A cyclist crashed into the rear window of a car in Richmond Park yesterday after a driver slowed down to let some geese cross the road, according to police.
The incident happened on Boxing Day morning between Kingston and Ham gates, according to a tweet from Royal Parks police, accompanied by a photograph of the broken rear window of the Mercedes car involved.
Officers at #RichmondPark have been dealing with a road traffic collision between Kingston Gate and Ham Gate after the driver of a vehicle slowed to allow some geese to cross the road and a male on a bicycle collided into the rear of her vehicle and through the back window. pic.twitter.com/dNbWJPBDgY
— Royal Parks Police (@MPSRoyal_Parks) December 26, 2021
Officers confirmed that the male cyclist had been taken to hospital, adding that his injuries were not “life threatening or life changing,” and that they are continuing to investigate the incident.
*threatening
— Royal Parks Police (@MPSRoyal_Parks) December 26, 2021
News of the crash has reignited calls for motor vehicles to be banned from the 955-hectrare Royal Park which is hugely popular with cyclists from southwest London and beyond and is a national nature reserve, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation.
Among those responding to the tweet from the police was Rory McCarron, a specialist cycling lawyer at Leigh Day solicitors, who was riding his bike in Richmond Park yesterday and described how he had seen some “awful driving,” including motorists exceeding the 20mph speed limit.
Richmond Park was closed to motor traffic for five months from March last year due to the coronavirus pandemic, and the decision by The Royal Parks to reopen the roads to rat-running drivers from March was described as a “reckless and drastic” move by London Cycling Campaign. Access to the park for motorists is due to be reviewed in the New Year.
Footage of close passes on cyclists and other instances of irresponsible and intimidating driving is regularly posted to social media, and we have regularly reported on cyclists being injured in road traffic collisions in the park.
Last month cycling instructor and bike mechanic David Williams said he was knocked off his bike on purpose by a driver as he returned home from a training session at a local school.
> Driver deliberately knocks cyclist off bike in Richmond Park
The 53-year-old broke his collarbone and sustained severe bruising as a result of the incident, which is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police.
“This one car, a blue BMW, went past me and was really close,” he said. “I slapped the boot to let the driver know how close he had been.
“He immediately braked quite sharply. I wasn’t able to stop but filtered along the road between the car and grass and ended up in front of him.
“Immediately, he then accelerated and came alongside me – about a foot away. I rapped on his roof to make the point he was too close and get him away.
“He accelerated again and swerved in towards me, knocking me off balance and I fell right onto my shoulder into the road. He then sped off down the hill.”
He added: “The people in the other cars behind me were shocked. This was not an accident. They probably thought they wanted to scare me, but the consequences are very serious for me.
“My head hit the floor quite hard and my helmet is now finished as it has a big crack in it.”
106 thoughts on “Richmond Park cyclist crashes into car’s rear window after driver slows to let geese cross road”
Interesting, doubtless
Interesting, doubtless subconscious, choice of nomenclature by the RPS there: the person in the car is “the driver of a vehicle” (pretty much neutral) with the cyclist being “a male on a bike” (pretty close to the hated MAMIL). Why, I wonder? Why also is the incident described as “slowed to allow some geese to cross the road” rather than “braked” – it would be a highly inattentive cyclist who ploughed into the back of a car with sufficient force to go through the rear window because it merely “slowed”. “Collided into”? A collision is the interaction of two bodies, apart from “collided into” being grammatically incorrect it implies that only one body was actively involved with the other being passive and static. The whole description seems slanted towards the incident being the fault of an aggressive cyclist – which for all I know it may have been, but as the police wouldn’t have finished any investigation and no charges are mentioned they should surely have been more neutral in their posting.
Even with hard braking,
Even with hard braking, unless the car suddenly went into reverse, it is the fault of the cyclist.
Losd wrote:
What if, as has happened to me more than once, the driver is overtaking then suddenly perceives a hazard ahead they hadn’t accounted for and cuts straight back in whilst braking hard?
