Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer will reportedly face no action by The Metropolitan Police Service following an incident in October when he knocked a cyclist from his bike when driving in Kentish Town, north London.
A spokesperson for the force said that the decision to close the case came after a detailed investigation and that “both parties have been informed,” reports The Sun.
Starmer had reportedly been running late for an appointment with his tailor when he struck the cyclist, whom witnesses said was a Deliveroo food delivery rider.
> Sir Keir Starmer was ‘making U-turn’ when he hit cyclist, says witness
One said: “The cyclist hit the car from the driver’s side. The side door was damaged and it was scuffed. When I went over to see what happened I heard the cyclist say, ‘How did you not see me?’”
The witnesses said that Starmer, who is MP for St Pancras & Holborn, claimed to have missed his turning and parked up nearby.
“He looked like he just came back from the gym and was wearing a black bomber jacket. I then went to finish taking the shopping inside and within ten minutes he was gone,” the witness added.
“The cyclist was nearly in tears, holding his left arm in pain outside of the bed and breakfast hotel. He looked angry and very annoyed.”
Starmer exchanged details at the scene with the cyclist, who needed hospital treatment for his injuries.
His office claimed that he had spoken to a passing British Transport Police officer after the incident happened, although the force subsequently clarified: “It was not a police officer, it was an off-duty member of BTP staff that provided their details as a witness to the collision. It was a PCSO.”
The leader of the opposition, who is a former Director of Public Prosecutions, subsequently attended Kentish Town Police Station to be interviewed about the incident, which happened on a Sunday lunchtime.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
26 thoughts on “No action to be taken against Sir Keir Starmer for knocking cyclist off bike”
Im trying to figure out the
Im trying to figure out the mechanics of this. If Starmer was in the middle of a U-turn and the cyclist hit the drivers side – doesnt it mean that either the cyclist was coming up from behind and that Starmer pulled out from stationary or a more left most lane right in front of him?
Its perhaps unkind but I’d love to know if this was the only deliveroo driver in London that doesnt have an e-bike mod.
Once again, surely a simple
Once again, surely a simple charge of “driving without due care and attention” would be appropriate?
He literally hit a cyclist. If this had happened on a driving test it would be an instant fail, so why are drivers with licenses held to a lower standard?!
are you going to apply this
are you going to apply this to every collision? One driver always at fault, never charged with careless driving.
Before that I’d like to see a dangerous driving charge for any driver knocking down road furniture on the pavement. Clearly out of control to mount the paveent with enough force to destoy traffic signs, and only chance that there wasn’t a pedestrian there.
I don’t believe this is the case.
alexb wrote:
Did he, though? The article is written as though that’s established, but the one witness that’s quoted says “The cyclist hit the car”.
Without more information, it doesn’t seem like we can tell whether he was being careless about performing the manoeuvre without paying sufficient attention to what was around him, or whether the rider of the bike wasn’t paying enough attention / taking enough care when approaching a vehicle that was already manoeuvring ahead of them, or a combination of the two.
alexb wrote:
Don’t be silly, they save that for the really serious stuff. the cyclist would have had to die for a charge of that magnitude.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I’d presumed that, if he was U-turning, then he’d swung his car over left as far as he could before turning right and into the U?
Thats kinda my point. Its
Thats kinda my point. Its entirely possible this was the cyclists fault, if Starmer was moving and signalling correctly the cyclist actually ran into the side of him because they werent paying attention. Its potentially exactly the same as when you fail to notice someone braking and run into the back of them.
If your maneouvre forces
If your maneouvre forces other traffic to alter speed or stop to avoid a collision, then you’re doing it wrong. (Not counting just braking as a maneouvre)
Come again? Doing a three
Come again? Doing a three point turn can often cause other traffic to alter speed and stop; I think the general rule is that if you are the “other” traffic you allow the driver to complete their manouvre; providing it is safe to begin the manouvre of course. However the number of arseholes who think it’s okay to not read the road ahead wether in a motorised vehicle or on a bike is quite staggering. All we know about this incident is there was a collision; to blame either party is “making it up as you go along”.
if you begin a 3 point turn
if you begin a 3 point turn and cause other vehicles to slow, then you are doing it wrong. if they come upon you half way through it’s a different matter.
