- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Video: Van driver pulls out into cyclist – “No requirement to report” says police website
In this incident, which took place earlier today at the junction of Gas Lane, Anvil Street and Oxford Street in Bristol, a van driver pulls out of a side road straight across the path of a cyclist. Attempts to report the collision to police subsequently met with mixed results.
Writing to road.cc Peter said: “There I was, minding my own business and cycling to the train station (on my way to important squirrel-related business) and a van driver decided to not stop at the side road and instead go straight across my path.
“He was going slowly, so I thought he was going to stop at the 'give way' double broken white lines as I was in primary position and clearly (I thought) visible.
“Initially I thought he was going to be turning left, which would have left me just enough room to avoid the van, but no, he was trying to go straight across the road.
“That didn't leave me with enough room to either stop or avoid him, so instead I bumped into the side of his van (well, his work van).”
As you can see in the video, the driver stopped and was immediately apologetic.
Peter said: “We had a brief chat where he checked that I was unhurt and I had a quick look at my bike – always a good ploy to calm down from the adrenaline rush and give yourself a bit of time to figure out what just happened.
“I'd hit the van mainly with my shoulder and hand and neither felt injured, so after verifying there was no damage to my bike (I don't think it actually hit), we went our separate ways.”
Peter later tried to submit the footageto Avon & Somerset Police so they could record it for statistical reasons and to see if they considered it careless driving.
After filling out a multiple choice form on the website, he was informed there was “no requirement to report.”
The website stated: “Based on the answers you have provided, there is no requirement for you to report this to the police.”
Peter was nevertheless keen for it to be logged in police stats as he believes that particular junction is problematic.
He subsequently found that the close pass reporting feature of the very same website allowed him to submit the footage.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- andystow 33 min 18 sec ago
I've seen one on the back of a tandem, where it makes a lot of sense. https://www.tandemclassifieds.com/tandem_bikes_for_sale.php?bike=2023_10...
- Shades 44 min 4 sec ago
The real cost of motoring has gone down massively over the last 50 years; I'm sure the die hard motorists would tell you otherwise. If I'm wrong...
- eburtthebike 50 min 58 sec ago
Newsworthy? Not a chance! According to the msm, the only way to treat illnesses is with expensive drugs: this won't get a mention.
- wtjs 53 min 37 sec ago
Damn these vigilante cyclists! If only I hadn't been cycling confrontationally and there hadn't been a large white (they've changed round here)...
- purple2585 1 hour 7 min ago
Like the perceived ride feel, I think that the review is a bit harsh....
- james-o 1 hour 11 min ago
"What’s interesting about Orro is that the bikes are designed and assembled In Britain."...
- Hirsute 1 hour 29 min ago
Should have worn hi viz and a helmet with a strap !
- Steve K 1 hour 54 min ago
I've now bought one. Too early to give a proper review, but so far I'm happy with it.
- stonojnr 2 hours 6 min ago
I actually thought they'd got out of the game years back when they stopped sponsoring cycle teams claiming UCI rules were too restrictive....
- timmyotool 2 hours 9 min ago
Galibier do a fantastic set of photochromic sunglasses for about £60. Can't see myself every spending Oakley money again.
Add new comment
27 comments
Dear National Windscreens, thank you for your reply, I was wondering why your drivers have to drive one of your liveried vehicles into a cyclist before they start operating a rather large vehicle with "the utmost care"? Shouldn't they be doing that at all times anyway? I am also wondering what additional training you provide to your windscreen replacement engineers, as to the very important driving part of their job?
I just got a good response from National Windscreens:
Edit: to clarify, I said that their driver was courteous and apologetic when I first replied to National Windscreens.
I've just had a quick chat with a member of the dashcam team (he was checking that I was definitely uninjured and bike undamaged) and they are seeking to prosecute the driver. He agreed that the road markings are quite faded there and maybe having an explicit stop sign could make it clearer (if the fading is due to heavy construction traffic, then it would be the construction companies that should make good any damage to the road) or at least prosecutions would be more clear-cut.
