- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Clapham Common driver rams cyclist (via Riviera Rider on Twitter)London driver rams cyclist after traffic light filter turns green (+ video, includes swearing)
A cyclist in London who had not realised that a left-hand filter traffic signal had turned green because he was unable to see it from his position behind the advanced stop line has posted a video to Twitter of the moment he was rammed from behind by a driver.
The incident, which highlights how poor junction design can put cyclists in danger, happened where Cedars Road meets the A3 at Clapham Common North Side, and while the cyclist was shaken up, luckily he was uninjured.
Video of the incident was posted to the social network by user Riviera Rider, who said that the driver, who leant on the vehicle’s horn before then driving into the rear wheel of the bike, “was enraged that I failed to notice the green left filter arrow whilst in the ASL.”
Explaining the background to the incident, he said he was “waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away and didn’t realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that’s why he [the driver] was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
He said that “very disappointingly,” the Metropolitan Police Service had decided that there was “insufficient evidence for prosecution,” although Met Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, in a reply to the tweet, asked Riviera Rider to send him a direct message so he could look into the issue.
Background: was waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away & didn't realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that's why he was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 27, 2022
While Riviera Rider said he was looking at the traffic light ahead of him, rather than the one to the left, the image below, from Google Street View, shows how the hoods on the latter make it difficult to see any of the three main signal lights when positioned immediately behind the advanced stop line – and near impossible to see the left-hand filter arrow.
And while the left filter arrow can be seen on the video from the bar-mounted camera, it’s likely that the higher position of the rider’s head means that in any event it may well have been obscured from his point of view.
One thing that the video also highlights is how essential early start bicycle-only traffic lights are for cyclists in junctions such as this, where drivers can only turn left or right, but cyclists are permitted to ride straight on, in this case to take the cycle path across Clapham Common.
Such lights, which are nowadays installed as standard on the segregated cycling infrastructure being rolled out across London, play a vital role in minimising conflict between cyclists and motorists – particularly at locations where there is no dedicated lane for someone on a bike who wants to go straight ahead, as Riviera Rider pointed out to one Twitter user replying to him.
There was no “right” lane for me: only left/right turn lanes. The design of the junction and positon of ASL for cyclists made it hard to see the green arrow. No thought was given at design stage to cyclists going straight on at this junction.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 28, 2022
The footage was captured by a forward-facing camera, and some suggested that in circumstances such as these, a rear-facing camera may have proved more valuable in terms of evidence – and Riviera Rider has now put one on his shopping list.
Background: was waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away & didn't realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that's why he was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 27, 2022
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 1 hour 6 sec ago
In SE London, psychopath riders are the majority of people on bicycles Oh dear! another festive stealth anti-cyclist ☃️
- wtjs 1 hour 5 min ago
Well, you know the BMW drivers' saying: knock that house (hospital, social housing, care home, hospital...) down, could save 30 seconds on the trip!
- belugabob 1 hour 59 min ago
“It’s all very well to spend millions on facilities but if there’s no money for maintenance, it’s a waste of public money."...
- Spangly Shiny 2 hours 40 min ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
- Username 3 hours 45 min ago
Could Siobhán paint it red and noone would notice it?
- Spangly Shiny 18 hours 34 min ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 20 hours 55 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 21 hours 43 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 23 hours 23 min ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
- hawkinspeter 1 day 30 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
Add new comment
73 comments
If you deliberately hit someone with your car your should be automatically charged with attempted murder and never be allowed drive again. There are almost no circumstances where hitting someone with your car on purpose is the best course of action. ("almost" as concievably there could be car jacking situations where the only way to escape is to drive through the people attacking you. That doesn't apply here though.)
Anyone defending this driver and their behaviour is saying that their convenience and any car driver's convenience is more important than another human life. Those defenders should also be banned from driving.
I also know this junction very well, having driven, cycled and ridden my motorbike through it numerous times. I even go running there sometimes. It's not well laid out. It's easy to understand how the cyclist would not be aware of the feeder light. I can understand the driver's frustration (given the inadequate layout), but the person is totally in the wrong here.
I've looked at the video & conclude both parties have prior experience & it's not really responsible to post this kind of video since it just encorages more of the same really. The driver knows he is doing nothing criminal - taking your foot of the brake at a green light, using the horn when there is a green light & there is someone being inattentive. He hit the bike - insurance issue. Cyclist swore at him, so OK to drive off. This is the reality of the situation.
In somewhere like switzerland (there are more fixed penalty fines), the cyclist would be getting fines for being inattentive, wrongly positioned.. the car driver probably nothing, since the collision is an insurance issue.
Its another topic if there should be more fixed penalty charges in the UK ( this is a better way to improve road ettiquette), but for criminality I don't see any - just very poor courtesy by everyone.
bah, thats all. hope the road layout is adjusted.
What on earth do you mean? How are those things linked? Someone posted a video on road.cc + their personal space. How's that going make everyone worse? What it just might do is act as some kind of awareness-raising for the few who look here, or evidence to show this to others who think everything is fine as it is.
Driver thinks (and is right) they will get away with something - that's not the same as "not criminal" is it though? Not a lawyer but there are several charges you might consider - if you were a police force determined to do something about this kind of incident. (Which would involve some proactive police work to get more evidence, so clearly isn't the case here). Driving without due care and attention, driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. You could also consider assault (you don't have to make contact), criminal damage (depending on state of bike) etc.
The law won't hold the driver to it here but I believe the driver has deliberately driven in to a cyclist. What's this talk of etiquette? The cyclist hasn't endangered anyone. The driving is criminal. Yes, technically saying some nasty words in public can be so too but that's not going to break a wheel or injure someone. This driver needs off the road until they learn to drive safely, not improving their "etiquette".