Exactly, rendel – no way was
Exactly, rendel – no way was the car being slowed cautiously and gradually, if the bike went through the rear window like that.
I’m biased and would probably
I’m biased and would probably initially suspect that too. However I do have a couple of counter examples. I’ve ridden into parked cars more than once (only damaged my ego and I’ve grown up since) and once a flatmate managed to do exactly this e.g. through the rear window of a stationary car. (Said flatmate was a pretty powerful rider).
Luckily the consequences of “bike hits car” (or indeed “bike hits anything”) are generally much less than “car hits something”.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Fair enough, chris; I wonder if beetlejuice will be along to blame it on head-down posture and/or TT bars…?
Alas no such excuses – never
Alas no such excuses – never ridden TT bars in my life. Although now I do favour an aero posture. (actually for comfort reasons now):
brooksby wrote:
Reckon? https://youtu.be/9OrKLGEOVRA
Edit: to expand a little, toughened glass (as is typical for rear and side windows, but not for windscreens which are laminated) is very difficult to smash. Except when it isn’t. A heavy impact spread over a wide area may be sustained (for example a squishy cyclist landing on it) even though the glass can flex alarmingly.
Or a less severe collision, where a point load makes contact (for example an exposed bar end) may result in the glass shattering like, well, something that shatters easily….
The condition of the glass doesn’t tell us much in itself.
Well I learned something
Well I learned something today – these TT racers really are a menace!
my take wasnt so much about
my take wasnt so much about the glass breaking telling us about the speed of impact, because that glass can shatter very easily, and when they curve the glass especially you get all kinds of tension in it, along with the heating elements, that means even a tiny bit of pressure in the wrong bit could break it.
Its how does the cyclist/bike get to the rear window in the first place, its quite a high level boot,and the window is some way away from where youd assume the impact point would be, so there had to be enough momentum for the bike/cyclist to tip in to the car and roll over the boot to reach the window. Which to me implies the impact was at some speed.
Awavey wrote:
Well, yes, there is that…
Then if you had previously
Then if you had previously been in front, you should have spotted the developing hazard.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Oh I see, I’m proceeding safely and legally at the speed limit, a driver behind me suddenly accelerates hard past me in excess of the speed limit, realises that there’s an oncoming vehicle that he’s going to hit and cuts back in front of me when it’s not remotely safe to do so and any subsequent collision is my fault for not anticipating that someone else will behave in a lunatic and illegal manner? I swear that if a cyclist was waiting at the lights and a pedestrian suddenly stabbed them from behind you and your nasty little coterie of alt-right anticyclist cyclists would find a way of blaming the rider.
Oh, Trendy Rendy cannot
Oh, Trendy Rendy cannot tolerate ANYONE to have a different opinion to his!
When will Trendy Rendy grow up, do you think?
.
.
Err, read the article. Geese,
Err, read the article. Geese, dear boy, geese.
Quack quack!
Perhaps you could enlighten
Perhaps you could enlighten us all by demonstrating that there were geese, where they came from and for how many seconds they were visible for before anyone arrived
hirsute wrote:
When a goose and a gander love each other very much, they give each other a special goosey cuddle…..
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Geese don’t quack, they honk and hiss. Well up to your usual informed standard.
Overtake followed by braking
Overtake followed by braking is not a developing hazard, it is an immediate one
I posted a pic this month of a mgif at a mini roundabout who fortunately decided to bail out in the hatched area.
“Even with hard braking,
“Even with hard braking, unless the car suddenly went into reverse, it is the fault of the cyclist”
If the car overtook then immediately braked this could cause the cyclist to crash into the back of the car.
I’ve had overtakes followed by brake checks a number of times in Richmond Park – normally caused by drivers hell bent on overtaking even when there’s a queue of traffic clearly visible only 100m up the road.
Or was ‘brake checked’ – the
Or was ‘brake checked’ – the car overtook then braked sharply, perhaps because of the aforementioned fowl.
We don’t know all the specifics of this incident though, so not much point speculating.
