This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I was involved in a dangerous driving 'punishment pass' type incident yesterday morning on my usual commute into work in Bristol. The entire incident was captured clearly on my helmet cam. Without going into too much detail, it was extremely dangerous (nearly hit an oncoming vehicle), clearly deliberate and aggressive (driver had his horn jammed on at me for several seconds), unprovoked and entirely pointless (I was going at the speed limit and re-passed him later). Essentially it's clear as daylight that it was dangerous driving and 100% his fault. And also fairly clear to me that this guy is a danger to other road users. That's a fairly objective analysis.
I supplied the video footage (whole and unedited) to the police, along with a written statement which I have saved. They responded to say that no prosecution would be sought (which I more or less expected). It's their reasoning which I find quite disturbing.
Their first reason was that in the video, as the driver accelerates away, I swear loudly and stick my middle finger up at the driver. Apparently a defence might seek a counter-prosecution for a public order offence that I've committed. I'm struggling to think of anyone petty enough to agree that I'd done anything bad enough to be worth taking to court, but more to the point this was immediately after the incident, not before.
The second argument was that it could be argued that my positioning may be an aggravating factor (I was taking the primary position) and specifically they said that at a later point in the video, I continue to use the primary position whereas some other cyclists are using the cycle lane. This suggests that the cycle lane was safe to use and that therefore I could be portrayed as an antagonistic road user who brought the incident upon myself. This is despite the fact that this is several minutes later and therefore utterly irrelevant.
I initially voiced my objections to the police but accepted their decision. On second thoughts, and after a forensic analysis of the footage which completely destroys their arguments, I've changed my mind. I'm not out for revenge here, I'm more disturbed by the police response and I feel it betrays something of a victim blaming attitude - not so much from the officers involved directly who I have no complaint against, but from the justice system in general. Their advice that to make a prosecution more likely, I'd have to cycle in the gutter is dangerous and counter-productive.
I'm wondering what my next move should be. Does anyone here have any experience of a similar situation? Cheers in advance.
(n.b I really don't want this thread to dissolve into ranting or driver/cyclist bashing, I'm looking for advice, nothing else. Happy to answer specific questions about the incident)
Edit to concede that I shouldn't have sworn, and won't do this again in future incidents.
Post edited at 15:41
6
4
In reply to CurlyStevo:
1) At the point where the incident occurred, there isn't one. There was a row of parked cars to the left, which I was avoiding, and I was sticking to the driest line
2) Various reasons (potholes, debris, parked cars etc) I choose to use them or not depending on the specific situation
3) At various point in the video I do use the cycle lane/bus lane to allow cars to overtake easily
4) At the point when the incident occurred, I was travelling at the speed limit. For most of the video, I'm travelling at the same speed as - or faster than - the flow of traffic
Essentially, I've done nothing wrong, was cycling sensibly and you'd be hard pressed to claim that I was doing anything to antagonise anyone.
> Out of interest why weren't you using the cycle lane?
1) At the point where the incident occurred, there isn't one. There was a row of parked cars to the left, which I was avoiding, and I was sticking to the driest line
2) Various reasons (potholes, debris, parked cars etc) I choose to use them or not depending on the specific situation
3) At various point in the video I do use the cycle lane/bus lane to allow cars to overtake easily
4) At the point when the incident occurred, I was travelling at the speed limit. For most of the video, I'm travelling at the same speed as - or faster than - the flow of traffic
Essentially, I've done nothing wrong, was cycling sensibly and you'd be hard pressed to claim that I was doing anything to antagonise anyone.
4
4
In reply to Trevers:
Not been in this situation my self, but I would send your video etc to the CTC or similar. They may decide to take it further, advise you the police were right, or you use it later as an example of where the police aren't getting it right.
Not been in this situation my self, but I would send your video etc to the CTC or similar. They may decide to take it further, advise you the police were right, or you use it later as an example of where the police aren't getting it right.
5
In reply to Trevers:
"At the point where the incident occurred, there isn't one"
Unless that specific car was being held up by you previously taking the primary position when there was a cycle lane then it seems like an odd stance for the police to take on this.
Perhaps the police didn't think the driver was committing a serious enough offence for them to do anything about it (ie for this they would normally give a verbal warning etc)
"At the point where the incident occurred, there isn't one"
Unless that specific car was being held up by you previously taking the primary position when there was a cycle lane then it seems like an odd stance for the police to take on this.
Perhaps the police didn't think the driver was committing a serious enough offence for them to do anything about it (ie for this they would normally give a verbal warning etc)
In reply to Trevers:
I was driving the other day and noticed the biker behind me had a camera attached to the side of his helmet, this being the same day the local police announced they were going to be wearing bodycams, and was thinking to myself what a miserable sort of society we've created where people feel the need to film all their interactions with others. Driving around Bristol and North Somerset over decades I've been threatened, punched, set about with a cricket bat, sworn at etc. but never felt the need to record my every move.
The bottom line is anyone can briefly lose their rag and do something stupid. We've all done it at one time or another. I'd just calm down and put it down to experience. The police have got better things to do, to be honest.
I was driving the other day and noticed the biker behind me had a camera attached to the side of his helmet, this being the same day the local police announced they were going to be wearing bodycams, and was thinking to myself what a miserable sort of society we've created where people feel the need to film all their interactions with others. Driving around Bristol and North Somerset over decades I've been threatened, punched, set about with a cricket bat, sworn at etc. but never felt the need to record my every move.
The bottom line is anyone can briefly lose their rag and do something stupid. We've all done it at one time or another. I'd just calm down and put it down to experience. The police have got better things to do, to be honest.
17
15
In reply to Trevers:
First step I'd say, if you're confident as to the quality of your footage, is formally to write to the relevant constabulary (check their website) explaining your concerns and asking for a written explanation of their reasoning. The police response thus far seem to make little sense.
First step I'd say, if you're confident as to the quality of your footage, is formally to write to the relevant constabulary (check their website) explaining your concerns and asking for a written explanation of their reasoning. The police response thus far seem to make little sense.
2
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
Unfortunately as a cyclist I see this type of thing all too often, many car drivers don't treat cyclists as road users with equal priority to use the lane and seem to think if its possible at all to squeeze by them then its their priority irrelevant of:
- pot holes
- inadequate room
- overall the cyclist is actually covering ground on the road faster than them
- cyclist wants to turn right
- danger to parked car doors opening
- there isn't room to overtake so will end up side by side on a road that isn't really wide enough for that
- obstruction ahead means they will now block the cyclist when the cyclist could have fitted through no problem
etc
Unfortunately as a cyclist I see this type of thing all too often, many car drivers don't treat cyclists as road users with equal priority to use the lane and seem to think if its possible at all to squeeze by them then its their priority irrelevant of:
- pot holes
- inadequate room
- overall the cyclist is actually covering ground on the road faster than them
- cyclist wants to turn right
- danger to parked car doors opening
- there isn't room to overtake so will end up side by side on a road that isn't really wide enough for that
- obstruction ahead means they will now block the cyclist when the cyclist could have fitted through no problem
etc
Post edited at 15:59
4
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Recently the CTC's lawyer, Martin Porter, brought a private prosecution against a driving instructor who overtook him. His helmet footage showed that the driver was going over 50 in a 30, and was left a gap of between 60 - 80 cm. These facts were not disputed by the defence, but nonetheless the jury did not convict of dangerous driving, just as the CPS had reasoned was likely when they dropped the case.
