getting knocked off my bike: closure

Just over three years ago, I was knocked off my bike. The driver pulled out on me as I was turning into a side road. I sustained broken ribs, a banged head, and sundry cuts and bruises. The police took no interest in the case; indeed, the chap at the Collisions Support Unit told me that they had considered charging me....

Three years later, after assistance from a local bike-friendly law firm, I've finally got closure of a sort; yesterday a cheque arrived for just under £3000.


I'm pretty certain that the photographs I took at the scene, which contradicted the allegations made against me, made all the difference to my claim. If there is a perception that the police side with the motorist in the case of any incident involving a cyclist, then my experience did nothing to weaken that perception.

I always carry my camera anyway (the day it doesn't go out with me will be the day that something incredibly interesting will happen, of course).

But I'm also thinking of getting a helmet cam. Even though I hate helmets.

making a stand

bike stand, originally uploaded by Dru Marland.

After yesterday's blatant plugging of my Etsy shop, I feel relieved that at least I'm not as cynical as the folk who organise this 'flea market', who have locked a derelict bike to one of the bike stands on Bristol's Gloucester Road in order to provide a free billboard for their sale of tat. (note: I may well have tweaked the words a bit. Can't help them out, can we?)

the big game of cycling

Others, I am not the first,
Have willed more mischief than they durst...

Here in Cycling City, we get the occasional 'robust debate' about bicycles and cars, chiefly on the Bristol Evening Post website, a habitat that has proved congenial to all sorts of pond dwelling creatures; here, for instance, is a look at a 'discussion' that went on last year about cyclists.

A recent newcomer to this discussion was Kayla Maratty, over at the Bristol 24-7 website. In a piece entitled 'My homicidal tendencies towards cyclists aside, the tuition fees fight goes on’, she says

"Part of me would take great pleasure in mowing them down when they choose to cycle in the middle of the road or are determined to peddle all the wayup Black Boy Hill. But obviously I would never do that; I can get by just on the thought of it to restrain my road rage."

It is refreshing to see a bit of honesty about how some drivers feel about cyclists. I weighed in with some encouragement:

I find that revving the engine aggressively and then passing them so close that you ping them with your wing mirror is rather fun, and helps you feel better about yourself.
They'll probably pass *you*, two minutes later, when you get stuck in another static queue of traffic , but hey, live for the moment, I say!

(sadly, my comment was deleted. It's per-litickle kreckness gone mad I tells you)

Kayla's article was removed not long after, at her request, because she found the responses upsetting. The editor characterised the behaviour of the commentators as 'bullying'. You will be unable to make up your own mind about that, of course.

Well, it did get me thinking. And what I thought was, let's have a look at cyclist-hunting as a blood sport. Because, deep down, you know we all have a violent self that revels in meting out destruction and pain.

And the more I look, the more sense it makes. I mean, you can't hunt foxes with hounds anymore. It's far too expensive. Oh, and against the law. Sort of.

Shooting? If you want to go bagging pheasants, say, it would cost you about £30 or so per bird, and you would expect to pay £400 upwards for a day's shooting.

Stag hunting is even worse. You'd reckon to pay around £150 for a day's shooting, but, when you pay extra for every point on the stag's antler's, it'll cost a lot more; the lucky chap who shot the Emperor of Exmoor would expect to have paid £1600, but you could be charged up to £10,000.

If you decide to go freelance, as it were, and go out hunting while the gamekeepers lie a-sleeping, then it could be a lot cheaper. But if you got caught, then it would probably cost you about £2,500 per deer, with the chance of three months imprisonment per deer killed thrown in for good measure.

Let's face it, the wise money goes elsewhere. Cyclists are plentiful and easily bagged. And, like deer, they're big enough and usually intelligent enough to show anger, fear and other such emotions when they realise that they're about to be bagged. Which adds to the sport.

And how much does it cost? Well, if you knock one off and injure them, you might expect to pay, say, £10 for a quick respray of the scratched bit of the car. Though if you choose to stop and talk to the cyclist, then you may even end up getting them to pay for the damage, though you can't rely on it; chances are the cyclist won't be insured. The police tend to be sympathetic. Just remember the mantra: "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you". Works like a charm.

If you manage to kill them, then the worst case scenario is that you may find yourself charged with 'causing death by dangerous driving'. There is an outside chance that you will even be convicted, though with mitigating factors thrown in, and obviously with the cyclist being unable to put their side of the case, you may end up with a bit of community service.

You see? -a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?

some people are cyclists, some people wish they were

More Advanced Stop Zone fun in Bristol, this time on the Gloucester Road.

Chris Hutt

I was sorry to hear that Chris Hutt, cycling activist and Green Bristol blogger, has died. He offered me support and advice when I was knocked off my bike last year, and I am grateful. Thank you, Chris, and goodbye.

hunting for the pavement cyclist

If the Bristol Evening Post is to be believed (stop laughing, you at the back, please, I said 'if'...), the very fabric of our society is threatened by hordes of rabid cyclists disobeying the Highway Code like there was no tomorrow. Mere anarchy is indeed loosed upon the world.