I know we shouldnt, but damn
I know we shouldnt, but damn it doesnt half feel very suspicious to me, I do know people who have ridden in to vehicles by mistake, so it can happen for sure, but its not my gut feeling how this one came about.
and fwiw brake checking is illegal, the old but I stopped to let the old mother goose cross the road isnt accepted as a valid reason if you caused an accident deliberately, so its a myth that the person who hits you in a rear end collision is always at fault.
Your Honour, never mind the
Your Honour, never mind the facts, my gut feelings tell me that ……
Right. OK. Ehmmm, that now how courts work, ‘fraid to say.
My gut feeling is that you
My gut feeling is that you actually are aware of the danger drivers pose to cyclists, hence your post on the NMOTD the other day about Traffic Refuge islands. Yet suddenly decide to come in here calling other people names (and then telling them to grow up), calling us all facists (ummm), and just generally wanting people to not like you. You missing your boo to back up it seems. Or been on the w(h)ine a bit too much?
No point speculating?
No point speculating?
How DARE you, sir?
That’s all that you get on here from the Bike-Fascists.
Driver is ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME at fault
By definition.
Cyclists, on the other hand, are NEVER, EVER are at fault.
Looks like you forgot the
Looks like you forgot the mnotd recently where the very first post criticised the cyclist.
Then you went on to complain how it is always the driver’s fault in here.
Seems you also struggle with the idea of people having a different opinion.
As it is, there is wide opinion in this thread. Or did you get again fail to read what is written?
Losd wrote:
Unless the driver overtook the cyclist and braked hard without due consideration for the cyclist, i.e. brake checked them. Then the geese appeared. Hopefully, the rider had a camera on their bike, and the truth will out.
Losd wrote:
I blame Jeremy Corbyn.
OldRidgeback wrote:
He was only trying to seize the means of production.
Personally, I suspect the geese of fowl play and did they honk before crossing the road?
Poor highway maintenance –
Poor seasonal highway maintenance – they should have gritted the road (salt and pepper) if the conditions were geesy.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I think it’s important for motorists to get down off their high goose and drive to the conditions. After all, it’s important for both people and animals to exercise regularly and the geese were getting fat.
I hope the geese turned round
I hope the geese turned round afterwards and said, “Now you buggers know what it feels like to get stuffed at Christmas.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
Are you suggesting the geese were playing chicken? You can’t expect us to gobble that up!
It matter not if something
It matter not if something overtakes then slams its brakes on. The follower is at fault. As a principle you should be able to stop. If not slow down.
Until it is proved that this was a deliberate punishment stop then if anything at all is assumed it must be that the cyclist did not ride accodringly
mattsccm wrote:
Not sure you meant to reply to me. However this isn’t quite the whole story. I don’t think you can assume anything here.
I believe you’re correct in that there is a presumption in rear-end shunts that the party hitting the other is at fault. However there are cases where the hit party has been held partly responsible. Also I think for civil claims the burden of proving fault lies with the individual bringing the claim. (Note: I am not a lawyer!).
I think the principle as “pedestrian suddenly stepped into the road” or “cyclist suddenly swerved” should apply here *. Consider if a driver overtook and then suddenly cut in and slammed on brakes – it’s entirely possible that this would leave you in practice no way of avoiding a collision especially if on a bike where you may be slower and have less effective brakes than a car.
I have no idea what the facts were in this case – as I said elsewhere fault could be on either side.
* I’d be fine with some presumption that the more dangerous road user should pay costs in a civil / insurance matter unless fault of the more vulnerable road user was proved. Note that this is not “criminal” strict liability which many apparently think would a) be an easy change to make to the law and b) make cycling much safer somehow.
It’s called brake checking
It’s called brake checking and for cyclists, there is also the left hook. Neither of which allow the second road user scope to stop safely.
mattsccm wrote:
This simply is not the case. A following driver should only overtake where there is room safely to return to their lane without entering the safe braking zone of the vehicle they are overtaking. If the driver has to cut into this zone they should not have made the overtake in the first place and are culpable for any incidents resulting from them having to brake whilst in said zone.
mattsccm wrote:
Actually if you could demonstrate that was the case you would not be liable. That’s the thing about presumed liability – it is challengeable.