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/martin-porter-qc-s-private-prosecution-of-...
I'm sure the CTC will be interested in the case, but the sad fact is that the law is simply not applied in cases such as this.
> Try the CTC?
Recently the CTC's lawyer, Martin Porter, brought a private prosecution against a driving instructor who overtook him. His helmet footage showed that the driver was going over 50 in a 30, and was left a gap of between 60 - 80 cm. These facts were not disputed by the defence, but nonetheless the jury did not convict of dangerous driving, just as the CPS had reasoned was likely when they dropped the case.
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/martin-porter-qc-s-private-prosecution-of-...
I'm sure the CTC will be interested in the case, but the sad fact is that the law is simply not applied in cases such as this.
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Basically the way I interpret that is that if the cyclist had been knocked off and injured then prosecution would have occurred but not until. Its pretty sad really.
Basically the way I interpret that is that if the cyclist had been knocked off and injured then prosecution would have occurred but not until. Its pretty sad really.
Post edited at 16:31
8
In reply to faffergotgunz:
Then we can all call you a wanker.
Good luck in your pursuit of justice: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3517546/Widower-young-cyclist-knock...
> Post vid 2 U tube
Then we can all call you a wanker.
Good luck in your pursuit of justice: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3517546/Widower-young-cyclist-knock...
1
3
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
That's all well and good but most people aren't wearing cameras just to be arsey and catch out people's mistakes, they're wearing them because they are far too regularly seeing extremely dangerous and/or aggressive and surprisingly often DELIBERATELY dangerous driving that could kill them or at least cause them to be out of work for a time during recovery which could jeopardise their financial situation (and ability to provide for themselves and family) in a major way and want some back up to defend themselves in that situation.
It's not "meh, we all lose our cool sometimes" it's "That person injured or will injure/kill someone else if they carry on".
> The bottom line is anyone can briefly lose their rag and do something stupid. We've all done it at one time or another. I'd just calm down and put it down to experience. The police have got better things to do, to be honest.
That's all well and good but most people aren't wearing cameras just to be arsey and catch out people's mistakes, they're wearing them because they are far too regularly seeing extremely dangerous and/or aggressive and surprisingly often DELIBERATELY dangerous driving that could kill them or at least cause them to be out of work for a time during recovery which could jeopardise their financial situation (and ability to provide for themselves and family) in a major way and want some back up to defend themselves in that situation.
It's not "meh, we all lose our cool sometimes" it's "That person injured or will injure/kill someone else if they carry on".
14
2
In reply to Scarab9:
I commute in Bristol by motorbike and rarely see any dangerous driving. People with cameras seem to see it all the time
I commute in Bristol by motorbike and rarely see any dangerous driving. People with cameras seem to see it all the time
6
3
In reply to CurlyStevo:
All the more reason for Trevers to pursue it as far as he can.
Trevers: contact the CTC for advice and stick the vid on scumtube, Facebook, everywhere you can, especially if the prick's numberplate is visible.
> Unfortunately as a cyclist I see this type of thing all too often, many car drivers don't treat cyclists as road users with equal priority to use the lane and seem to think if its possible at all to squeeze by them then its their priority irrelevant of:
All the more reason for Trevers to pursue it as far as he can.
Trevers: contact the CTC for advice and stick the vid on scumtube, Facebook, everywhere you can, especially if the prick's numberplate is visible.
4
In reply to Removed User:
Trevers: contact the CTC for advice and stick the vid on scumtube, Facebook, everywhere you can, especially if the prick's numberplate is visible.
Ah, the old trial by YouTube.
Doesn't matter if the motorist is innocent, made a genuine mistake, or that the cyclist contributed to the incident. Put it on YouTube and watch the motorist have his life ruined. Nice!
Trevers: contact the CTC for advice and stick the vid on scumtube, Facebook, everywhere you can, especially if the prick's numberplate is visible.
Ah, the old trial by YouTube.
Doesn't matter if the motorist is innocent, made a genuine mistake, or that the cyclist contributed to the incident. Put it on YouTube and watch the motorist have his life ruined. Nice!
3
11
In reply to Trevers:
Cheers for the advice everyone. I'm going to contact the CTC and for now anyway, I'm not going to make the video public.
I cycle a lot in Bristol and by and large, the awareness and courtesy of drivers is fairly good. This is the first really serious incident since I started using a helmet cam, which has probably been about 6 months.
There's a lot of incidents I let go. I want to pursue this one is because of the aggression I experienced, and because of my disappoint at the police response. The impression I got was that they decided not to take it further before watching the video and then just tried to find a couple of weak excuses. It may well be that antipathy towards these sorts of incidents is deeply rooted in the justice system, but that seems to me all the more reason to pursue every possible case like this to try and reset the precedent.
Cheers for the advice everyone. I'm going to contact the CTC and for now anyway, I'm not going to make the video public.
I cycle a lot in Bristol and by and large, the awareness and courtesy of drivers is fairly good. This is the first really serious incident since I started using a helmet cam, which has probably been about 6 months.
There's a lot of incidents I let go. I want to pursue this one is because of the aggression I experienced, and because of my disappoint at the police response. The impression I got was that they decided not to take it further before watching the video and then just tried to find a couple of weak excuses. It may well be that antipathy towards these sorts of incidents is deeply rooted in the justice system, but that seems to me all the more reason to pursue every possible case like this to try and reset the precedent.
5
In reply to FactorXXX:
Ah, the old include some assumed evidence to blame the cyclist and disregard the outcome of speeding car/human body interaction routine. Nice!
Life ruined? Dry your eyes FFS.
Ah, the old include some assumed evidence to blame the cyclist and disregard the outcome of speeding car/human body interaction routine. Nice!
Life ruined? Dry your eyes FFS.
9
In reply to Trevers:
I can't comment on the procedures for requesting a review of the police's decision, not something I know about.
You might enquire if there is a cyclist liaison type officer at the local nick, they might be able to examine the case with a more correct understanding of the law than those you spoke to - although it's not clear to me if their comments were misinformed or were likely correctly anticipating a jury/magistrate response.
Make a formal complaint against the vehicle, then it is on record if the car is reported again in the future. Seek the advice of a friendly officer or elsewhere on the best way to do this.
You can check online if the vehicle is MOTd, taxed and insured. If it isn't, let the police know. I've got no idea if they will or won't have checked this themselves.
Can you get the insurers details from askMID and pass the fottage on to them?
If you don't feel the police gave you sufficient information about their decision or you disagree with their reasoning, there's the IPCC and then the press. No stepping back from any effects of the later.
Or chalk life up as to short. That sucks. I'd be pissed off as hell over the cycle lane comment - FFS. Nothing like ranting to help let go.
I can't comment on the procedures for requesting a review of the police's decision, not something I know about.
You might enquire if there is a cyclist liaison type officer at the local nick, they might be able to examine the case with a more correct understanding of the law than those you spoke to - although it's not clear to me if their comments were misinformed or were likely correctly anticipating a jury/magistrate response.
Make a formal complaint against the vehicle, then it is on record if the car is reported again in the future. Seek the advice of a friendly officer or elsewhere on the best way to do this.
You can check online if the vehicle is MOTd, taxed and insured. If it isn't, let the police know. I've got no idea if they will or won't have checked this themselves.
