[Closed] Cyclist knocked off his bike and abused

So you wouldn't have been knocked off because not only would your acute observational skills allow you to deduce that the woman in floral summer dress behind you in a red Peugot was clearly attending the funeral; but also that the driver of said vehicle was a mild sociopath and would be prepared to run you down for daring to act like any other traffic would

Of course, he would have been able to tell by the look in their eyes and facial expression, like Tim Roth in Lie to Me.

GrahamS - Member

So you wouldn't have been knocked off because not only would your acute observational skills allow you to deduce that the woman in floral summer dress behind you in a red Peugot was clearly attending the funeral; but also that the driver of said vehicle was a mild sociopath and would be prepared to run you down for daring to act like any other traffic would.

Very impressive, Mr Holmes.

I would have accepted the possibility that the three funeral cars would be followed by at least three or four normal cars also in the procession, without observing anything about the occupants of the red Peugeot.
That may make me Mr Holmes, Mr Geller or Mr Einstein in your book.
In mine it's just noting the bleeding obvious. 🙂

slimjim78 - Member

GrahamS is right, a lot of what im reading here is genuinely depressing..
That anyone could draw the conclusion that the shouty agressive driver/passengers (in their 2 ton weapon) were at anyway in the right, and that the cyclist 'ad it comin' downright staggers me.

With the exception of the copper's quote, have you really read much in support of the motorist?
Forgive me if there is overwhelming support for the motorist, I've only skimmed the thread so may have missed it. 🙂

I would have accepted the possibility that the three funeral cars would be followed by at least three or four normal cars also in the procession,

so what?

Ah so not actually by observing how "the occupants are dressed" as you stated.

Okay. So when overtaken by a funeral car you should immediately abandon the road, presumably with a deftly executed sideways bunny hop onto the pavement? (not the easiest thing to do on a Brompton) Then presumably wait a few minutes till you can sure that no more mourners are coming?

Question: should I do the same thing when driving? What if I can't get my car onto the pavement properly because someone has placed some children with faces there?

thomthumb - Member

so what?

So I would have allowed them to pass and stay in a procession.
Did you really need to ask me that?
You could have just read the rest of the thread, you know. The answer was already there. 🙂

So I would have allowed them to pass and stay in a procession.

If they wanted to maintain the procession then the lead cars shouldn't have f****** overtaken the cyclist!!!

THEY BROKE THE PROCESSION NOT HIM.

With the exception of the copper's quote, have you really read much in support of the motorist?
Forgive me if there is overwhelming support for the motorist, I've only skimmed the thread so may have missed it.

Well for a start, you are arguing the toss..

And then theres the quotes GrahamS posted via the link..

Forgive me Sbob, and yes, I too would have assumed several cars were following the hearse - but the gaps between the last couple of cars were growing, the pace of the rider was considerable (as was the entourage of cars!) and the car that struck him HOOTED SECONDS BEFORE DECIDING TO STRIKE FROM BEHIND!

The cyclist was in total right to do what he did . Yes, in a split second he may have concluded ''ooh, there may be more funeral cars to pass''
but on the same token he may have concluded
''I really need to legally turn right here, after legally signalling to do so, and judging a safe gap/distance to the next following car, which only a mental person would accellerate toward me and this traffic island at this particular point in my journey..'' ..and then done so accordingly.

An earlier comment was spot on. What if he wasnt riding a bike but was driving a car? Would the other car still have hit him? Very doubtful to say the least.
Why should it be any different for a cyclist?

If you think it should, you will simply never 'get it'.

Wow that's pretty shocking. I mean, even if maybe... just maybe... the cyclist had worked out that the car behind was following the funeral when the horn sounded, by that point it was too late and he'd have been knocked off anyway. The driver's inability to avoid that situation shows that either he was not fully in control of the car, or that he knocked the cyclist off with intention, both of which I would have thought commanded a stiffer response from the police. You get 3 points for running a red light, even if by accident and nobody gets hurt. The police offer's explanation is baffling - given that these are not emergency vehicles and again, there is no way he would have been able to tell who was following the funeral. Given he was turning right and the funeral was going straight on, he could reasonably expect the car behind to give way anyway, rather than attempt to run him down. Why were they so far behind? was the courtege going too fast? Overall, it looks like the police are trying to balance this out some how, given that the funeral / grieving relatives situation are seen by the police as mitigating circumstances. But I think this is the police being emotional - I'm not sure they are mitigating circumstances for needlessly running someone down on the roads. All of this nonsense about where he was on the road doesn't matter - you don't run him over simply because you can't get past. And all this 'the policeman is a cyclist' is irrelevant nonsense as well, as it was in the Emma Way incident. What makes you a cyclist? Cycling everyday or just once a year? Owning a bike? Cycling on the roads? It does make me wonder of the police are generally anti-bike, or if they've just decided it's one cyclist vs a larger number of funeral attendees.