Rendel Harris wrote:
A sage response Mr Harris…
Captain Badger wrote:
I know my onions…
I hope they breathalysed the
I hope they breathalysed the driver – around this time of year they might well have had a few and been totally goosed.
As per usual Road CC muddy
As per usual Road CC muddy the waters and post a story and regurgetate another story to get extra impact. The cyclist that went into the back of the car accidently, the hard braking incident is a totally separate story. The one you respond to happened last month, the incident in the park yesterday. The BMW he went into last month close passed the cyclist then when he got in front broke hard. How could this be the fault of the cyclist? How could he be travelling too close when the BMW had just passed him?
Assuming the cyclist was
Assuming the cyclist was behind the car, reasonable, and that the car was not going backwards, also reasonable, this is the cyclist’s fault; no matter how hard the driver applied the brakes.
Consider an alternative similar situation; You are behind a car approaching a roundabout and they appear to be entering the roundabout but then stop; if you collide with them it is your fault.
jova54 wrote:
Not the same though is it? In your example the situation leading up to the crash hasn’t abruptly changed. At the start, there is a car in front of you. At the end, same. Clearly your responsibility.
In an overtake and cut in situation you start with a car overtaking you (their choice / look out) and then end with them performing a sudden mavouever in front of you.
I’ve no opinion on what actually happened here and have indeed suggested that it’s perfectly possible the cyclist didn’t notice the car slowing down / was already following too close. However it is certainly possible for a car to rapidly overtake you, cut in quickly close to you and brake. In practice that may not give you sufficient time to drop back to create space (which the other driver has forced you to do if they’ve cut in close to you) / brake quickly and effectively enough to stop before hitting them.
If you’re saying “legally the cyclist is on a sticky wicket unless they’ve got good evidence of a brake check” I’d agree. That’s my judgement of how it’s likely to go in a court though. Not the same as the law!
An alternative assumption
An alternative assumption which is also perfectly reasonable as it’s one encountered by many cyclists in RP, including myself on more than one occasion, is that the driver misjudged the closing distance of oncoming traffic in overtaking and cut back in to avoid a collision (thereby breaking HC 163 on overtaking, “Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in”) then saw the additional hazard and braked for it. If the cyclist was behind the car throughout the incident and didn’t leave sufficient braking distance, yes it’s his fault. If he was left without sufficient braking distance because the driver cut into his braking distance, that’s her fault.
There is an erroneous assumption that any rearend shunt is the fault of the driver behind in law; this is not the case, there is no such law and there is plenty of case history where the driver in front has been held partially or wholly responsible for the collision. If the actions of another driver (for example cutting in too quickly then immediately braking hard) mean that the driver behind could not be reasonably expected to anticipate or avoid the collision, fault lies with the driver in front.
Where is your proof of
Where is your proof of overtaking and then suddenly braking?
Just because it has happened to you in the past doesn’t mean that every other event follows the same pattern. Yes, the driver might have braked hard but to go through a rear window you have to some momentum.
The point is a valid
The point is a valid alternative explanation. See the current compilation video of driving in RP.
As it is, I think the balance of probability is that the cyclist is at fault although the driver being at fault is somewhat more than slim.
(Where is the proof of geese if you go down that route?)
jova54 wrote:
Where’s your proof that the cyclist was too close/inattentive? Neither of us know what happened, just putting forward an alternative explanation based on my forty years of experience of riding those roads and the way drivers often behave in the park.
If a rider is doing 20mph and a driver cuts sharply in front whilst simultaneously braking hard, clearly there will be considerable momentum involved.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I thought the wording about “slowed to allow..”was weird too. It sounds like some dappy idiot slowing and waving then across, rather than (and I consider this the likely scenario) a risk aware driver realising that geese by the road being unpredictable it was wise to slow down as necessary to avoid a collision.