Can you get the insurers details from askMID and pass the fottage on to them?
If you don't feel the police gave you sufficient information about their decision or you disagree with their reasoning, there's the IPCC and then the press. No stepping back from any effects of the later.
Or chalk life up as to short. That sucks. I'd be pissed off as hell over the cycle lane comment - FFS. Nothing like ranting to help let go.
Post edited at 21:32
5
In reply to Removed User:
Ah, the old include some assumed evidence to blame the cyclist and disregard the outcome of speeding car/human body interaction routine. Nice!
Life ruined? Dry your eyes FFS.
As neither of us have seen the video, then any accusations either way are rather a moot point.
Just feel that the automatic response of some in the cycling community to put such videos on public display is very much vigilantism.
We've all seen them. Some are indeed the motorists fault, some are a lot more 50/50. However, once they get aired publically, the result is pretty much the same i.e. the driver is named and shamed and with people gloating about how that person has had to shut down their business websites, etc.
Thankfully, in this case, the OP hasn't decided to do that and has taken the more sensible option of taking advice from the CTC.
Ah, the old include some assumed evidence to blame the cyclist and disregard the outcome of speeding car/human body interaction routine. Nice!
Life ruined? Dry your eyes FFS.
As neither of us have seen the video, then any accusations either way are rather a moot point.
Just feel that the automatic response of some in the cycling community to put such videos on public display is very much vigilantism.
We've all seen them. Some are indeed the motorists fault, some are a lot more 50/50. However, once they get aired publically, the result is pretty much the same i.e. the driver is named and shamed and with people gloating about how that person has had to shut down their business websites, etc.
Thankfully, in this case, the OP hasn't decided to do that and has taken the more sensible option of taking advice from the CTC.
3
5
In reply to FactorXXX:
Maybe cyclists are forced down this path because pursuing it through 'the proper channels' (as per the OP) gets you nowhere.
For the OP: if the police won't prosecute, ask if they will issue a Section 59 'motoring ASBO' notice. I reported a driver for being an aggressive cock with his three mates, and the police came and took a statement off me, and issued such a notice. The PC's last words to me were something like "we simply won't stand for that sort of behaviour". I had no camera; they took my word for it.
Maybe send your local police a copy of 'Bikeability', so they know what good cycling practice is, including the primary position and 'taking thge lane'...
> Just feel that the automatic response of some in the cycling community to put such videos on public display is very much vigilantism.
Maybe cyclists are forced down this path because pursuing it through 'the proper channels' (as per the OP) gets you nowhere.
For the OP: if the police won't prosecute, ask if they will issue a Section 59 'motoring ASBO' notice. I reported a driver for being an aggressive cock with his three mates, and the police came and took a statement off me, and issued such a notice. The PC's last words to me were something like "we simply won't stand for that sort of behaviour". I had no camera; they took my word for it.
Maybe send your local police a copy of 'Bikeability', so they know what good cycling practice is, including the primary position and 'taking thge lane'...
2
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
No actually. I've been driving for 40 years and certainly have done things that were stupid but I have never "lost my rag and done something stupid."
> The bottom line is anyone can briefly lose their rag and do something stupid. We've all done it at one time or another.
No actually. I've been driving for 40 years and certainly have done things that were stupid but I have never "lost my rag and done something stupid."
5
In reply to Trevers:
Sadly, this response from the police seems all too common. Another vote for sending the video to the CTC.
Sadly, this response from the police seems all too common. Another vote for sending the video to the CTC.
1
1
In reply to Dogwatch:
I was using colloquialism to convey that a persons emotional state will influence their actions. The chap who cuts you up on the morning commute may be late for work after having been up all night with a terminally ill relative, for example. Even the person who started this thread admitted to behaving in a way he later regretted by swearing and making an offensive gesture at the driver after the event. His reactions were emotional yet perfectly understandable, and I'd have done the same myself -- colloquially it could be said he lost his rag, briefly. If you believe you've never let your emotional state influence a decision you've made whilst driving then I could conclude that you've perhaps got a poor memory, or maybe you have some sociopathic condition whereby you don't experience emotion. Note, I've used the conditional as I'm not trying to be offensive, just demonstrate a point.
> No actually. I've been driving for 40 years and certainly have done things that were stupid but I have never "lost my rag and done something stupid."
I was using colloquialism to convey that a persons emotional state will influence their actions. The chap who cuts you up on the morning commute may be late for work after having been up all night with a terminally ill relative, for example. Even the person who started this thread admitted to behaving in a way he later regretted by swearing and making an offensive gesture at the driver after the event. His reactions were emotional yet perfectly understandable, and I'd have done the same myself -- colloquially it could be said he lost his rag, briefly. If you believe you've never let your emotional state influence a decision you've made whilst driving then I could conclude that you've perhaps got a poor memory, or maybe you have some sociopathic condition whereby you don't experience emotion. Note, I've used the conditional as I'm not trying to be offensive, just demonstrate a point.
3
4
In reply to Trevers:
I take the view, as a cyclist, that any incident that makes me alarmed for my safety is not acceptable. I'm talking about the sort of incident that causes an involuntary response of some sort followed by a period of recovery and calming down.
Had one this morning, severe enough to make me dig out the vide, but it doesn't show enough - I just have a rear-facing camera.
As Bristol is supposed to be one of the most cycling friendly cities in the UK, I would be inclined to complain to the Police on the basis that you should not be exposed to that level of intimidation and aggression.
I don't hold out much hope though. They decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute when a Land Rover Discovery drove straight into the back of my wife's car at 30 mph, without touching the brakes, when her car was the last in a stationary line of traffic and there was a 500m sight line to the stopped cars.
I take the view, as a cyclist, that any incident that makes me alarmed for my safety is not acceptable. I'm talking about the sort of incident that causes an involuntary response of some sort followed by a period of recovery and calming down.
Had one this morning, severe enough to make me dig out the vide, but it doesn't show enough - I just have a rear-facing camera.
As Bristol is supposed to be one of the most cycling friendly cities in the UK, I would be inclined to complain to the Police on the basis that you should not be exposed to that level of intimidation and aggression.
I don't hold out much hope though. They decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute when a Land Rover Discovery drove straight into the back of my wife's car at 30 mph, without touching the brakes, when her car was the last in a stationary line of traffic and there was a 500m sight line to the stopped cars.
3
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
This is very true.
Our emotional states can influence us more than we realise and I don't believe anyone can ever say that their actions were utterly free of emotional influence.
I had once had a really bad day which concluded in a piece of particularly bad news that hit me hard. I was walking down a street when a car pulled up ahead of me, onto the pavement and parked there, blocking the whole pavement. It was a quiet street and I could easily have walked around, but actually I gave the driver both barrels and an extended mouthful. In short I was taking my bad day out on the driver. I could have easily built a case up later to show why he deserved it for blocking the pavement, but I was the one who escalated it.
On the flip side, I was driving home a couple of weeks ago, relaxed, not in a hurry, fairly carefree. Up ahead of me a car overtook a cyclist and didn't leave a lot of room. The cyclist gestured to the car (not a crude gesture). The driver pulled over at the next junction and opened his window and started to yell abuse at the cyclist. So I pulled up alongside and suggested that he calm down and that the cyclist had done nothing wrong. The driver sped off and the cyclist thanked me. I went home feeling that I had potentially helped a situation to subside rather than escalate.
