 the time I went to Bristol – even if the M5 roundabout made me a bit apprehensive (I do love having to neogtiate out into a middle lane to avoid going onto a motorway).
Solocle wrote:
I would agree, but there are the odd exception, like this 70mph beauty near me…
Dropped pin
Near Unnamed Road, Bedford MK44 2DQ
https://goo.gl/maps/cJ43qMtaxMnwrCYq9
I’m with the probably
I’m with the probably unpopular opinion of just because you ‘can’ do something, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Not a chance in hell I’d go on that road without some real, no other route situation.
I ‘can’ ride my motorbike in shorts and t shirt but it’s pretty daft even though I’m entitled to do so. It’s hard enough to get drivers to notice you on roads they maybe expect to see you on but once again just because drivers ‘should’ be paying attention for all sorts of hazards, they are probably just looking for ones with 4 wheels and metal boxes around them.
I’d never cycle on that road.
I’d never cycle on that road. There’s all sorts of stretches of road I avoid round me, mostly fast A roads and particularly anything approaching a motorway junction because drivers are either gearing up for or winding down from going fast. That looks like hell on toast.
Are mobility scooters allowed
Are mobility scooters allowed on that road?
If they have refelectors and
If they have refelectors and wing mirrors, yes.
I wouldn’t ride on that road
I wouldn’t ride on that road either. Mainly due to the volume of traffic; it’s not pleasant as it’ll be so noisy and more cars can only mean more chances of being hit. But I can understand why you might, as it’ll be the quickest route. All other options round there will involve undulating narrow country lanes with poor surfaces.
Many years ago when I was only mountain biking, I would not have ridden on any road! I couldn’t understand why anyone would want to ride a road bike where you could drive – at least a mountain bike gets you to places inaccessible by car. Now I mostly ride on the road…
This example showed the cyclist visible from a long way off. To not notice them shows more than just due care to me. I’ve often encountered traffic backing up the slip road on that route. If the van driver had ploughed into the back of a queue of stationary traffic, would it have been 6 points and £350?
Totallt agree…..there’s a
Totally agree…..there’s a very similar road like that to me….loads of room to pull into the second lane and pass safely…but no they fly past at 80mph 6 inch off your elbow. I avoid the road at all costs as I prefer to be alive as opposed to being justified but dead.
If he was really driving a
If he was really driving a Mercedes sprinter at 70, then he was 10 mph over the limit.
No mention of speeding, so was he really doing 70?
The van was a Mercedes
The van was a Mercedes Sprinter (info obtained from nwemail) , a goods van, which should have had a speed limit on a dual carriageway of 60mph, odd that the police say it was doing 70mph yet no dangerous driving prosecution as would have been speeding, now 60mph is the speed limit for all vehicles on a national speed limit section of roads, and thats what a great deal of those twisty turny country roads we all love, which definitely don’t have the sight lines of the above, let alone the extra carrigeway for overtaking. Unfortunately there are no safe roads out there, 20 and 30mph limits are routinely ignored, there are doors being opened, junctions and phone use is endemic.
For all those who might say that they wouldn’t ride on that particular road, best not ride at all.
Those dangerous idiots in their huge motor vehicles get everywhere.
ktache wrote:
Every day’s a school day. I like to think I’m a pretty decent (but not infallible) driver (though maybe even the worst drivers think the same), but I’m now wondering how many times I’ve driven a hire van at 70mph on a dual carriageway in ignorance of the reduced speed limit.
I very occasionally ride on dual carriageways like this – they often form part of an audax route or club ride to escape the city and get to the nice roads quicker – but I hate them, and try to avoid being the last one in the pack.
The graphic at the end of the video saying 1.5metres is a missed opportunity too – at 70mph even that is alarmingly close.
quiff wrote:
— quiffIt’s also 50 on a single carriageway and 70 on a motorway.
Kind of a good reason to
Kind of a good reason to organise a mass ride along a dual carriageway….. on a Friday….around tea time… two lanes on a dual carriageway, yes?
‘My personal choice is to
‘My personal choice is to avoid these type of roads as the speed difference would cause the rare reasonable good driver to not react in time, let alone the poor ones like in this video. ‘
Thing is – a good driver would have plenty of time to react, no matter the speed difference. It’s not the speed difference causing the issue – it’s the driver.
andyp wrote:
Most people on the roads are fat, unfit and probably have the reaction time of a sloth. The better idea is not to mix with them on that sort of road. I don’t cross the road infront of cars as a ped because they should be able to see me and give me right of way.
I’m into risk minimisation when it comes to being seen, i often have the flasher on even in broad daylight, you can’t rely on ‘good drivers’ as they are few and far between. I was driving through a town the other day and in my rear mirror I could see the bloke behind on his phone nearly the entire way through the town. I kept a running commentary of it for the front camera as I don’t have rear facing one and I was expecting him to rear end me most of the time. These people aren’t an exception these days, they are the rule.
Those sort of people at 70mph+ is not my sort of cycling road.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Of course you can’t rely on good drivers. Nor can you rely on twinkly disco lights. You’re entirely free to choose whether to ride on such a road or not. Personally I’m happy on a 70, was less so when I accidentally ended up on an Autobahn 😉
andyp wrote:
Anyone seen any research which has been done to test what drivers ‘see’ in different road environments? I know the brain often uses shortcuts to speed information processing. I wonder if drivers are conditioned to expect cars and lorries on fast dual carriageways and motorways, so the brain filters out things they don’t expect to see such as cyclists, pedestrians etc.