Had the rider been maintaining a sufficient stopping distance and/or paying attention to the road ahead it is difficult to see how a collision would have occurred.
I’ll concede that we don’t know the full facts, but presumed liability(as rear enders are judged regarding liability) would without further evidence place the blame squarely at the rider’s door.
Captain Badger wrote:
That is true but on that stretch of road, which is always busy, it seems to me less likely that it was rider inattentiveness and more likely that the driver went to overtake the cyclist, realised the oncoming traffic was closer than she thought, cut back in on the cyclist then saw the secondary hazard of the geese and braked. The first part, being cut in on, happens regularly to me in Richmond Park, as the road between Ham and Kingston gates is too narrow to allow an overtaking car to pass a bike – even close pass – and avoid any oncoming vehicle. Impatient drivers frequently pull fast overtakes and dive back in far too early to leave a rider a safe braking distance if they (the car driver) suddenly were to encounter a hazard ahead. Obviously pure supposition on my part in this case but having had it happen to me plenty of times (fortunately without a hazard forcing the car to brake) I can see how it could have happened here.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That is true but on that stretch of road, which is always busy, it seems to me less likely that it was rider inattentiveness and more likely that the driver went to overtake the cyclist, realised the oncoming traffic was closer than she thought, cut back in on the cyclist then saw the secondary hazard of the geese and braked. The first part, being cut in on, happens regularly to me in Richmond Park, as the road between Ham and Kingston gates is too narrow to allow an overtaking car to pass a bike – even close pass – and avoid any oncoming vehicle. Impatient drivers frequently pull fast overtakes and dive back in far too early to leave a rider a safe braking distance if they (the car driver) suddenly were to encounter a hazard ahead. Obviously pure supposition on my part in this case but having had it happen to me plenty of times (fortunately without a hazard forcing the car to brake) I can see how it could have happened here.— Captain Badger
Yes, this is a possibility, but we would be speculating. If it is the case, hopefully the rider was filming.
I mean that’s crap cycling.
I mean that’s crap cycling.
And people slapping cars? That’s always going to end in trouble. Car v bike is only ever going to end badly for the cyclist. I’ve never slapped a car in 40 years.
Shout if you want to but at least have both hands on the bars.
I wish I hadn’t read that
I wish I hadn’t read that Twitter feed
Criminal damage
Dangerous cycling
Presumably 1000s of drivers are arrested everyday for the collisions which occur between vehicles.
Ban all bikes from the park
Ban all bikes from the park because they are dangerous weapon.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MPSRoyal_Parks/status/1362347460845318147?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1362347460845318147%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Froad.cc%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fcycling-live-blog-18-february-2021-281009
That being the case then,
That being the case then, cars must the nuclear bomb of all weapons!
Accidents happen, we don’t live in a perfect world. We just have to remember when we get on a bike or into a care, that our first duty is to drive/ride safely and take into account others safety aswell. We all have a right to be on the road and must respect others rights whilst on the road.
Wishing the cyclist a speedy recovery and he’s back on his bike sooner rather than later
Sadly we will lose if trying
Sadly we will lose if trying to be confrontational with 2 tonne machines. Best to keep a wide berth and internalise that rage.
Great learning experience but so very sad to sustain the injuries.
Richmond park is a madhouse, frequented with irate drivers and cyclists who perhaps thing they’re a bit bigger than their lycra would suggest. I avoid like the plague and leave the chest banging and competitive park pootles to others. It must be incredibly frustrating for those with no choice having to take that on.
Ihatecheese wrote:
So you witnessed this incident and know that it comes from the cyclist trying to be confrontational with the car driver, not the other way round or that the car driver made a serious mistake?
No, Mr. Black and White, he
No, Mr. Black and White, he didn’t say that, as you well know.
Jayz, you are so certain in everything you say, aren’t you, even when you clearly know nothing or even misrepresent, as you so often do.
