UPDATE: Please note a previous version of this article stated the driver involved had crashed into the group. One of the cyclists involved has since confirmed the overtaking motorist did not make direct contact with the group, but alleged the overtake “caused panic” and “a touch of wheels”.
Police in West Yorkshire have launched an appeal for witnesses after two cyclists were seriously injured, and several others hurt, when a group ride crashed as a driver attempted to overtake them.
The police’s description of the collision, which stated a “car moved towards cyclists causing several to be dismounted”, had received much criticism online for failing to acknowledge the vehicle was being driven by a person and the description of the cyclists have been “dismounted”. It was also suggested the description should have stated the driver crashed into the group of cyclists, however one of the riders involved has since confirmed to us that the motorist did not make direct contact with any of them.
A cyclist who was part of the group ride alleged the overtake was at a pinch point, into a 30 zone and with an oncoming vehicle, something which “caused panic and a touching of wheels”, even if not direct contact.
On Friday, officers from West Yorkshire Police’s Roads Policing Unit issued an appeal for witnesses following an “incident involving a car”, which took place during a local cycling club’s group ride in Wetherby the previous weekend.
Members of Ravensthorpe Cycling Club were riding on the A661 Harrogate Road, just outside Wetherby on Sunday 10 August, at around 1.05pm, when a motorist decided to overtake them as they approached a blind bend, located just beyond the road’s 30mph signs.
As the motorist attempted the overtake, another driver approached from around the corner, travelling in the opposite direction, causing the overtaking driver to swerve towards the cyclists.
According to West Yorkshire Police, several members of the group were injured in the incident, including two who suffered serious injuries, which were not deemed to be life-threatening.
One of the injured cyclists later reported on social media that he sustained a broken collarbone and some heavy road rash in the crash, and was taken by ambulance to hospital for treatment.
Since the appeal was launched, the police’s description of the crash – reported by several media outlets, including the BBC – was criticised by cyclists, who branded the language employed in the force’s report as “bizarre” and “terrible”.
“The cyclists were among a group of riders entering Wetherby near the 30mph signs on Harrogate Road when a black hatchback overtook them,” West Yorkshire Police’s report of the incident read.
“Whilst overtaking it reacted to an oncoming vehicle which was leaving Wetherby. It moved towards the cyclists causing several of them to be dismounted before narrowly missing the oncoming car.
“Several helpful motorists stopped at the scene to assist the cyclists.”
Reacting to the police’s report, one BlueSky user said: “‘Causing several of them to be dismounted’ is certainly an interesting way to describe what happened here.”
“Crap description by the plods,” said an X/Twitter user. “The way they tell it, the car moved towards the cyclists all by itself. That assertion will be untrue.
“What does ‘dismounted’ mean? Is this a new definition for the imminent threat of death?” one baffled road.cc reader asked us via email.
“Which is bizarre, considering West Yorkshire police has an excellent track record of prosecuting dangerous driving around cyclists,” added Bikery.
“This is from one of the better police forces in the UK, believe it or not,” agreed Djcaress.
“Seemingly addressing the actions of the vehicle (as if it was autonomous) rather than the driver, the officer also fails to mention that the overtake took place on an obscured part of the road, so totally unsuitable.”
Meanwhile, John Talbot urged the police: “Please don’t remove the human element, with ‘it reacted’, or ‘it moved’. Cars are inanimate objects, they don’t have reactions, and they don’t move by themselves.”
Of course, this isn’t the first time that the language used in police reports of collisions involving drivers and cyclists has been questioned.
Last November, we reported that new analysis of public communications issued by the UK’s police forces found that the vast majority of collision news reports still refer to vehicles instead of the person behind the wheel, with almost a quarter referring to the vehicle as an active participant in a crash.
Conducted by journalist and road.cc contributor Laura Laker, the author of the UK’s Road Collision Reporting Guidelines, and funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport, the research analysed 227 press releases from 45 police forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with utilising Freedom of Information requests.
According to Laker, the police’s use of “absent driver” language shifts the public’s attention towards those injured in a crash and impacts perceptions of road danger.
Nevertheless, the research also found that the use of the term ‘accident’ to describe a road collision has been almost phased out entirely from police public communications in the UK, while an increasing number of police forces are adding additional context to their news releases, allowing audiences to understand crashes are not isolated incidents.
Launched in 2021, the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines, coordinated by Laker alongside the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster, encourage media and police to avoid using the word ‘accident’ until the facts of the collision are known – noting that ‘crash’ or ‘collision’ leave the question of who or what is to blame open – and to acknowledge the role of motorists in crashes.
At the time of the guidelines’ launch, Professor Rachel Aldred, the director of the Active Travel Academy, noted that “language matters, as it helps shape how we see and treat others”.
In June, the BBC was forced to edit a headline which claimed a cyclist suffered devastating facial injuries in an “accident”, despite the rider’s injuries being caused by a drink driver who was using their phone at the time of the collision.
The story, originally published by BBC Bristol but later also shared by BBC News, originally featured the headline ‘Cyclist gets 3D printed face after bike accident’ but was later edited to ‘Cyclist gets 3D printed face after bike crash’, after the public service broadcaster faced criticism online for the wording and we raised the article with the BBC press office.
It also previously referred to the incident as “his accident” in the article copy, wording which was also removed.