Also I have been contacted by National Windscreens as someone has made a complaint on their website referencing this thread. To my mind, the driver was immediately apologetic and was concerned and courteous, so I don't agree with that complaint (and as the police are dealing with it, it's superfluous). Also, the complaint used homophobic language which is entirely unnecessary.
Blame the council for chopping down the trees next to the track. If they hadn't the sun would have been blocked.
A bit more serious though, I decided to Streetview history the junction when I noticed the non existant give way markings were the same a year ago as today. (Sad I know).
The road was relaid in 2008 and within the year the markings were badly faded and non existant by 2012. They looked to have been redone after some more road repair in 2014 but already fading then and now gone totally as shown by the latest streetview and your video. Either they are using the cheapest paint possible or there is so much traffic using that rat run that they need to definitely look at the road calming and junction layout.
And as you mention the seemingly main through route (especially with left turn closed for about a year) isn't even a road as such and is probably as much a danger for pedestrians as anything else. It would be interesting the statisitics from the junction for all accidents.
Interesting that the cyclist says 'he believes that particular junction is problematic'. While most of the comments here seem to focus on the extent to which the van driver was to blame and the police's (lack of) response, it is always interesting -- and often more useful -- to consider the junction design and whether it 'designs' out conflict or creates risk. 'More useful' because the comments consider one individual incident after it happened; thinking about the design affects all vehicle interactions at the site and may enable it to be improved and thus reduce collisions in future.
I don't know this place, but I wonder whether the fact that the cyclist emerged from a tunnel (or long bridge, or whatever) while the van driver was in bright sunlight made the cyclist harder to see, shortening the time the driver had to register his presence. If so, perhaps bright daytime lighting in the tunnel would help. I wonder too about those vehicles parked inside the tunnel. They will have added to the visual complexity of the scene and perhaps placed the bicycle in a less expected position.
Yep good points.
I don't think that the sunshine/bridge contrast is the root problem there (though it obviously didn't help), but instead the road that the van was trying to turn into. As it's only offset a bit from the road that the van came from, it's common for vehicles (including a lot of cyclists) to try to go straight across from one to the other (I tend to encounter more of them going the opposite way to the van which is partly why I thought he was going to turn left).
To fix it, you could block cars from using that junction with Oxford St (it doesn't seem to be a proper junction as it has double yellow lines across it and a drop kerb as you can see here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4515598,-2.5772515,3a,75y,356.72h,66.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sojLePJvMxrDg4dIKGStOHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). It could also be changed to only allow cars from one direction or the other but not straight ahead though that would require a bit of landscaping.
I don't understand why no action is being taken. This was obviously careless driving, regardless of the fact the OP is a gent, not injured and took it no further at the time.
They don't take the same view with speeding etc. If you get done then you're done, regardless of whether you hurt someone at the time.
Checking directions on your mobile whilst stopped at traffic lights would get more of a penalty!
Requirement to report... Surely this relates to the requirement report a collision - as his cycle is not a motorised vehicle, he has no requirement to report the collision. The van driver is required to report the collision, if there is damage or injury to the other party and he hasn't given the other party his details.
If the cyclist considers that an offence has been commited, he's not required to report it, but there's nothing to stop him from doing so.
I've done a little bit more investigation with A&SP's website.
The accident reporting doesn't distinguish between types of vehicle at all, so if you go to https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/accidents/#/ there's a series of questions:
Did a vehicle hit someone or something? (Yes)
Is the incident happening now? (No)
Was anyone injured? (No)
Was there any damage to property, buildings or vehicles? (No or Don't Know)
Were any of the following animals killed or injured?
Horse, cattle, donkey, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog (No and why is there no squirrel option?)
Those responses lead you to the "No requirement to report" page.