Read what he says. Understand. And then – STFU.
.
.
There is insufficient
There is insufficient information to be definitive, so we can only hope the Police complete a proper investigation. After all stopping for a dog or livestock is considered reasonable, however; as unpalatable as it is, stopping for smaller animals and putting other road users at risk is not.
Grahamd wrote:
Slowing so as to avoid a collision is perfectly reasonable. It is the following road user’s responsibility not to crash.
Btw,a goose hit at speed will cause similar damage to your vehicle as a small child….
We clearly view this
We clearly view this differently. Not all acccounts initially given to the police stand up to scrutiny so I remain sceptical about accepting a drivers comments about slowing. Whilst I agree with the principal of the following vehicle responsibility, there are circumstances where this is not possible as I have found to my own cost, being the victim of being passed by a car that stopped immediately afterwards forcing me into evasive action which involved a significant crash. So I will reserve judgement.
Irrespective of the damage of hitting a goose at less than 20 mph would cause to a car, it is invariably less than the risk of causing an incident like this.
Grahamd wrote:
I don’t actually think we do. In the situation that you describe I wouldn’t class the rider as following, and I’m sorry to hear about your experience.
However, I am taking the drivers account at face value in light of no further evidence, and in that scenario the rider would be at fault. Hopefully the rider was filming if the driver’s account is suspect, as the current presumed liability approach in these situations would put the rider in the wrong. It is perfectly possible for a rider to rear end a car, as seen in the clip I attached to a reply to brooksby later in this thread.
As far as not slowing in this situation, that is nonsense. A hazard may be perceived and reacted to before full appreciation of what the hazard actually is is completed. And rightly so – to deliberately not apply the brakes and accept a collision because you are not sure that the hazard is a child instead of, say, a sack of potatoes is shit driving – you would be putting the life of a 3rd party below that of the inconvenience to the person behind you (or the worry of scratching your car). Injury to the person behind you in this situation is solely that person’s concern (notwithstanding cash for crash, left hooks, brake checks etc). That is exactly why you leave adequate stopping distance to the vehicle you are following, because YOU don’t know (or actually need to know) why the vehicle you are following is slowing or stopping.
Grahamd wrote:
I always thought slowing or stopping to avoid killing an animal is OK, but swerving to avoid is not.
I’d be interested in your definition of smaller animal also. Arguably squirrel pigeon, rabbit etc would be unlikely to damagae a vehicle bu a full size goose (or several geese) would easily be equivalent to a small or medium sized dog.
There also seem some doubts about whether geese ever cross the road, but if the driver was making things up, why would he not say dog, or deer or even child?
there is only one question here really, has the driver just overtaken the cyclist and pulled into their safe stopping space?
wycombewheeler wrote:
But the question on all of our lips is why?
The grass is often greener.
The grass is often greener.
I slowed to a stop a few weeks before the holidays on my morning commute that took me through a village green, between the pond area and the cricket ground, for a line of Canada geese.
ktache wrote:
Bloody immigrants.
Captain Badger wrote:
Chicken’s day off
Clearly the geese should be
Clearly the geese should be well and truly plucked.
‘He brake tested me, man.’ –
‘He brake tested me, man.’ – Sir Lewis Hamilton
We need to see the telemetry.
Anyone in doubt of the utter
Anyone in doubt of the utter stupidity of some drivers in Richmond park –
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-587-one-cyclists-2021-compilation-289129#block-node-comment-block-node-comments
Whilst there are many
Whilst there are many situations where this *could* have been the driver’s fault, and putting to one side the issue of motor vehicles in the Park, we should not jump to conclusions and demonise the driver just because of their choice of vehicle. That’s what many do to us cyclists, but we should rise above that. This could easily have been a mistake on the cyclist’s part — we’re not all infallible all the time.
This is why third party insurance is important to have — I’m very glad of my Cycling UK coverage in case something like this happens to me or a family member. If this does turn out to be the cyclist’s fault, they’ll be liable for the damage to the car.