So moods really can play a part in our interactions, not least when out on the road and we can all find ourselves doing something positive or negative as a result.
This is very true.
Our emotional states can influence us more than we realise and I don't believe anyone can ever say that their actions were utterly free of emotional influence.
I had once had a really bad day which concluded in a piece of particularly bad news that hit me hard. I was walking down a street when a car pulled up ahead of me, onto the pavement and parked there, blocking the whole pavement. It was a quiet street and I could easily have walked around, but actually I gave the driver both barrels and an extended mouthful. In short I was taking my bad day out on the driver. I could have easily built a case up later to show why he deserved it for blocking the pavement, but I was the one who escalated it.
On the flip side, I was driving home a couple of weeks ago, relaxed, not in a hurry, fairly carefree. Up ahead of me a car overtook a cyclist and didn't leave a lot of room. The cyclist gestured to the car (not a crude gesture). The driver pulled over at the next junction and opened his window and started to yell abuse at the cyclist. So I pulled up alongside and suggested that he calm down and that the cyclist had done nothing wrong. The driver sped off and the cyclist thanked me. I went home feeling that I had potentially helped a situation to subside rather than escalate.
So moods really can play a part in our interactions, not least when out on the road and we can all find ourselves doing something positive or negative as a result.
3
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
Understood, although I would just like to point out that I don't regret swearing at all and I refuse to show any contrition for doing so. I was more observing that if it might not help my case then I will try and suppress that response in future similar incidents
EDIT - Also, while I agree that this could be the case, it's not something we would know unless it comes to court and the driver chooses a diminished responsibility defence. What I do find highly disappointing in the police response is the suggestion that the driver might find some defence on the basis of my actions (i.e. my presence) and my conduct several minutes after the incident.
> I was using colloquialism to convey that a persons emotional state will influence their actions. The chap who cuts you up on the morning commute may be late for work after having been up all night with a terminally ill relative, for example. Even the person who started this thread admitted to behaving in a way he later regretted by swearing and making an offensive gesture at the driver after the event. His reactions were emotional yet perfectly understandable, and I'd have done the same myself -- colloquially it could be said he lost his rag, briefly. If you believe you've never let your emotional state influence a decision you've made whilst driving then I could conclude that you've perhaps got a poor memory, or maybe you have some sociopathic condition whereby you don't experience emotion. Note, I've used the conditional as I'm not trying to be offensive, just demonstrate a point.
Understood, although I would just like to point out that I don't regret swearing at all and I refuse to show any contrition for doing so. I was more observing that if it might not help my case then I will try and suppress that response in future similar incidents
EDIT - Also, while I agree that this could be the case, it's not something we would know unless it comes to court and the driver chooses a diminished responsibility defence. What I do find highly disappointing in the police response is the suggestion that the driver might find some defence on the basis of my actions (i.e. my presence) and my conduct several minutes after the incident.
Post edited at 08:55
1
> 3) At various point in the video I do use the cycle lane/bus lane to allow cars to overtake easily
ummm...what video is that? Link please.
1
1
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
"Losing your rag" does not refer to any emotional state. It specifically means losing your temper. I have never lost my temper as a driver and done something stupid as a result. This does not make me "sociopathic" thanks very much. It just means I act like a grown-up.
> I was using colloquialism to convey that a persons emotional state will influence their actions..... colloquially it could be said he lost his rag
"Losing your rag" does not refer to any emotional state. It specifically means losing your temper. I have never lost my temper as a driver and done something stupid as a result. This does not make me "sociopathic" thanks very much. It just means I act like a grown-up.
3
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Sorry, I haven't made the video public - partly because it's over 1GB in size, and partly because I don't want to do anything irresponsible that could harm my case later. You'll have to take my word for it. But I supplied the entire thing unedited to the police, warts and all.
> ummm...what video is that? Link please.
Sorry, I haven't made the video public - partly because it's over 1GB in size, and partly because I don't want to do anything irresponsible that could harm my case later. You'll have to take my word for it. But I supplied the entire thing unedited to the police, warts and all.
In reply to Trevers:
Ok, so I have to ask you a few questions and I am looking at this without seeing the video and basing it on what you have said so far.
Firstly - what is YOUR "case"? Do you believe you have been the victim of a crime? We can see there was an emotional impact to you, but what was the material and physical impact?
Secondly - the way this comes across is that you presented your evidence to the Police (totally reasonable) and that they didn't give you the answer you wanted and so now you are angry about it and want to press on with it. What do you actually want to achieve?
Thirdly - is this actually YOUR case any more? Surely this is a matter for the Police?
The way it comes across to me is that you feel that you have had an unnecessary and avoidable scare by someone not very nice and that you want some kind of justice to be served, but sadly you are not able to get closure on this as you've not had the answer you want. Now you are ramping this up and up and up and the only person suffering here is you.
> Sorry, I haven't made the video public - partly because it's over 1GB in size, and partly because I don't want to do anything irresponsible that could harm my case later. You'll have to take my word for it. But I supplied the entire thing unedited to the police, warts and all.
Ok, so I have to ask you a few questions and I am looking at this without seeing the video and basing it on what you have said so far.
Firstly - what is YOUR "case"? Do you believe you have been the victim of a crime? We can see there was an emotional impact to you, but what was the material and physical impact?
Secondly - the way this comes across is that you presented your evidence to the Police (totally reasonable) and that they didn't give you the answer you wanted and so now you are angry about it and want to press on with it. What do you actually want to achieve?
Thirdly - is this actually YOUR case any more? Surely this is a matter for the Police?
The way it comes across to me is that you feel that you have had an unnecessary and avoidable scare by someone not very nice and that you want some kind of justice to be served, but sadly you are not able to get closure on this as you've not had the answer you want. Now you are ramping this up and up and up and the only person suffering here is you.
2
In reply to Rampikino:
I suppose I feel I have been. There's been no material impact or injury thankfully. I'm not going to come out with some sob story about how I'm having nightmares, but yes I do feel I've been targeted and victimised, and the police antipathy has contributed to that. If the police can tell me that I've committed an offence by making rude hand gestures, then I'm fairly sure he's committed an offence by recklessly manoeuvring a ton of metal past me in such a way that could, in very slightly differing circumstances, have caused a life changing injury or death.
Well for starters I feel this guy is a continuing danger to the public. If he keeps driving that way then it's inevitable that he will injure or kill someone someday. Secondly, I'm aware that the 'culture' of the justice system may be stacked against me. If I could successfully bring a conviction, that would be setting a precedent that would be a small step towards changing that culture. I feel I can't just drop things at this stage without knowing how unlikely a prosecution could be. But right now, all I'm after is a second opinion, since the first was from someone who - with all due respect - didn't appear to be very clued up on road safety.
They won't be pursuing it any further, that makes it my case for now. Depending on the responses I get from CTC and British Cycling I may go back to them.
Understood - as I said, for now all I want is advice and a second opinion from an expert eye. If they agree that it's pointless to continue then I'll probably just drop it, take some lessons from it and move on.
> Ok, so I have to ask you a few questions and I am looking at this without seeing the video and basing it on what you have said so far.
> Firstly - what is YOUR "case"? Do you believe you have been the victim of a crime? We can see there was an emotional impact to you, but what was the material and physical impact?