In relation to last weekend’s incident in Wetherby, any potential witnesses, including the motorists who stopped to assist, or anyone who may have video footage of the incident, have been asked to assist the police’s enquiry by contacting PC 4764 Largent from Team 5 at the Roads Policing Unit.
Information can be provided via 101 or online at www.westyorkshire.police.uk/livechat, referencing police number 13250457759.
18 thoughts on ““Car moved towards cyclists causing several to be dismounted,” police say – after two riders seriously injured in incident involving overtaking driver”
Can we assume from thes
Can we assume from thes asking for witnesses, and stating that several “helpful driver stopped at the scene” (this should never need stated, over here in Norway, if you are first on the scene like here you are legally obliged to check if assistance is needed, failure can be prosecuted), that the (presumed) driver of the car that “swerved causing cyclists to be dismounted” therefore opted to NOT stop, and is therefore also being sought in relation to failure to stop after a collision ?
If it helps I have a military level shredder sitting in the cellar that I could use on aforementioned driver’s llicence, as he clearly should not have one.
In the UK some folks first
In the UK some folks first instinct is to stop and video things for social media, the police had to put out a statement the other week asking folk not too 🙁
HLaB wrote:
had just been reading about that:
Police write to drivers who filmed fatal M1 crash
Sadly, Norway’s expectations
Sadly, Norway’s expectations and law do not apply in the UK.
– Driver on his phone knocked me off my bike; I went rolling across the pavement; phone driver entirely oblivious.
– But the driver following him HAD to have seen what happened … and DGAF. Just drove on by. B@st@rd.
Interesting that a report on
Interesting that a report on the misuse of language has it’s own bit of car-brained construction:
The overtaking driver’s actions may have been in response to finding another driver coming the other way, but they weren’t caused by it. They were a decision – other responses, that would not have involved treating the cyclists as acceptable collateral damage, were available.
But but they had to drive!
But but they had to drive! One doesn’t decide or choose to drive you know. (“How are you going to carry a week’s shopping for the family / get your kids and their longbows on the bus – assuming there are any which would take you? How are you going to carry your child and their cello to their lessons on a bike?”)
Everything follows from that, really.
And don’t forget the elderly
And don’t forget the elderly relative you have take to a hospital appointment and that large, blind dog…
Exactly this
Exactly this
Driving is a continupoous series of decisions, the driver is responsible for all of those and thier consequences
Years ago when I could be
Years ago when I could be bothered asking bikers why they were in ASLs one told me “I was forced to the front”. No. He chose to go to the front.
I can slightly understand not
I can slightly understand not wanting for legal reasons to infer someone is guilty prior to legal proceedings. But that is unbelievably non-accusal. For me when some off something voluntarily and is Ok, not someone been knocked off and suffering injuries!
Not inferring someone is
Not inferring someone is guilty has tilted so far there that it pretty much infers innocence. Much more of a tilt and it would outright accuse the cyclists of being at fault.
Bit of local perspective here
Bit of local perspective here – just a coupla decades of riding roads in both West and North Yorkshire, with a few direct dealings with both police forces, and many observations?
The “collision-caused-by-one-driver’s-dangerous-incompetence” appears to have happened right on the border between N & W Yorkshire?
I’ll hazard a guess …
1. N Yorkshire Police units responded quickest, as they were nearest; produced the text. And then realised the collision was six inches over the “border”, so passed it to WYP Roads Policing Unit, as it was WYP responsibility to issue an appeal for witnesses and followup?
2. WYP Roads Policing weren’t there at the scene? All they had was N Yorkshire Police’s write-up? Which they used in their appeal notice (without some much needed editing 🙁 )?
There’s a few of us around road.cc who have reason to know a bit about both police forces … and compare/contrast. You know my unevidenced guesstimates make sense?
That’s a good call GV, seeing
That’s a good call GV, seeing that Wetherby is a bit of an ingrowing West Yorkshire navel on the underbelly of North Yorkshire.
I’m considering ringing 101
I’m considering ringing 101 to report a crime against English, literacy and logic.
To be honest, this could just have been an office trainee on their first day, but at the very least, someone should have checked it for sense. Surely even a trainee would be expected to write something which accurately reported the facts, not some Kafka-esque version of reality, something which missed vital facts and misled. Whoever wrote it should not be writing anything else until they’ve been seriously retrained or transferred to cleaning duties.
Just another example of the
Just another example of the crap language used:
“A second man has admitted stealing a BMW which later crashed into a care home during a police chase…
The car, which was being test driven, ploughed into Highcliffe Care Home in Sunderland on 10 July, injuring residents and damaging the building.
Police were authorised to pursue the vehicle, which crashed into the care home…”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2x40gxjydo
Modern ‘driver assistance
Modern ‘driver assistance systems’ can actually cause cars to move back into lane, for example if a driver tries to cross the white line without indicating. Some are surprisingly robust and require a driver to really wrench the wheel back over.
Doesn’t sound like that occurred here, but it can happen.
Rumour has it, that if you
Rumour has it, that if you want to bully your way in to a row of traffic … look for a Tesla, as the safety systems will stop the Tesla, giving you the room you need.
Just like any rumour, there may be an element of truth … but I’m not going to try it.
Why is anybody surprised that
Why is anybody surprised that the police officers’ true opinions sometimes get out to the public? What they actually think is: the driver HAD to swerve into the cyclists and knock a few of them off like skittles because a CAR was coming the other way! Duh! How obvious is that? Cyclists shouldn’t have been there!