Get off social media, Troon –
Get off social media, Troon – there’s no place for that sort of level-headed lack of prejudice here.
I mean, just because you don’t have all the facts, that’s no reason not to jump to a conclusion.
*driver slowed down to let
*driver slowed down to let some geese cross the road, according to police*
Cops have already jumped to conclusion, having only reported on what is clearly the driver’s version, making it appear victim’s fault.
And by neglecting the injured cyclist’s account and make a fair and accurate judgement, there may have been intent on the part of the cops.
It’s not unheard of corrupt anti-cylist cops taking the drivers side and inappropriately providing them with an excuse/s and free defence despite their guilt of dangerous driving.
I blame the goose-focussed
I blame the goose-focussed media for force-feeding the police (and the general public) unhealthy tidbits of news about cyclists scaring pedestrians and generally being a nuisance. Even though you’d think what’s sauce for the goose would be sauce for the gander. It’s bigger than that though – none of us wants to kill the motor vehicles which lay the golden eggs.
What a load of old foie gras
What a load of old foie gras
Projectcyclingfitness wrote:
Interesting that you call the rider a victim here, when it is not yet proven what happened.
It may well be that video evidence from the cyclist emrges showing an extreme brake chack and no hint of geese. But generally the onus is on following vehicles (including bikes) not to hit the back of vehicles in front.
Remeber it is not beyond the realms of possibility for a child or animal to enter the road causing the driver in front to brake hard. So UNLESS the car driver has brake tested immediately after overtaking, this looks like one being determined in favour of the driver.
I hope the cyclist has 3rd party insurance.
I once had a car overtake on
I once had a car overtake on a fast downhill stretch then slam on the brakes right in front of me because of oncoming traffic on a width restricted bridge (which they had obviously failed to plan ahead for). I almost stopped in time but just went over the handlebar as I stopped and fell into the rear screen l, shattering it. I only hit the screen at what felt like walking pace but it was enough to shatter it, maybe because I landed on the wiper blade pivot.
Over 30 years I’ve seen many cars driven into the back of other cars due to bad driving but I don’t recall ever seeing a cyclist run into the back of car due to poor cycling.
It seems highly unlikely that the cyclist was at fault.
As much as I hate to admit it
As much as I hate to admit it, I did once cycle into the back of a car through my own sheer stupidity. On a commute home I assumed the car would behave the same way as every other one does at a particular junction, when it didn’t I was carrying too much speed to stop in time. Thankfully only a gentle bump, but a very embarressed and apologetic me learning a lesson not to assume ANYTHING about anyone else’s intentions when riding.
I almost went into the back
I almost went into the back of a bus the other month. My fault but going up a 4% and put some power on and was looking down and not in front so never noticed the bus has suddenly stopped at a stop, (camera later showed a late indication and brake for the bus stop but still my fault for not looking). Managed to brake hard and aimed for pavement rather then back of bus, closest I ever came to a brilliant CycloCross dismount in the end.
Yes, done that too.
Yes, done that too.
I wasn’t quite as stupid as this bloke though…. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA
Duncann wrote:
I did that!
I was 14 at the time, cycling to school and it was pouring with rain, so when I got to a road with double yellow lines I put my head down and went for it. When I glanced up there was a parked car a few feet away.
Cost me a trip to hospital, and new forks and front wheel. No idea what the damage to the car was.
One cannot help but wonder
One cannot help but wonder about the wording of the police report here given the physics. If the driver merely “slowed” for the geese rather than braked hard and stopped, the gap between the motor vehicle and the cyclist would also close “slowly.” Unless the cyclist was asleep at the bars, a possibility but a remote one, it would seem difficult in this situation to maintain enough speed to hit the car with the force required to go over the truck and smash the rear glass. Being unfamiliar with Richmond Park, however, I will confess to a lack of knowledge of how many people ride fixies there, and that might explain everything.
Geese…. Crossing the road..
Geese…. Crossing the road… In Richmond Park.