I suppose I feel I have been. There's been no material impact or injury thankfully. I'm not going to come out with some sob story about how I'm having nightmares, but yes I do feel I've been targeted and victimised, and the police antipathy has contributed to that. If the police can tell me that I've committed an offence by making rude hand gestures, then I'm fairly sure he's committed an offence by recklessly manoeuvring a ton of metal past me in such a way that could, in very slightly differing circumstances, have caused a life changing injury or death.
> Secondly - the way this comes across is that you presented your evidence to the Police (totally reasonable) and that they didn't give you the answer you wanted and so now you are angry about it and want to press on with it. What do you actually want to achieve?
Well for starters I feel this guy is a continuing danger to the public. If he keeps driving that way then it's inevitable that he will injure or kill someone someday. Secondly, I'm aware that the 'culture' of the justice system may be stacked against me. If I could successfully bring a conviction, that would be setting a precedent that would be a small step towards changing that culture. I feel I can't just drop things at this stage without knowing how unlikely a prosecution could be. But right now, all I'm after is a second opinion, since the first was from someone who - with all due respect - didn't appear to be very clued up on road safety.
> Thirdly - is this actually YOUR case any more? Surely this is a matter for the Police?
They won't be pursuing it any further, that makes it my case for now. Depending on the responses I get from CTC and British Cycling I may go back to them.
> The way it comes across to me is that you feel that you have had an unnecessary and avoidable scare by someone not very nice and that you want some kind of justice to be served, but sadly you are not able to get closure on this as you've not had the answer you want. Now you are ramping this up and up and up and the only person suffering here is you.
Understood - as I said, for now all I want is advice and a second opinion from an expert eye. If they agree that it's pointless to continue then I'll probably just drop it, take some lessons from it and move on.
3
In reply to nniff:
There isn't. A moment's inattention does not constitute an offence. If it did, every single road accident would be prosecutable.
(A friend did argue that causing a road accident should be an offence in itself, which is an interesting idea)
> I don't hold out much hope though. They decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute when a Land Rover Discovery drove straight into the back of my wife's car at 30 mph, without touching the brakes, when her car was the last in a stationary line of traffic and there was a 500m sight line to the stopped cars.
There isn't. A moment's inattention does not constitute an offence. If it did, every single road accident would be prosecutable.
(A friend did argue that causing a road accident should be an offence in itself, which is an interesting idea)
Post edited at 09:55
1
In reply to Trevers:
Thanks for the response - I'm certainly not trying to shoot you down, but hoping you are going down a route that you feel is the right one to take.
When you embark on a hunt for an outcome that you would prefer to see it can be a long process and you will invest a lot of emotion into it and in the end it may be fruitless and frustrating. I would just ask you to be prepared for this and be prepared to walk away at the end of it and get on with the better parts of your life.
Also, be careful about how you judge someone you don't know based on a bad piece of driving. You need to avoid hyperbole and over-exaggeration. In your particular instance you feel the driving was dangerous. You may well be right. What you are not able to say is that this person will go and injure or kill someone else. It's utterly impossible to speculate like that. Unless you have some evidence that then it is just your own biased view, even if it feels reasonable to claim it.
Your point about the stacked justice system is a much more valid point and the one that I would suggest is better to work towards.
One thing that wasn't clear from your posts was how the incident started or what led up to it. You talked about a punishment pass but didn't say whether or not there had been any interaction before then. Did this just come out of the blue? Also, how do you know if it was a punishment pass or did the guy just get himself in a hurry and mistime his overtaking then get all flustered and blast his horn in his own embarrassed self-conscious state?
Thanks for the response - I'm certainly not trying to shoot you down, but hoping you are going down a route that you feel is the right one to take.
When you embark on a hunt for an outcome that you would prefer to see it can be a long process and you will invest a lot of emotion into it and in the end it may be fruitless and frustrating. I would just ask you to be prepared for this and be prepared to walk away at the end of it and get on with the better parts of your life.
Also, be careful about how you judge someone you don't know based on a bad piece of driving. You need to avoid hyperbole and over-exaggeration. In your particular instance you feel the driving was dangerous. You may well be right. What you are not able to say is that this person will go and injure or kill someone else. It's utterly impossible to speculate like that. Unless you have some evidence that then it is just your own biased view, even if it feels reasonable to claim it.
Your point about the stacked justice system is a much more valid point and the one that I would suggest is better to work towards.
One thing that wasn't clear from your posts was how the incident started or what led up to it. You talked about a punishment pass but didn't say whether or not there had been any interaction before then. Did this just come out of the blue? Also, how do you know if it was a punishment pass or did the guy just get himself in a hurry and mistime his overtaking then get all flustered and blast his horn in his own embarrassed self-conscious state?
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
Inattention isn't an offence, but 'Driving without due care and attention' is. Then we get into the murky and pedantic water of what is an accident and what is a collision caused by a failure to drive with the care and attention that one might reasonably expect.
Ergo, someone taking a third of a mile run up into a line of stationary traffic shows, to my mind, a clear lack of due care and attention. Similarly, a reckless punishment pass is a wilful lack of care and attention, undertaken with specific intent to alarm and intimidate the cyclist. To my mind, that makes punishment passes an aggravated offence for which the penalty should be more severe.
> There isn't. A moment's inattention does not constitute an offence. If it did, every single road accident would be prosecutable.
> (A friend did argue that causing a road accident should be an offence in itself, which is an interesting idea)
Inattention isn't an offence, but 'Driving without due care and attention' is. Then we get into the murky and pedantic water of what is an accident and what is a collision caused by a failure to drive with the care and attention that one might reasonably expect.
Ergo, someone taking a third of a mile run up into a line of stationary traffic shows, to my mind, a clear lack of due care and attention. Similarly, a reckless punishment pass is a wilful lack of care and attention, undertaken with specific intent to alarm and intimidate the cyclist. To my mind, that makes punishment passes an aggravated offence for which the penalty should be more severe.
2
In reply to nniff:
I would be happy for "punishment passes" to be prosecuted as attempted murder, to be honest.
But inattention is far harder to define. You could argue that most accidents are because of a lack of due care and attention - but precedent makes it clear that is not how that offence is used.
I would be happy for "punishment passes" to be prosecuted as attempted murder, to be honest.
But inattention is far harder to define. You could argue that most accidents are because of a lack of due care and attention - but precedent makes it clear that is not how that offence is used.
Post edited at 11:06
3
In reply to Rampikino:
No don't worry, I understood the angle you're coming from and appreciate it. I'm trying to divest myself emotionally from the actual incident.
You're right that I should try not to judge. Mostly that's come from the aggressive use of the horn throughout. I've let go a lot of close passes before because I felt that it was either a misjudgement or inattention as opposed to any malicious intent.
The first 'contact' with the driver was about 30 seconds before the incident - I filtered into the cycle box at a red light in front of him, following a scooter. I set off following the scooter, then braked slightly to create a gap because there was a bus indicating to pull out into the flow of traffic. The bus didn't start to move so I accelerated again to the speed limit, holding the primary position. There's usually parked cars on both sides of the road, and drivers rarely try to overtake there, even coming up the hill when I'm inevitably travelling much slower. The overtake started about 10 seconds after passing the bus, after one oncoming car had passed us. The driver was sounding the horn for nearly 2 seconds before his front wheel was level with me, so I have to assume he was sounding from the moment he began his manoeuvre.
