Cycling in and around Birmingham England

Peter Hitchens on cycling

The columnist Peter Hitchens talks about being hit by a car while on his bike:

On Sunday morning a woman rushed out of a side road in a quiet Oxford suburb, violently knocked me off my bicycle and mangled the machine I was riding.

He continues...

Now, like most experienced cyclists, I treat all cars, vans, lorries and all drivers with hostile suspicion. It is the only safe thing to do. You must assume that they are either asleep, sending texts, yammering illegally on their phones, drunk, drugged or homicidal. Many of them are not any of these things, but enough of them are to make this the only sensible attitude to take.

It goes on:

Now, if an individual had attacked me in this way without a car, then it would have been a shocking assault that would have ended in court. But as my attacker was car-borne, it’s no such thing. Why is this so? Why are car-borne assaults of this kind deemed so trivial and understandable? Why can people knock you flying, mangle your property, and then think it reasonable, if they were in a car at the time, to say they were terribly sorry, they don’t know how it happened, they’ve never had an accident before, etc , etc, etc.

I have to say I agree. Imagine if any driver who hit a cyclist was summarily executed. Under this policy, drivers would look very carefully at the road. But because it is someone else who risks being killed, there is no deterrent in a society that is setup to stop us loving our neighbours.

To fix this situation anytime soon would require some pretty fundamental changes. Banning cars from residential areas or getting rid of seat belts, car roofs, car radios and all other forms of in-car entertainment. So drivers have to rejoin society and see what is going on in front of them. What do you think?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon on January 27, 2012 at 10:27

To be fair, we have to consider intent. In most cases (and I'm assuming it was so for the woman that hit him) they do so through carelessness (which of course should be punished), however if "an individual had attacked me in this way without a car" it would have been an intentional act. The latter should, in my mind, carry a higher penalty because of the intention to harm. That is not to say that I condone careless driving - quite the contrary, I think that it should warrant serious punishment (more than it often gets now), it's just that his comparison doesn't really work.

Regarding your second paragraph, I have to agree that re-humanising the driving experience would bring untold benefits to society as a whole, not just cyclists.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CKS on January 27, 2012 at 12:43

Agreed - when I'm driving I sometimes feel like I'm playing a video game.

Simon said:

Regarding your second paragraph, I have to agree that re-humanising the driving experience would bring untold benefits to society as a whole, not just cyclists.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by doug salmon on January 27, 2012 at 15:01

UK law effectively assumes the cyclist (or pedestrian) is at fault if injured by a vehicle, unless convincing proof otherwise.

Other countries reverse this; a motorist is presumed at fault if a pedestrian or cyclist is injured, unless the driver can prove otherwise.

Suspect changing UK law would result in safer driving.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on January 27, 2012 at 16:02

Shared Space has been shown to reduce accidents and is particularly applicable to residential roads. It works by making drivers feel insecure and has the additional advantage of being very practical. For the benefit of Daily Mail readers, I should perhaps add that this nasty foreign idea is just a development of Play Streets, which they can find detailed in their copy of the Highway Code (ie one that doesn't have the price on the back in nasty foreign decimal currency).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CKS on January 27, 2012 at 16:38

Not a good idea with our 'no win, no fee' compensation culture - we'd have people diving over the bonnets of slow moving vehicles.

doug salmon said:

UK law effectively assumes the cyclist (or pedestrian) is at fault if injured by a vehicle, unless convincing proof otherwise.

Other countries reverse this; a motorist is presumed at fault if a pedestrian or cyclist is injured, unless the driver can prove otherwise.

Suspect changing UK law would result in safer driving.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andy White on January 27, 2012 at 17:26

For many years I have argued that all motor vehicles should be built with a steel spike extending from the steering wheel to just in front of the driver's chest.

That would concentrate the mind and ensure that there would be no repeat offenders!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard D on January 27, 2012 at 17:53

I have been saying the same thing. Get rid of air bags, they only make the morons feel safer, and replace with spikes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil W Bloke on January 27, 2012 at 22:41

Hmm. Same thing happened to me 3 years ago.

Cycling at night up Cartland Road, I saw the car coming from Pineapple Road on my left pull up and wait. So on I carried. Next thing I know, I'm watching my front wheel folding under the front of the car and thinking to myself, "This is really going to bloody hurt."

Next thing I'm aware of was being in the back of an ambulance with a copper sitting opposite me who is trying to get a statement from me. Poor bloke, all he was getting from me was "Where's my bike?" "Breathalyse him, breathalyse him, where's my bike?" <repeat>

(Actually it wasn't a him - it was a her)

My point is, at no point did I feel that the driver deliberately assaulted me. Yes, she made a dreadful mistake. Yes she failed to show consideration, attentiveness and due care and attention. And that is what they nicked her for. I was happy with that.

That has cost her, and I assume it has cost her heavily on her insurance premiums for ever. Hopefully, she'll think on.

Imagine if she'd killed me. It would not have been murder. It would have been manslaughter.

Unfortunately though, they always seem to get away with the ridiculous charge of "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving" Now that, I do have a problem with. That is something that seems to say that death by driving is much less severe than causing death byany other means. That is crazy and we need to get rid of that let off charge as soon as possible.

Manslaughter is manslaughter. Doing it by car does not change that.

By the way, my most favourite witness statement was (on asking about my lights) "He looked like a fairground coming up the road"

The whole episode was almost worth it just for that quote. :-)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andy White on January 27, 2012 at 23:02

If only they did get charged with that. It's usually 'causing death by careless driving' - a much lesser offence. Or even, 'accidental death' !!!!!!

Basil W Bloke said:

Unfortunately though, they always seem to get away with the ridiculous charge of "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving" Now that, I do have a problem with. That is something that seems to say that death by driving is much less severe than causing death byany other means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zeth on January 28, 2012 at 1:46

Regarding the comment by Doug Salmon above, another quote, this time from The Cycling Lawyer:

It strikes me that there is a hierarchy of deaths ... My own explanation for this is that our society is car dominant. Deaths in a factory or building site or an unnatural death whilst detained by the State are a disgrace and should not happen: deaths on the road, well that's the inevitable price we pay for enjoying our motor vehicles. The unnatural violent death of any individual is equally important. I wish we could move up the list of priorities at least those vulnerable road users who pay the ultimate price for taking up the Government's exhortations to walk or cycle.

So when Basil W Bloke says "my point is, at no point did I feel that the driver deliberately assaulted me." Does the intention really matter? An assault is an assault. A death is a death.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on January 28, 2012 at 2:47

That is a hell of a pro-bike, anti-car rant, in the Daily Mail of all places, and the comments thread has readers suggesting more traffic police and renewing driving licenses every 10 years. Am I dreaming?

I've thankfully only been hit twice - although come close many many times, of course - and both times the driver was not paying attention, and pulled out into my path.

The press contribute a lot to presenting cyclists as always in the wrong - if Peter Hitchens' accident had been reported in the Daily Mail (or any other paper), it would have read "Peter Hitchens collided with a car on Sunday morning." Perhaps this is because they assume the cyclist has no insurance company with a stake in denying liability?