They tend to stay around the ponds. I live next to the park and spend quite a lot of time there. I’ve never seen geese by or crossing the main road.
Plenty of deer though.
Good grief. I’ve just come
Good grief. I’ve just come back from a rather slovenly xmas break to be confronted by the biggest load of written effluence I’ve ever had to read through in this comments section!
If you crash into the back of the vehicle in front of you, regardless of your form of transport, *you are at fault* because you are travelling too close. No ifs, no buts. Case closed.
What a thoroughly unpleasant thing to happen to the poor driver, I hope their nerves weren’t shaken too much. I also hope the cyclist does the right thing and comes forward to replace the rear window at the very least, with a lovely bouquet of flowers or similar as a apology for the emotional distress they caused.
I’m going to implement my New
I’m going to implement my New Year resolution early this year. It’s a far too belated one, I realise, but from now on I’m not going to respond to anything this sad little man says, however hard he trolls. Apart from the fact that he’s just so boring and predictable, I’ve realised that by responding to him and giving him the acknowledgement he so desperately craves we may be guilty of giving him verification and so retarding the process of helping him on the road to seeking the help he so desperately needs to overcome the psychological trauma of not being chosen as a prefect at school or whatever it is that’s made him quite such an inadequate, attention seeking individual.
I don’t presume to tell others how to behave but would welcome anyone who would like to join me in this. The site has been such a much nicer place to be since he’s been away, the second he’s back he starts dragging the whole thing down again. I don’t suppose he’ll quit immediately but the less attention we pay him (again, I realise that I’ve realised it far too belatedly) the sooner he’ll go off and find somewhere else to troll.
I will only ever reply to the
I will only ever reply to the troll when its behaviour is execrable, and then only with the appropriate sticker.
I think Rendel has it better.
I think Rendel has it better. No response at all, not even the sticker. If every one of his “written effluence” just has nothing on them afterwards, he will go back under the bridge or will escalate his postings in enough of a way to force a response from the site operators. Either way full ignores should be the order of the day to his posts from now on.
This /
This /
.
.
Usually yes thats true
Usually yes thats true driving into the back of someone is your fault because you muts have been too close to stop in time.
But if they have just overtaken you and braked or pulled out in front of you and braked they could easily be inside your stopping distance.
nicmason wrote:
Thanks for arguing Devil’s advocate Nic, but I think we can both agree that if that was the case here, the cyclist wouldn’t have gone through the back window, they’d have been positioned to the left of the car.
What a tsunami of drivel.
What a tsunami of drivel.
However, the following appear clear.
1. Incomplete information supplied by the police
2. None of us was there
3. There seems to be an inexhasutible supply of muppets who ignore 1 and 2 above.
4. Driving and riding with forethought in resepect of the potential consequence of actions/inaction decrease the chance of being involved in an incident.
Do you drive a dark grey BMW,
Do you drive a dark grey Merc, by any chance?
brooksby wrote:
Yeah, but it doesn’t have a back window
Well, there is certainly a
Well, there is certainly a lot of drivel on twitter about it.
Clearly on a cycling site, you are going to get comments about the incident framed by people’s experience of the park or the various videos available of driving behaviours in the park.
No mention of rabid squirrels though.
hirsute wrote:
I blame the beetles: https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2021/06/17/richmond-park-sick-dead-squirrels/
(Maybe not the same Richmond Park, though)
Anyhow, squirrels are very unlikely to get or carry rabies.
IIRC they can carry leprosy,
IIRC they can carry leprosy, though…
brooksby wrote:
Are you sure you’re not thinking of leprechauns?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Let it be, HP
Captain Badger wrote:
That welsh one was rabid !!
That welsh one was rabid !!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59819349
hirsute wrote:
Only figuratively – they gave one of its victims a tetanus shot. Maybe you’re thinking of Welsh Rarebit?
I blame Jeremy Corbyn.
I blame Jeremy Corbyn.
This one car, a blue BMW,
This one car, a blue BMW, went past me and was really close
Of course it was!