No don't worry, I understood the angle you're coming from and appreciate it. I'm trying to divest myself emotionally from the actual incident.
You're right that I should try not to judge. Mostly that's come from the aggressive use of the horn throughout. I've let go a lot of close passes before because I felt that it was either a misjudgement or inattention as opposed to any malicious intent.
The first 'contact' with the driver was about 30 seconds before the incident - I filtered into the cycle box at a red light in front of him, following a scooter. I set off following the scooter, then braked slightly to create a gap because there was a bus indicating to pull out into the flow of traffic. The bus didn't start to move so I accelerated again to the speed limit, holding the primary position. There's usually parked cars on both sides of the road, and drivers rarely try to overtake there, even coming up the hill when I'm inevitably travelling much slower. The overtake started about 10 seconds after passing the bus, after one oncoming car had passed us. The driver was sounding the horn for nearly 2 seconds before his front wheel was level with me, so I have to assume he was sounding from the moment he began his manoeuvre.
1
In reply to nniff:
Personally I often feel car drivers that are not acting within the rules of the highway code act as if I have put them out in some way. The most frequent occurrence of this is me not wanting to be boxed in to the curb (or next to parked cars), or overtaken and immediately blocked (when I could have passed through the gap), or needing to turn right.
Recently I wanted to turn right at a junction and was stopped in the cyclists box in front of a red light, when a motor bike pulled in to my right signalling right. I informed him this was for bicycles only and re-positioned my bike in front of his motor bike (I felt his manoeuvre was significantly increasing my risk of being caught between moving traffic in a dangerous manner). Needless to say he went mental at me!
Personally I often feel car drivers that are not acting within the rules of the highway code act as if I have put them out in some way. The most frequent occurrence of this is me not wanting to be boxed in to the curb (or next to parked cars), or overtaken and immediately blocked (when I could have passed through the gap), or needing to turn right.
Recently I wanted to turn right at a junction and was stopped in the cyclists box in front of a red light, when a motor bike pulled in to my right signalling right. I informed him this was for bicycles only and re-positioned my bike in front of his motor bike (I felt his manoeuvre was significantly increasing my risk of being caught between moving traffic in a dangerous manner). Needless to say he went mental at me!
Post edited at 11:22
In reply to Trevers:
Sounds like a classic 'how dare you be in front of me' punishment pass to me.
> The first 'contact' with the driver was about 30 seconds before the incident
Sounds like a classic 'how dare you be in front of me' punishment pass to me.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Really? I doubt it. An aggressive motorcyclist would have been out of the way before you even had chance to clip your other foot back into the pedal.
Always better to have an idiot in front of you where you can see them than behind.
> Recently I wanted to turn right at a junction and was stopped in the cyclists box in front of a red light, when a motor bike pulled in to my right signalling right. I informed him this was for bicycles only and re-positioned my bike in front of his motor bike (I felt his manoeuvre was significantly increasing my risk of being caught between moving traffic in a dangerous manner). Needless to say he went mental at me!
Really? I doubt it. An aggressive motorcyclist would have been out of the way before you even had chance to clip your other foot back into the pedal.
Always better to have an idiot in front of you where you can see them than behind.
In reply to Neil Williams:
well actually they were on a scooter and they would have been in my way turning right waiting for the a gap in the traffic (it was a cross roads)
The only thing to do was move in front or behind them and seeing as it was my right of way - I wasn't moving behind them. That's why the box is there, to keep traffic behind bicycles at junctions as its safer.
well actually they were on a scooter and they would have been in my way turning right waiting for the a gap in the traffic (it was a cross roads)
The only thing to do was move in front or behind them and seeing as it was my right of way - I wasn't moving behind them. That's why the box is there, to keep traffic behind bicycles at junctions as its safer.
Post edited at 13:12
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I genuinely think getting yourself and another road user stressed over the matter posed a higher risk than the delay caused by one scooter, when most likely you would both have gone at the same time.
You were in front of the vehicles posing you a real bodily risk - the cars, lorries and buses.
In the end, there is no use being in the right if you are dead, and an antagonised road user *is* a massive risk to you and those around you. Rarely, if ever, does remonstrating or aggressive behaviour with another road user, even if they are in the wrong as they were here, bring any benefit to a vulnerable road user. Humour them, let them go, make sure you can see them and get on with your journey.
I genuinely think getting yourself and another road user stressed over the matter posed a higher risk than the delay caused by one scooter, when most likely you would both have gone at the same time.
You were in front of the vehicles posing you a real bodily risk - the cars, lorries and buses.
In the end, there is no use being in the right if you are dead, and an antagonised road user *is* a massive risk to you and those around you. Rarely, if ever, does remonstrating or aggressive behaviour with another road user, even if they are in the wrong as they were here, bring any benefit to a vulnerable road user. Humour them, let them go, make sure you can see them and get on with your journey.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I disagree. I think your attitude demonstrates the exact type of problem that is causing an issue to cyclists on the road. Other road users are not respecting our rights on the road. The other scooter should not have pulled up to the right of me in the cyclists box when I was turning right at a crossroads. He was not acting according to the highway code or respecting my space as a vulnerable road user.
If the scooter had gone at the same time as me that would have left me sticking out further closer to the moving traffic to my left. One of us needed to be in front of the other.
I disagree. I think your attitude demonstrates the exact type of problem that is causing an issue to cyclists on the road. Other road users are not respecting our rights on the road. The other scooter should not have pulled up to the right of me in the cyclists box when I was turning right at a crossroads. He was not acting according to the highway code or respecting my space as a vulnerable road user.
If the scooter had gone at the same time as me that would have left me sticking out further closer to the moving traffic to my left. One of us needed to be in front of the other.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Genuine question though no doubt it'll annoy someone: how does this line of reasoning work when it's another cyclist that pulls up along side you in the advanced squash box? That's allowed for by the road layout and highway code. What is the practical difference? The scooter rider is just as vulnerable as you whether or not they should be in the green box.
jk
> If the scooter had gone at the same time as me that would have left me sticking out further closer to the moving traffic to my left. One of us needed to be in front of the other.
Genuine question though no doubt it'll annoy someone: how does this line of reasoning work when it's another cyclist that pulls up along side you in the advanced squash box? That's allowed for by the road layout and highway code. What is the practical difference? The scooter rider is just as vulnerable as you whether or not they should be in the green box.
jk
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
By law, correct, but it's a minor thing because:
He is easily as vulnerable as you. Motorcyclists of all kinds are *very* vulnerable.
So you might as well have humoured him and gone behind him. He was never going to listen to you. All your encounter did was to antagonise both of you, causing adrenaline levels to rise. When adrenaline levels rise in road traffic, bad decisions get made, and people get hurt.
The problem does need solving, and the solution is more police doing more enforcement of these offences. But cyclists being aggressive simply does not solve anything - in my view it makes it worse.
Adrenaline has no place in road traffic. None whatsoever. All decisions need to be made calmly, sensibly, and on the basis of the safety of all road users and not simple "right and wrong". It is the police's job to enforce road traffic offences, not yours.
> I disagree. I think your attitude demonstrates the exact type of problem that is causing an issue to cyclists on the road. Other road users are not respecting our rights on the road. The other scooter should not have pulled up to the right of me in the cyclists box when I was turning right at a crossroads.
By law, correct, but it's a minor thing because:
> He was not acting according to the highway code or respecting my space as a vulnerable road user.