Also the closing speeds involved and the fact that 3 seconds spent with eyes off the road changing radio station could leave a driver with less time to react to a hazard.
When I did an advanced driving course I was told to ‘scan’ close, middle and far distance and mirrors constantly, the thinking being that you force yourself to see rather than just look.
PRSboy wrote:
Aye, theres’ stacks and it’s not just drivers, or any particular group, it’s completely generic – most of what you think you see is entirely made up and you can miss the most obvious things, e.g. the invisible gorilla. Articles and research about this and perception in general is plentiful, amazing and rather scary, worth looking up.
Some as military aircrew amongst others – for the same reason.
Unfortunately a lot of
Unfortunately a lot of drivers out there think they know the rules, but are completely oblivious.
Case in point, on our local Facebook page an elderly lady posted “Did anyone else see that cyclist on the dual carriageway? I think he must have been lost, I hope he was alright. Crazy!” (Words to that effect)
This was followed up with people saying how cyclists don’t know the rules of the road etc. Until someone pointed out it was perfectly legal. The the lady said, yes, but what if I didn’t see him because they were obscured by the car in front? To which the reply was, don’t drive so close to the car in front!!
But unfortunately, these people are out there and they totally don’t realise what a menace they are.
Can’t understand why they
Can’t understand why they didn’t round off the video with a picture of the emergency services attending and the cyclist in his hospital bed – that would have had more impact.
Oh look, must be an election
Oh look, must be an election coming.
“Drivers who kill while on mobile phones will face life sentences”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/04/drivers-kill-mobile-phones-will-face-life-sentences/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb&fbclid=IwAR1BnE9gqlEqfa5SGjCkW8R7v3CPkYPLQxpT4BB2eiIsNCWBeR-O8ZhVq-o
Nothing like the comprehensive review of road law promised all those years ago, and since courts never impose the maximum sentence, what’s the point of increasing it? If only they hadn’t cut all those police, they might actually catch some of the phone drivers.
Not wishing to teach anyone
Not wishing to teach anyone to suck eggs but my “tactic” on a road like this, and I do try to ride them as infrequently as possible, but it is to weave about and employ a lot of looking over the shoulder.
It’s not the most relaxing way to ride, and the adrenaline of thinking that each and every one of the cars/vans /lorries is going to not see you and hit you makes you super super aware, nervous and a little faster.
I believe the human eye is not well designed to notice anything which barely moves when projected to the back of the retina. If you move side to side this will help, especially if someone is looking at their phone/radio/work mate where you’d be causing the sensors at the peripheral of the eyeball to be excited (and these are mostly sensitive to movement and not colour or detail).
If someone has not decided to start taking the other carriageway from some reasonable distance then I’m more than prepared to start making my own way out of theirs.
It does help having one of those Garmin radars for riding roads like this (or in fact any roads and then employ the weaving in and out shake it all about don’t trust that a mere couple of inches will work with me baby riding method ™).
I’ve used the Cumbria police
I’ve used the Cumbria police contact form
https://www.cumbria.police.uk/Contact-us/General-Enquiries/General-Enquiries.aspx
To ask why they do not reference the fact that the van was speeding, and also asked why a speeding driver with dreadful hazard perception and vehicle control was not charged with dangerous driving.
Where exactly was he on the
Where exactly was he on the a590? Without knowing that it’s hard to say what alternatives there were.
vonhelmet wrote:
‘Twas ere. Just after the first bridge that goes over the road from M6 junction towards the lakes.
Even if we knew all the circumstances of the rider, the alternatives are irrelevant. The driver wasn’t paying attention and probably speeding.
I used to be one of those people who thought cycling on any road was far too dangerous. As my recent close pass proves, you don’t need to be on a dual carriageway to get close passed at speed.
The only thing that really is different about these sorts of roads is the volume of traffic, which increases your chances of coming across a driver like that, it’s just probability – the tw@t per hour ratio goes up.
What’s sad here is, no
What’s sad here is, no cyclist should have to use roads like this. Sadly often it’s the only choice.. or you basically have to double the distance.
I’m not sure many people want to be cycling on a 70mph dual carriageway.
Some interesting discussion
Some interesting discussion here about, whilst the cyclist had every right to be on a dual carriageway, whether it’s a good idea or not. Yes, if you get knocked off, it’s the inattentive driver’s fault; however, those drivers are out there now and aren’t going to go away. I always remember a good quote…..”you may be right, but you’ll be dead right”.
Shades wrote:
Well, that’s a curious way of dealing with health and safety issues.
If I may paraphrase: We’ve got a situation here with some known issues, but rather than attempting to reduce the danger, we’ll just blame the people who get injured for having poor judgement.
I remember that when the
I remember that when the Blackwater Valley relief road was new I took a very late night journey back home along it after spending an evening with a friend in Guildford. It was glorious, smooth and straight, with very few inclines, unlike the rolling countryside that the smaller roads go through. Generally better drivers than on the small roads too, and a large hard shoulder to use if they didn’t bother to make full use of the second lane.