An earlier comment was spot on. What if he wasnt riding a bike but was driving a car?

So if you substitute a cyclist for a motorbike does the argument still stack up?
No it doesn't.

Also how does he know if the person whose procession it was, was popular or not? I fully expect my funeral procession to be formed of a single tuktuk carrying the coffin and a moped following.

More than anything it's the first thing they say that really grinds my gears " we're going to a ****** funeral!" Again, it's the constant ****ing look at me everybody! We are priority, clear a space, move out of our way, we have children/ a dog/ had cancer in 2003/ have a slight limp/ am tall/ am short/ am wearing heels/ lost my mum 9 years ago/ suffer with depression/ had a heart attack when I was 31 and on and on it goes. We are special, everyone bloody bow to us immediately. We are entitled to special treatment.

Quite honestly, the moment she started bleeting on about her grandad being dead I would have just said good. Idiots.

GrahamS - Member

Ah so not actually by "the occupants are dressed" as you stated.

Someone asked a question and I gave an answer. That doesn't mean there aren't other answers to that question.
You're trying (in a disappointingly poor fashion) to discredit me by pretending I've changed my position when I haven't.
Don't do that.
It reduces your position to worthlessness, nothing.
It's also not very nice, and borderline trolling. 🙂

Okay. So when overtaken by a funeral car you should immediately abandon the road, presumably with a deftly executed sideways bunny hop onto the pavement? (not the easiest thing to do on a Brompton) Then presumably wait a few minutes till you can sure that no more mourners are coming?

Have I said that?
No.
You are hyperbolizing and moving the goalposts because that is the only way you'll score.

Question: should I do the same thing when driving? What if I can't get my car onto the pavement properly because someone has placed some children with faces there?

See above.

Now stop it or I'll start calling you names, and I'd rather not as the mods don't like that. 🙂

GrahamS - Member

If they wanted to maintain the procession then the lead cars shouldn't have f****** overtaken the cyclist!!!

THEY BROKE THE PROCESSION NOT HIM.

Calm down Graham, there is no need to shout.
It was not unreasonable for the procession to overtake a cyclist cycling so slowly.
Again, I haven't said the cyclist did break the procession, and haven't apportioned any blame to him.

Have a Horlicks.

'the policeman is a cyclist' is irrelevant nonsense as well

Owning a bike is the new "some of my best friends are black / brown / jewish / muslim / gay / swans"

starfanglednutter - Member

An earlier comment was spot on. What if he wasnt riding a bike but was driving a car?

Or indeed a motorbike?

Then the situation would not have occured.

(apologies for not seperating the quotes)

slimjim78 - Member

Forgive me Sbob

No need, I agree with your entire post, as I have made clear from the start.
Driver 100% wrong.
Cyclist 100% right.

I think some people just like arguing. 🙂

what about weddings, what do we do there?

or christenings? JESUS CHRIST WHY ISN'T ANYONE THINKING OF THE CHILDREN????

You're trying (in a disappointingly poor fashion) to discredit me by pretending I've changed my position when I haven't.

No, I'm not - you quite plainly claimed that your amazing observation skills would allow you to deduce which cars were part of the cortège by looking at how the occupants were dressed during your lifesaver check.

Hence why people called you a God.

Have I said that?
No.

Okay - you tell me then - if you'd been in that chap's position and realised you were now in the middle of a cortège with your right turn 20 seconds ahead of you - what would you have done exactly?

Seem to me that thinking [i]"I'll take my right turn and get out their way"[/i] is a perfectly reasonable response.

Now stop it or I'll start calling you names, and I'd rather not as the mods don't like that.

Rightly so - me attacking your weak argument is no reason for you to attack my weak character. 🙂

I'm considering running sbob over, just to make a point. Not entirely sure what that point would be, but it would definitively be a good one.

Then the situation would not have occurred.

It was not unreasonable for the procession to overtake a cyclist cycling so slowly.

Aren't funeral processions [i]supposed[/i] to be slow?

[img] [/img]
Never mind the cyclist - get the bloody piper out the way!