He is easily as vulnerable as you. Motorcyclists of all kinds are *very* vulnerable.
> If the scooter had gone at the same time as me that would have left me sticking out further closer to the moving traffic to my left. One of us needed to be in front of the other.
So you might as well have humoured him and gone behind him. He was never going to listen to you. All your encounter did was to antagonise both of you, causing adrenaline levels to rise. When adrenaline levels rise in road traffic, bad decisions get made, and people get hurt.
The problem does need solving, and the solution is more police doing more enforcement of these offences. But cyclists being aggressive simply does not solve anything - in my view it makes it worse.
Adrenaline has no place in road traffic. None whatsoever. All decisions need to be made calmly, sensibly, and on the basis of the safety of all road users and not simple "right and wrong". It is the police's job to enforce road traffic offences, not yours.
Post edited at 14:27
In reply to jkarran:
There is, to be fair, a strong argument that those boxes should also be available to motorcyclists as they too are highly vulnerable road users.
(Before aspersions get cast, I am a driver and cyclist, not a motorcyclist)
There is, to be fair, a strong argument that those boxes should also be available to motorcyclists as they too are highly vulnerable road users.
(Before aspersions get cast, I am a driver and cyclist, not a motorcyclist)
Post edited at 14:29
In reply to jkarran:
Generally you wouldn't pull in to the right of another cyclist signalling right in this scenario as you are basically saying I'm going before you doing that as they can't turn over you. Its more normal to pull in just behind and / or to the left (and in the later case let them go first)
Generally you wouldn't pull in to the right of another cyclist signalling right in this scenario as you are basically saying I'm going before you doing that as they can't turn over you. Its more normal to pull in just behind and / or to the left (and in the later case let them go first)
Post edited at 14:38
In reply to Neil Williams:
That's your interpretation of a situation to which you weren't present. I think the motorcyclist was aggressive whilst I was merely re-asserting my priority to be ahead of him leaving the junction as per the rules of the highway code.
Indeed I think it would be reasonable to see his original positioning to the right of me in this scenario as an aggressive stance given that I was already at the junction signalling right.
That's your interpretation of a situation to which you weren't present. I think the motorcyclist was aggressive whilst I was merely re-asserting my priority to be ahead of him leaving the junction as per the rules of the highway code.
Indeed I think it would be reasonable to see his original positioning to the right of me in this scenario as an aggressive stance given that I was already at the junction signalling right.
Post edited at 14:39
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I agree, but it is not sensible to meet aggression with aggression. Therein, wars start.
Telling him he was wrong is the job of the Police. Did you genuinely think you had any chance of getting a favourable response by being aggressive back? Really? Or were you just trying to be the alpha male?
> Indeed I think it would be reasonable to see his original positioning to the right of me in this scenario as an aggressive stance given that I was already at the junction signalling right.
I agree, but it is not sensible to meet aggression with aggression. Therein, wars start.
Telling him he was wrong is the job of the Police. Did you genuinely think you had any chance of getting a favourable response by being aggressive back? Really? Or were you just trying to be the alpha male?
In reply to Trevers:
I suggest a simple letter to the Chief Constable, saying that you that you do not agree with the reasons given for no action, requesting that a senior traffic officer review the recording and decisions made.
I suggest a simple letter to the Chief Constable, saying that you that you do not agree with the reasons given for no action, requesting that a senior traffic officer review the recording and decisions made.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Again I disagree, people like this just carry on behaving in a similar manner if someone doesn't confront them. If you don't actually say and do something at the time whining after the fact is completely pointless.
Again I disagree, people like this just carry on behaving in a similar manner if someone doesn't confront them. If you don't actually say and do something at the time whining after the fact is completely pointless.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
And that, I believe, is the cause of aggression on the road, which to me is far worse than the relatively minor transgression (another highly vulnerable road user sharing your box) that occurred.
If it was a car I'd be more with you, but a motorcyclist is as vulnerable as a cyclist. The engine doesn't provide them an awful lot of extra protection over being squashed by an errant lorry.
You confronting them will *not* change their behaviour. Really, it won't. All you are doing is releasing aggression. A campaign for more Police enforcement of the law would bear far more fruit.
And that, I believe, is the cause of aggression on the road, which to me is far worse than the relatively minor transgression (another highly vulnerable road user sharing your box) that occurred.
If it was a car I'd be more with you, but a motorcyclist is as vulnerable as a cyclist. The engine doesn't provide them an awful lot of extra protection over being squashed by an errant lorry.
You confronting them will *not* change their behaviour. Really, it won't. All you are doing is releasing aggression. A campaign for more Police enforcement of the law would bear far more fruit.
Post edited at 15:13
In reply to Neil Williams:
You often trot out this line, but if no one objects to poor behaviour, how do you think it will magically improve?
As to Motorcyclists being vulnerable road users, clearly they are compared to a car, van or truck especially in the SMIDSY category. To Cyclists and Pedestrians they are very nearly as dangerous as a car van or truck.
As a cyclist I have been pretty shocked at how these vulnerable road users ride dangerously around cyclists. However I have never seen drivers of cars vans or trucks actively blocking, driving at etc motorcyclists (normally as the MCr is long gone)
> I agree, but it is not sensible to meet aggression with aggression. Therein, wars start.
You often trot out this line, but if no one objects to poor behaviour, how do you think it will magically improve?
As to Motorcyclists being vulnerable road users, clearly they are compared to a car, van or truck especially in the SMIDSY category. To Cyclists and Pedestrians they are very nearly as dangerous as a car van or truck.
As a cyclist I have been pretty shocked at how these vulnerable road users ride dangerously around cyclists. However I have never seen drivers of cars vans or trucks actively blocking, driving at etc motorcyclists (normally as the MCr is long gone)
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
I think its all to clear from this this thread that that police enforcement isn't baring any fruit at all and will be a very long battle before we get anywhere there.
I disagree by the way that saying something in this case won't have an effect on some people. Whilst saying nothing certainly will not.
If every cyclist explained to motorbikes when they should not be using cycle lanes and cycle boxes at junctions I think we'd see good results.
I think its all to clear from this this thread that that police enforcement isn't baring any fruit at all and will be a very long battle before we get anywhere there.
I disagree by the way that saying something in this case won't have an effect on some people. Whilst saying nothing certainly will not.
If every cyclist explained to motorbikes when they should not be using cycle lanes and cycle boxes at junctions I think we'd see good results.
Post edited at 15:24
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Couldn't agree more. To a cyclist a motorbike is far more a potential threat than vice versa they are heavy, very hot and move fast. Also in this case the positioning of the motor bike was not only contrary to the highway code but was forcing me in to uncomfortable position on the road as I approach turning right across a busy junction. It was also another thing for me to have to consider when there are already enough variables for my poor single tasking alpha male brain
Couldn't agree more. To a cyclist a motorbike is far more a potential threat than vice versa they are heavy, very hot and move fast. Also in this case the positioning of the motor bike was not only contrary to the highway code but was forcing me in to uncomfortable position on the road as I approach turning right across a busy junction. It was also another thing for me to have to consider when there are already enough variables for my poor single tasking alpha male brain
Post edited at 15:22
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Not just his only practical option on arriving in the green box given you'd presumably each filtered down different sides of the queuing traffic?
jk
> Indeed I think it would be reasonable to see his original positioning to the right of me in this scenario as an aggressive stance given that I was already at the junction signalling right.