That I don't think in this case there is enough to get a conviction (being sadly realistic about how it's likely to go in the court) doesn't mean I think it's all fine.
And the junction needs sorting out also.
This is the pivotal bit. Ask the driver to switch off their engine, request insurance details - like we all did in our own minds.
Swearing just gives a free pass. Now its only an insurance issue.
Balderdash and indeed fiddlesticks. Do you believe that if somebody commits a criminal assault and the victim swears in reaction to it that gives the perpetrator a "free pass"? What is there in law that gives you this utterly bizarre belief?
Nigel land.
driver would cite affray. therefore left the scene.
Then they would be wrong.
Are you just trolling for effect ?
Any alleged affray took place after the incident, I am asking from whence you derive your bizarre belief that it's permissible to release the brake and run into someone in front of you who is in your way because the traffic light has turned green.
How is "affray" at all relevant? You do realise that you're both factually and morally wrong.
From: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/3/enacted?view=extent
You answered the question already.
KC - you left the scene in a reckless manner, clearly your state of mind that evening was not conducive to driving. Dangerous driving on the kings highway could be accompanied with the most serious charge of assult. I could sentence you to thirty months for this (24+6).
Driver - looks to his lawyer, repeats what he was told to say... I consider myself to be of person of resonable firmness. After the minor accident which I already admittted to causing accidently, I had a fear for my personal safety so quickly left the scene.
KC - please mark all of the recordings after the swearies as inadmissible evidence.
(If not clear guys, really??) I am not personally defending this driver. I am trying to interpret(fabricate if you prefer) the reasons why the driver would be
acquitted in court. The police obviously know the identity & (including uncharged ) history of the driver, this incident would go on their record (even without caution it would), and the driver would receive a caution in any case.
You seem to be suggesting that this is an excuse, or in some way a mitigating factor. It isn't.
It's an admission of guilt to an offence under section 170 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The only way it would be mitigating is if the driver reported the accident (which prevents an offence, in accordance with section 170 para 3).
If the driver did not report the accident, admitting to driving away, for whatever reason, is an admission of guilt. Nothing more, nothing less.
You'd make a terrible solicitor by the way. Don't quit the day job.
I suggest you actually read the rest of post you are replying to rather than throwing in legal words and terms you don't understand.
Is your first name addison ?
Judges do not generally rule evidence of an offence inadmissible on the grounds that the defence claims the defendant's actions were justified, otherwise most trials would be pretty short. It would be for the jury or presiding magistrate to decide whether or not the defendant's claim that they feared for their safety was justified; whilst it's never possible to predict which way a jury would go, most reasonable observers would conclude that being sworn at by a chap who hasn't even dismounted his bicycle when you're sitting inside your vehicle with the windows up and (presumably) central locking on is not sufficient grounds for claiming that you had to flee in fear for your safety.
Hmmmm, you've cut short my post and missed off the relevant part of "a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone" (maybe you didn't read it or didn't understand it).
Now, a driver can try to claim that they were in fear of their safety, but it won't be affray unless they make up something about the cyclist's behaviour (e.g. pulling a knife/gun), but that could easily end in perjury if the judge decides that they are being deliberately untruthful (judges do not like it when defendants try to game the system and their court with bold faced lies).
Now, I understand that you're trying to be hypothetical, but you're not really making sense here.
I didn't do that in my mind, my mind was angered that an entitled pillock deliberately drove more than a ton of metal at a human being.
Just so I know, if i was committing a murder, after the 5th or 6th insertion of the knife the victim was to swear at me; do I get a free pass?
Top tip: when robbing a bank, hold a gun to someone's head and force them to read out swear words that you've written on a piece of paper. After that, the police won't be able to touch you.
Driving off after a collision where damage was caused is an offence under section 170 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. Keep your incorrect opinions to yourself please.
damage, otherwise inaction from the police - https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/c...
Ok, you must be trolling now.
The web page you linked even says:
What to do if you're involved in a road traffic collision [...] stop at the scene - it is a legal requirement to stop as soon as it is safe to do so
It doesn't get clearer than that.
Logic dictates that unless you stop to check you can't know whether damage was caused or not, doesn't it?
Absolutely. Moreover, you cannot tell whether there was damage without getting out of your car. In some cases it might take an expert to confirm whether damage was caused (e.g. carbon frame).
Try another definition
Green (traffic light)
"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing"
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-t...
If you honestly believe it is not an offence deliberately to drive into someone who's in your way because the traffic signal is in your favour, please don't ever drive.
I would agree with you, but then we'd both be completely wrong.
Followup question on this junction.
I see that there *is* a traffic light for cyclists coming on the cycle path *out* of Clapham Common onto the road, but as has been noted nothing the other way.
How does the sequencing work? Does eg the button on the cyle track stop all the other traffic?
https://tinyurl.com/claphambike
It works pretty much like a pelican does for pedestrians at junctions, i.e. introduces an additional hold in the phasing allowing cyclists from the Common to turn left or right on the A3 or go straight across onto Cedars. From memory I think it may release left-turning traffic from Cedars at the same time, so if turning right from the Common one has to wait for it to clear, but I wouldn't swear to it (I'm usually coming the other way).
So, one option for what was required 10 years ago could be a simlar setup for the cycle traffic doing what the cammer was doing, and simultaneously releasing left-turners from the A3 onto Cedars Road.
Or any one of half a dozen alternative setups.
But no one got round to it in 2010.
Thanks for the reply.
I know this junction quite well and I'm certain there's more than one traffic camera on it; maybe the police response shouldn't read so much "this is insufficient evidence for prosecution" as "this is insufficient evidence for prosecution and we can't be bothered to look for more."
Pages