So, instead, if you go to https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/vehicles-and-roads/cycling/ there's a couple of options:
How do I report a collision or injury -> takes you to the aforementioned https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/accidents/#/
How do I report a cycling near miss -> takes you to https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/accidents/#/video-footage and that option allows you to submit video footage and get a reference number. (Which I've done and will update this thread when I get a response from the Dashcam team)
Avon and Somerset Police have been told off about this sort of thing by the road safety team of Bristol City Council. Report it to the police again and say BCC road safety told you to report it for the road safety statistics.
The video's been uploaded to A&SP so once they get around to looking at it (usually 2-5 days) I'd hope they'll then include it in their stats. Is it necessary to upload it a second time?
When you told him your ok. And no damage. That's when it ended. By doing this you and the driver settled the damages. Therefore the police can do anything more. Always take drivers info. You my not feel hurt today. And your bike looks OK but tomorrow. Things could be different
From a civil side of litigation.
The criminal side has been mentioned above.
A squirrel infestation of his van is the only answer.
You reckon?
red-squirrels-together-van-red-squirrels-together-van-118267422.jpg
From experience, he just has to say (even under caution at the scene) that he didn't see you at any point until he heard a thud on the side of the van, and it'll be "on your way then sir" from Plod, who will take "no further action".
However the police try to spin it, it is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act.
The sun was in his eyes.
Interesting to hear what Nationwal Windscreesn say.
TBF you can see on the video that the sun did literally shine straight over the bridge into his eyes and probably would have either glared excessivly or at least fucked his vision to see anything in the shadowed area.
However rather then waiting the extra 2-3 seconds for his vision to clear and to be sure he decided to go so fuck him.
Hope you are ok H,P?
Isnt that the thing? If the sun is in your eyes so you can't see, why do people- and the police- think that's a defence if you then hit someone? Surely the offence is worse in those circumstances, because common sense and the Highway Code tell you to slow down and stop if you can't see. If you say that the sun was in your eyes but you carried on regardless then you ought to be treated more harshly, not less!
Yes, my sentence was intended to have 2 meanings.
Yeah, I'm absolutely fine. Not even a bruise or anything sore.
That's not a great junction to pull out of - he would have had a blind corner on his left, sun dazzle with a dark area under the bridge to the right and the possibility of a vehicle coming out of the road opposite. There's also quite a bit of traffic, with a few construction trucks knocking around that area at that time of day, so he was lucky he didn't connect with something bigger. To be fair though he was travelling slowly which is why I thought he was going to stop at the junction.
Simple answer is not to report it online, but go in personally and report it to a human. Burn a copy of the footage to CD, take it too. Just because there is "no requirement" to report it, unless they log it as a collision the statistics are wrong.
Well, when I did that for a driver who undertook me on the footpath around a blind bend as I turned right, the interest from the police was zero. Fortunately, the van had one of those "what do you think of my driving" stickers with a phone number and his employer was less than impressed with his driving.
A&S use civilian staff at the station desks, even if they're dressed a bit like an officer. Don't report this way, they are unlikely to log it correctly and won't do anything with the footage.
A&S actually have a good dashcam upload tool and the officers can be pretty good at acting on the reports (they went downhill for a bit but now rather than hitting the non-crime triage team it goes straight to a much more proactive team so results seem better), always use that. I think unfortunately Peter originally answered the questions in a way that made it sounds like it was just a near miss that scared him a little, which is why it gave him the answer it did.
I agree about using the online tool.
It wasn't so much that I answered the questions in a particular way - they're quite unambiguous (e.g. was anyone injured), but that you get different options if you navigate via the "near miss" rather than to report an actual collision. So, it's the other way round - uploading a video for a near miss seems to be allowed, whereas the actual collision route takes you to a "no requirement to report" page that doesn't allow you to progress.
That's funny, the chief constable of A&S police was on BBC Radio Bristol yesterday telling everyone to report crimes, any crime, so that the police could track the data and take action if required.