Like how the woman was doing the threats-Reminds of the time I had a close miss. I did the wtf handsign (ok ****er sign). He slammed on. He made to get out of his car- I slammed the door and told him to sit down/calm down (he did). At this his wife went mental and jumped in with two feet telling me I was a deadman etc/she will run me over etc. I looked at him (builder type bloke and he was looking at the floor).

This really worried me. I didnt commute again for 1yr+. Just not worth the risks IMO as a cyclist.

No, I'm not - you quite plainly claimed that your amazing observation skills would allow you to deduce which cars were part of the cortège by looking at how the occupants were dressed during your lifesaver check.

This is what I said:

How about by the way the occupants are dressed?

in response to:

as I said before, how do you know a red hatchback is a funeral car?

I didn't mention the lifesaver (although I did reply to someone who did).
You're garnering more information from my posts than I've given.

Hence why people called you a God.

One person.
You just can't help making stuff up, can you?

Okay - you tell me then - if you'd been in that chap's position and realised you were now in the middle of a cortège with your right turn 20 seconds ahead of you - what would you have done exactly?

Being party to only a tiny glimpse of the situation it would be pointless to answer, but I will just to humour you.

Firstly, I would have been cycling so ****ing fast I wouldn't have been overtaken in the first place. 😀
If I had slowed to the speed of the cyclist in the video, perhaps to give myself more time to eye up some skirt on the pavement for instance, I would have either pulled over to the left before my junction, or more realistically caned it across the road behind the last funeral car whilst the white car was still some distance behind.

Out of respect, I would have held back on the wheelies whilst undertaking the manoeuvre.

your weak argument

My argument is not getting run over.
Your argument is getting run over.

I can't judge the strength or weakness of those positions, but one is definitely less silly than the other. 🙂

RichPenny - Member

I'm considering running sbob over, just to make a point. Not entirely sure what that point would be, but it would definitively be a good one.

Considering my point is not getting run over, you're not alone in not understanding what you are talking about. 😉

starfanglednutter - Member

Exactly, he wouldn't have dared to drive into him while he was signaling right, I quite agree. If he had, I think he would have been treated more seriously by the police.

So the funeral cars would have overtaken a car or motorbike on that road?

No they wouldn't.
Hence why that situation would not have occured.

So the funeral cars would have overtaken a car or motorbike on that road?

Okay, clearly you're just feeling contrary sbob, so I think I'll leave you to it with the observation that pulling over to let them past would have meant him stopping at, or very near, either a traffic island or a junction. Personally I don't think that would have been safer.

And your other apparent option of [i]"just be as awesumz fast as me"[/i] might not be quite so easy for a 42 year old carrying luggage on a Brompton.

starfanglednutter - Member

No, so the car that clipped the cyclist would not have tried to the cyclist if he'd been on a motorbike. Are you assuming that motorbikes are all really fast and drive in the middle of the road? Shall we call it a pizza delivery moped then? slowing down to turn right? Does that help to visualise it?

A 50cc moped can do 30mph, so the funeral cars would not have overtaken and the rider (or driver) would not have found themselves in the middle of a procession.
That's what I meant when I said that the situation would not have occurred.

Why was your last comment provocative? No need for that. Glad you changed it.

Sorry, I thought I had made myself clear when I said the situation would not have occurred, and thought this post;

Exactly, he wouldn't have dared to drive into him while he was signaling right, I quite agree.

Thanks sbob, I've figured it out now. You're a ****, [i]that's[/i] why I want to run you over. It was so simple 🙄

I would have gone on the pavement or got off my bike even, it was a funeral procession, and he wasn't even close to the kerb

Guys wtf. Why not contact the IPCC with a complaint? Should the cyclist not be on the road?

As a motorist I KNOW I cant overtake a bike inside a traffic island.

Not read the whole thread! Seen the vid though-car driver clearly 100% at fault and the woman really needs to wind her neck in....however, as she was on the way to her grans funeral then she was having a pretty shitty day and I'd be inclined to cut her some slack.

The policeman saying that it was partly his fault needs to be sent on a road safety awareness course!

GrahamS - Member

Okay, clearly you're just feeling contrary sbob,

I'm clearly contrary to getting run over!
That is all.

so I think I'll leave you to it with the observation that pulling over to let them past would have meant him stopping at, or very near, either a traffic island or a junction. Personally I don't think that would have been safer.

Wouldn't have been safer than actually getting run over?
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Pure Guinness.

And your other apparent option of "just be as awesumz fast as me" might not be quite so easy for a 42 year old carrying luggage on a Brompton.