So I went hunting for 'em.

First I went down the Gloucester Road. It was slow going, because the traffic flow was impeded, as it always is, by cars parked where they shouldn't be, like these.


Oh look! Cyclists. I wonder if they're anarchists? But damn, they're cycling on the road. And smiling for the camera. Little tinkers.


I had a good look at the sign on the other side of the road here, because there were so many cars parked here that I began to wonder if parking was actually allowed. No, it isn't.


And then I went over to Cotham Hill, which has been in the news lately after a lorry crushed a bicycle and injured the rider.


It was a normal morning. A lorry was parked up on the pavement, and pedestrians were stepping out into the traffic to get round it, as you see here.


Another lorry that had been making a similar delivery further up the hill came down, then reversed around the corner and went back up the hill because it couldn't get past the first lorry.


Pretty normal sort of day for Cotham Hill, really. The driver of that car W837YOC is to be commended for their courtesy, by putting on their hazard lights when parking where they shouldn't really park. A small gesture, but it says "This really is an emergency! If I don't get my hands on a skinny latte very soon, I won't be responsible for my actions!"


Then up Whiteladies Road. All these cars are parked on the double yellow lines on the approach to the pelican crossing.

And this is a popular place to park, higher up, so that you can dash into the bank or the Building Society.

I didn't bother photographing the cars parked on the double yellows that go with pedestrian refuges along Whiteladies Road. In fact I've only uploaded a few of the photos, because otherwise we'd be here all day.


Oh yes. Pavement cyclists? Sorry, I didn't see a single one. Unless this woman counts. She's evidently got a bicycle somewhere near by... I wonder if she parked it dangerously? What do you think?

easy journeys to Planet Stupid

I never really thought of myself as a cycling activist, mostly because I'm not a cycling activist. On the other hand, the simple act of cycling is apt to radicalise the most moderate of people, as it puts you on the receiving end of some pretty stupid and/or aggressive behaviour from drivers. And, of course, some folk seem to find the mere existence of cycling offensive, perhaps because it doesn't buy into the whole package of values and assumptions that go with car kultur ...

Be that as it may... the comments section on any newspaper website is the natural habitat for any amount of rich and strange pondlife, but I was compelled to put my wellies on and wade in last week over on the Bristol Evening Post's internet site. The Evening Post seems to have decided that a pro-car, anti-bike stance is where it ought to be, and so its stories tend to follow that bias. Hence last week's Your (sic) dangerous, rude and need educating, Bristol cyclists told, followed by a piece by Mike Ford, Even blind people can see how badly cyclists behave.

It all starts here:

Blind and partially sighted residents have called for the safety of pedestrians to be given high priority as the city plans to spend millions on projects as part of the Cycling City initiative.

They have told their MPs that near-misses have left many not confident about going out and they fear the city's status as the country's first cycling hub will only add to the problems.

..and by the time it gets into Mike Ford's hands, it has become this:

It's not my style to make or condone sweeping, generalising statements like this; but when even blind people can see how badly cyclists behave, surely it's time for cyclists to hold their hands up and admit maybe they need to change their attitudes?

Now, personally speaking, I get really annoyed by people who cycle on pavements too. But then, I have about as much in common with them as I have with the spoddy young man with the spiky gelled hair who rorted past me in his car, dangerously fast, and with that farty noise that tells you that he's spent loadsa money on an exhaust pipe that sounds aggressive, over in Clifton the other day. I have no particular desire to change my attitude to either; they're all idiots.

Maybe I should take direct action against them? I did step in once to prevent a couple of drongos from stealing something off a bike outside the University. It was definitely a high-adrenaline activity, and not one of the many people who passed us during this confrontation stopped to offer help. Still, as a goodwill gesture, I promise to stop and Have A Word with the next pavement cyclist I meet, if Bedminster Bigmouth will undertake do the same with antisocial drivers, whether they be the ones who park dangerously outside schools or on pavements, run red lights, or do any of the many things that drivers do and shouldn't; though obviously he might have a problem catching them, in which case he could always ask for some help from that mighty defender of motorists' freedom, the Association of British Drivers, which is apparently one bloke with a Fiat Panda. I think we could respect such a public-spirited gesture from these vociferous fellows putting their money where their big mouths are...

Here's a small taster of the quality of debate...




..and then there was this 'contribution' from Owen...



..."Very odd," I thought, coming as it did directly after my post. And then, shortly after, this...



Note the clever use of brackets there. "(S)he". By the way, if you were in any doubt, the incident described by Owen on Whiteladies Road was presumably a made-up story so that he could introduce the Little Britain reference.