Not just his only practical option on arriving in the green box given you'd presumably each filtered down different sides of the queuing traffic?
jk
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I don't know, but the fact is that shouting at people who are idiots just gets their back up. They are idiots, after all.
I would suggest directing your energies into joining one of the cycling campaigns. Cyclists will be heard more effectively if they speak together and speak reasonably, objectively and non-aggressively. I'm afraid, as a cyclist, anyone who promotes aggression on the road *does not* and *will not* speak for or with me, whatever the reason. It simply doesn't help. All it does is makes the general impression of cyclists among the wider population worse.
> You often trot out this line, but if no one objects to poor behaviour, how do you think it will magically improve?
I don't know, but the fact is that shouting at people who are idiots just gets their back up. They are idiots, after all.
I would suggest directing your energies into joining one of the cycling campaigns. Cyclists will be heard more effectively if they speak together and speak reasonably, objectively and non-aggressively. I'm afraid, as a cyclist, anyone who promotes aggression on the road *does not* and *will not* speak for or with me, whatever the reason. It simply doesn't help. All it does is makes the general impression of cyclists among the wider population worse.
Post edited at 16:06
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I don't. I think it would result, on balance, in a few people being convinced of the issues and a far greater number of aggressive idiots who hate cyclists.
Cycle (and drive) defensively, not aggressively.
> If every cyclist explained to motorbikes when they should not be using cycle lanes and cycle boxes at junctions I think we'd see good results.
I don't. I think it would result, on balance, in a few people being convinced of the issues and a far greater number of aggressive idiots who hate cyclists.
Cycle (and drive) defensively, not aggressively.
Post edited at 16:08
2
1
In reply to jkarran:
Nope - he could have pulled in behind me there was room.
In any case he shouldn't have been filtering if there was no place for him to go to.
Nope - he could have pulled in behind me there was room.
In any case he shouldn't have been filtering if there was no place for him to go to.
Post edited at 16:51
In reply to Neil Williams:
Who said anything about shouting at idiots? seems like you are inventing scenarios and using derogatory terms to describe people to fit your version of a set of events at which you were not present.
Its not aggressive to point out to a motorcyclist that they shouldn't be in the cycle box of a junction and to place my bike in front of them. The junction was designed so that the cycles would be placed in front of the cars and motorbikes so they can leave it first when the lights change.
Not saying or doing anything at all, is well in my view just rather pathetic.
Good luck with your campaigning. Maybe you could share links to some of the ones you are involved with?
Who said anything about shouting at idiots? seems like you are inventing scenarios and using derogatory terms to describe people to fit your version of a set of events at which you were not present.
Its not aggressive to point out to a motorcyclist that they shouldn't be in the cycle box of a junction and to place my bike in front of them. The junction was designed so that the cycles would be placed in front of the cars and motorbikes so they can leave it first when the lights change.
Not saying or doing anything at all, is well in my view just rather pathetic.
Good luck with your campaigning. Maybe you could share links to some of the ones you are involved with?
Post edited at 16:56
In reply to CurlyStevo:
See the regular UKC response to someone who suggests to cyclists why they should not use Public Foopaths. It might give you an insight into the common mentality that everyone should do what "makes sense" (to them) and sod the rules.
Most of the arguments for using adanced stop cycle boxes apply to motorbikes as well after all.
Me, as a cyclist I'd get rid of cycle lanes that cut up the inside of traffic - encouraging people to do so builds a cycling behaviour that without the lane is lethally dangerous and that with the lane and some drivers is still increased risk. I'd likely get rid of advanced stop boxes as well and encourage assertive road positioning and have fixed cameras gathering evidence of aggressive drivers used to provide evidence for their punishment and reeducation. Problem solved.
> If every cyclist explained to motorbikes when they should not be using cycle lanes and cycle boxes at junctions I think we'd see good results.
See the regular UKC response to someone who suggests to cyclists why they should not use Public Foopaths. It might give you an insight into the common mentality that everyone should do what "makes sense" (to them) and sod the rules.
Most of the arguments for using adanced stop cycle boxes apply to motorbikes as well after all.
Me, as a cyclist I'd get rid of cycle lanes that cut up the inside of traffic - encouraging people to do so builds a cycling behaviour that without the lane is lethally dangerous and that with the lane and some drivers is still increased risk. I'd likely get rid of advanced stop boxes as well and encourage assertive road positioning and have fixed cameras gathering evidence of aggressive drivers used to provide evidence for their punishment and reeducation. Problem solved.
1
In reply to wintertree:
you might have a point regarding the cycle lanes and boxes.
the current state of play where cycle lanes just drop out at junctions and cycle boxes exist with no safe way of getting to them is a half arsed measure. I'd much rather see the cycle lanes properly built in to the junctions where ever possible as you see in some other countries.
you might have a point regarding the cycle lanes and boxes.
the current state of play where cycle lanes just drop out at junctions and cycle boxes exist with no safe way of getting to them is a half arsed measure. I'd much rather see the cycle lanes properly built in to the junctions where ever possible as you see in some other countries.
Post edited at 17:05
1
In reply to Removed Usersimonridout:
FFS, how much Police time and expense do you want to waste?!
No one was hurt. This is almost as bad as that bloke on the country lane standing in front of the vehicle then getting the Police involved.
> I suggest a simple letter to the Chief Constable, saying that you that you do not agree with the reasons given for no action, requesting that a senior traffic officer review the recording and decisions made.
FFS, how much Police time and expense do you want to waste?!
No one was hurt. This is almost as bad as that bloke on the country lane standing in front of the vehicle then getting the Police involved.
2
4
In reply to Lusk:
This thread had been largely productive up until your contribution, good work!
> FFS, how much Police time and expense do you want to waste?!
> No one was hurt. This is almost as bad as that bloke on the country lane standing in front of the vehicle then getting the Police involved.
This thread had been largely productive up until your contribution, good work!
2
In reply to Lusk:
The "no-one was hurt"/"are you a victim of a crime" argument spectacularly fails to stand up in motoring cases. Plenty of motoring offences have no direct victim and do not require an actual accident to occur - speeding being the most obvious one, but the same applies to dangerous driving and DWDCA.
Based on the account given, the driving was aggressive and dangerous. The law does not require that it also be lethal for an offence to be committed. IMO proper enforcement of the law in cases like this would lead to a reduction in road deaths.
> FFS, how much Police time and expense do you want to waste?!
> No one was hurt. This is almost as bad as that bloke on the country lane standing in front of the vehicle then getting the Police involved.
The "no-one was hurt"/"are you a victim of a crime" argument spectacularly fails to stand up in motoring cases. Plenty of motoring offences have no direct victim and do not require an actual accident to occur - speeding being the most obvious one, but the same applies to dangerous driving and DWDCA.
Based on the account given, the driving was aggressive and dangerous. The law does not require that it also be lethal for an offence to be committed. IMO proper enforcement of the law in cases like this would lead to a reduction in road deaths.
4
In reply to stewieatb:
Almost all of this comes down to "stop using cameras for everything, and get more Police on the ground".
They could be funded by an increase in fines for motoring (and cycling) offences.
Almost all of this comes down to "stop using cameras for everything, and get more Police on the ground".
They could be funded by an increase in fines for motoring (and cycling) offences.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...