Do we think it is more likyl that a cylist would ride into the side of a car mid maneouvre, or that a driver starts a maneouvre having failed to see the bike? highway code even instructs checking over the shoulder for cyclists and not relying on the mirror for this reason.
https://mocktheorytest.com/highway-code-questions/car/alertness/what-should-you-do-before-making-a-u-turn-AB2001/
If it was the cyclist’s fault
If it was the cyclist’s fault why was Starmer the one to have to attend the police station?
Hmm, Leader of the Opposition
Hmm, Leader of the Opposition, ex DPP….No I can’t think of a reason.
He attended in order to
He attended in order to report the accident. A legal requirement of the driver of a motor vehicle.
Cyclists, not being the driver of… do not have this legal requirement.
And no, I don’t think that e-bikes are motor vehicles, tho’ I could be wrong.
He did not attend to report
He did not attend to report the accident. He attended for a police interview. That will be because the cyclist reported it.
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/27/keir-starmer-contacted-by-police-after-collision-with-cyclist-in-london
paragraphs 3, 8 and 14 all indicate that he attended in order to report the RTC.
Generally speaking, the way
Generally speaking, the way (you would hope) the police work is to talk to everyone involved before deciding who, if anyone, was at fault on the basis of the available evidence, rather than deciding who was at fault first and then deciding who to interview off the back of that.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
you’re supposed to check the road is clear before begining such a maneouvre, not force others to stop. if you pulled that on the test it wold be a fail. Signalling does not give priority.
I would say the only way it would be the cyclist fault is if Starmer was stationary waiting for ocoming traffic to clear to complete the turn, but even then he shouldn’t start the turn is the road is not clear.
Main roads are generally not suitable for U turns
Main roads, being generally
Main roads, being generally wider, are perfect for U-turns; providing the road is clear.
What if TLotO did a U-turn (or any kind of reciprocal turn) on the main road opposite a junction and the cyclist entered the main road from the side road, ignoring stop/giveway markings and struck the car.
Who’s at fault then?
zero_trooper wrote:
The trouble is this is rarely the case, and even more so in London. Are you suggesting a junction with a side road is a suitable locartion for a u turn? Seems like adding more complication to all. And if the cyclist has come of of a side road and hot a car doing a u turn, they would be hitting the passenger door, not driver door.
No, I’m not suggesting that
No, I’m not suggesting that doing a U-turn opposite a junction is a good idea (tho’ bizarrely I was once cleaned up by a car doing a U-turn at a junction). I was merely suggesting how the cyclist may have been at fault.
However, good point about which side of the car they would have struck.
Absolutely pathetic.
Absolutely pathetic.
Alessandro wrote:
On what basis? No-one actually seems to know exactly what happened?
That’s why the discussion in this forum. No-one seems to know.
Running late may imply speeding. Then a manoeuvre; three-point turn or U-turn? Followed by a collision. The bike apparently struck the car, tho’ the cyclist apparently thought that the driver must have seen them.
EDIT: the third paragraph says that he (Starmer) struck the cyclist. The fourth paragraph says that the cyclist struck the car. Possibly poor reporting (by the Sun) but, the witnesses don’t seem to agree.
Clear as mud.
Unfortunatey been a victim of
Unfortunatey been a victim of this myself. Police just not interested.
“…victim of this myself.”
“…victim of this myself.”
Mowed down by the leader of the Opposition???
When one is running late for
When one is running late for a tailor’s appointment and misses one’s turning, one isn’t likely to check for peasants on 2 wheels…
I’m certainly not going to
I’m certainly not going to try and defend Starmer here but there seems to be a lot condemnation of him going on without the facts upon which to base it.