Some people are transsexual. Get over it.

running the gauntlet

A normal morning on Cotham Hill. The usual vans parked on the double yellows. In the background, a lorry is lurching forwards and backwards, manoeuvring into the narrow entrance of the builders' yard. Pedestrians seize their moment and dash through the gap when it offers itself. Nobody is helping the driver out by waving him back, watching his blind spots. It's about 10:30; the chaps at the yard are probably having a cup of tea.

Forty eight hours earlier, just about to the minute, a cyclist and her bike were crushed under a lorry at this exact spot. It was a bigger lorry, an articulated one; it was swinging into this same entrance when it caught her. Of the comments on the Bristol Evening Post website, a lot of them seem almost to gloat that a cyclist has been badly injured, assuming that she was doing something that she shouldn't have been doing, and reckoning that she'd got what was coming to her. The general attitude is: lorries are dangerous, and the drivers can't see very much from their cabs, so keep well clear or you've got no-one to blame except yourself.

As I commented on the website,

....it's the 'elephant in the room' thing. And it's not just an elephant, it's a visually-impaired elephant. And it's not in the room, it's on the streets.

When I worked on a ro-ro ferry, lorries were not allowed to move around unless under the supervision of crew members with hi-vis gear and radios. And yet it is apparently thought perfectly acceptable that an articulated lorry should be allowed to manoeuvre through one of the busiest parts of town without any sort of control or assistance.

ghost

At the last tally, I know of three cyclists killed in Bristol this year. And ghost bikes have appeared in the city. If you haven't heard of them, ghost bikes are painted white overall and installed at the scene of a cycling death, as a memorial and a reminder that cyclists are vulnerable.

So I was a bit alarmed to spot this bike on Cotham Hill last night, as I hadn't heard of any new fatalities. But it turns out that it was put there by some students, to advertise their "Social Enterprise Project".

False alarm, then. Apparently, the bike is not white but sky blue, and symbolises 'aspiration and ethicality'. Still looks like a ghost bike to me. And, knowing the facts behind the appearance of the bike and nine others (thanks, Niall!), the thinking behind their installation seems at least muddled, and plain wrong. Fail!

getting knocked off the bike

On 30th September, I was knocked off my bike in Clifton. I was turning right into Worcester Road from College Road, and a car that was waiting to emerge from Worcester Road pulled out into me, knocking me off the bike, and injuring me.


View Larger Map



Last week I got a phone call from the Collisions Support Unit, telling me that they were not going to charge the driver with anything, as they had received a witness statement claiming that I had been going too fast, and that I was not signalling, and that I was cutting the corner. None of this is true, so I was really rather upset. I wrote back to them, as follows:

To: Collision Support Unit

Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Re; ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISION Worcester Road junction with College Road, Clifton, Bristol. Time: 12:30 Hours Date: 30^th September 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to this incident, when I was knocked from my bicycle and injured, while turning into a side road, by a car emerging from that side road.

I received a phone call from a member of your unit on Wednesday 4^th November, advising me that you did not propose to take action against the driver involved in this incident. I understand that a witness has given his opinion that I was to blame, alleging that:

1. I was riding too fast
2. I was not indicating
3. I was cutting the corner

I am very concerned by this, on the following grounds:

1. In my opinion, I was going at a safe and appropriate speed. What is ‘too fast’, and why did the witness think that I was going ‘too fast’?
2. I was indicating, precisely as described in my statement. As I was about to turn into a junction where a car was waiting to emerge, it would have been foolish of me not to signal my intentions. I am a cyclist, a car driver, and a sometime motorcyclist. I understand the importance of making my intentions clear to other road users. I always indicate before manoeuvring when riding my bicycle.
3. It would have been impossible for me to cut the corner even had I wanted to, as the Ford Galaxy that was waiting at the junction was straddling the white line at the middle of Worcester Road, the side road into which I was turning. The position of the car can be seen in the photograph which I attached to my statement.
4. I understand that the witness in question was working in a house opposite the junction. The house is set back from the road, with a courtyard at the front, and the witness’ large white van was parked in that courtyard. He came across to the scene of the collision, and spent some time talking with the driver; I was sitting on the ground in a dazed condition, and missed what was said. I question how much of the incident he actually saw, and what grounds he had for venturing his opinion that I was at fault.

I appreciate that you are busy, but I feel that I have been wronged. As it seems that I shall be denied the possibility of cross-examining the witness at a hearing, I should be most grateful if you would question him further to clarify what he actually saw, as I am sure that he would not willingly be understood to have said something which is not true.

Yours sincerely,

Drusilla Marland

...well, I heard back from the police this morning; a police officer phoned me and said that they were not going to take the matter any further, as they can't just go around interviewing people who have sent witness statements in, in case it discourages them from doing it, or something. So I (and indeed the police) will never get to ask the mystery man why he said what he said.