Smidsy

Here's how many drivers think:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76073

The driver emerges from the minor road and hits a cyclist, who happens to be a policeman, wearing hi-vis and with a light, who is riding along the main road:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=cb6+3ex&hl=en&ll=52.398238,0.256698&spn=0.001411,0.004128&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=11.454011,33.815918&hnear=CB6+3EX,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.398292,0.256592&panoid=KoeBkqzKNXQm7vldEWgh9A&cbp=12,133.73,,0,12.51

He reckons

"it is hard to see cyclists in the dark"

"To me this is just an unfortunate accident where we were both unlucky."

noting

"Eventually after a few minutes we established that he was unhurt, his bike was undamaged, and my car had a scuff on the wing mirror. "

He adds

" It frustrates me that I would be automatically considered guilty because I didn't see the cyclist. As far as I am concerned, seeing cyclists in the dark is often difficult and the human eye (and brain) aren't perfect. Accidents can happen even if a driver takes the actions of an average competent driver, and it seems unfair to brand these people criminals. And I am unhappy with how the police have handled this case, even though they may not have contravened any regulations (maybe I'll complain)."

In other words if you as a driver run over a cyclist, then it's definitely not your fault, and if he complains he's a bent copper, and it's so fucking unfair that he has to do an awareness course to improve his shit driving, having knocked someone off who had right of way, and not even getting 3 points on his licence.

And obviously the fact that his wing mirror was scuffed (probably previously, but never mind) means that both parties were 'unlucky'.

To be fair the majority of responses disagree and find the driver at fault.

The comments are excellent. Informed, mature, sensible and correct.

Quite a few other posters are pointing out he's not a very good driver.

curse jackc's nimble fingers.

Looking at the Google street view of that junction the cycle lane is a great example of terrible infrastructure, placing the cyclist hard up against the give-way lines in the sort of position where drivers might not look or register anything as they sweep their head and making this sort of collision more likely. Even allowing for the fact that the lane's presence should make drivers more cautious.
Once past the junction the lane disappears forcing cyclists back out in to the lane just a few yards before a pinch point.

Agree with Will. If there's a cycle lane across a junction like that, it should be made wide enough to encourage cyclists to be much further into the lane, and prevent (or at least dissuade) drivers from overtaking. Examples like this do the complete opposite.

At least the comments on that thread are reassuring, I was expecting something completely different.

Interesting article by Sparky:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/recreational-cycling/10018541/One-in-five-cyclists-invisible-to-drivers.html

Whether or not this research is very meaningful, it is certainly important to take the primary position where required by your risk assessment, partly in order to increase your chances of being seen.

Sparky puts the term 'jaywalker' in quotes for a good reason; it's an Americanism not applicable in the UK, as the offence of 'jaywalking' doesn't exist here.

.