I'm not that far from 42, although I don't look it, or act it.
I thought the swearing and the smiley made it obvious that the "I'd be going too fast" option was a joke.
The extra clue was the comment about eyeing up skirt, should you have missed the first two.

The third option, which you omit to comment on, is as stated what I'd probably have done.

Ps. Yes I do ride on pavements.

RichPenny - Member

Thanks sbob, I've figured it out now. You're a ****, that's why I want to run you over. It was so simple

I'd report your post but frankly I couldn't care what you think.
😀

Wouldn't have been safer than actually getting run over?

When weighing up my options I don't usually consider [i]"What if the driver of that car is a borderline sociopath who will deliberately ram me off the road?"[/i]

If I did then I'd conclude there were no safe options. Ever. And I'd probably take the bus.

The third option, which you omit to comment on, is as stated what I'd probably have done.

So you'd have [i]"caned it across the road behind the last funeral car whilst the white car was still some distance behind"[/i]? That option?

I don't understand. Caned it across the road to where? The junction was still some way off at that point?

And whose to say the white car driver isn't also a nutter who'd have run you down for caning it in front of him?

mtfu

looked to me like the cyclist swerved quite erratically each time he looked over his shoulder.. was he drunk at the time..?

I nearly die inside when I do that on the road, let alone doing it repeatedly in the midst of a funeral procession..

Poor bloke.. lucky he didn't get hurt

FWIW I would have pulled over, respect for the dead and all that

[quote=yunki ]looked to me like the cyclist swerved quite erratically each time he looked over his shoulder.. was he drunk at the time..?
I nearly die inside when I do that on the road, let alone doing it repeatedly in the midst of a funeral procession..
Poor bloke.. lucky he didn't get hurt
FWIW I would have pulled over, respect for the dead and all that
Sorry, the trolling pattern is currently full of sbob.

[img] [/img]

just my honest opinion from looking at the vid..

that doesn't make the assault right in my eyes, but he was riding a bit flipping squiffy to say the least

that's just a fact.. and doesn't make me a troll

I N R A T S but that is UN****INGBELIEVABLE!

but he was riding a bit flipping squiffy to say the least

I interpreted that more as pulling out a bit to take the lane when there were traffic islands to make sure no cars tried to pass at an unsafe point.

I think there's also a recommendation in a little book of the road somwhere about leaving cylists plenty of room in case they have to swerve or are unsteady, so drunk or not, you're still not supposed to drive into them.

Could also have been mighy windy for all we know, I've been blown about a surprising amount before, enough to give me the willies once or twice when I've been blown towards a passing car.

I'm more [s]surprised[/s] [s]disappointed[/s] enraged that their first reaction is not to check that the poor vulnerable squishy human they've just hit is OK, but to hurl abuse instead, even if he'd been standing at the side of the road waiting to throw himself in front of a car surely the absolute first thing you do is make sure they are ok?

**** hell! 😯

Notts police should be ****ing ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

[quote=yunki ]just my honest opinion from looking at the vid..
that doesn't make the assault right in my eyes, but he was riding a bit flipping squiffy to say the least
that's just a fact.. and doesn't make me a troll

Helmetcam quick panning from straight on to looking over right shoulder can give the false impression of erratic behavior.

Notts police should be **** ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

To be fair the article says the couple were charged/cautioned by the police, so they didn't let them off [i]entirely[/i] even if the punishments were rather desultory:

"..the driver was ordered to attend an awareness course and the female passenger who abused the cyclist was cautioned."

Personally I think it should have been a Careless Driving charge and points on his license as a minimum. Funeral or not.

>>Personally I'd have been in the primary all the the way down that street. Too many traffic islands to sit in >>the secondary.

Likewise. This looks to me like 100% the fault of an impatient motorist who should have got at least points and careless driving for that dangerous move. The cyclist was clearly looking behind (and supposedly signalling) yet he tried to push past anyway. That points towards it being deliberate. Pathetic, inadequate, response from Police

However, his impatience, and the danger it caused to the cyclist, were massively exacerbated by the road design.

The width of that road and pavements is sufficient for protected, segregated cycle paths. Instead we have wide pavements (with no-one using them - not a single pedestrian in that video) and the road artificially narrowed with traffic islands and white paint. There is more than enough space to create a safe space for cyclists there without inconveniencing motorists.

Add to that the cars parked on the pavement on the side road at the start, and the pick up parked across pavement/double yellow later. On just a short video. I don't think the cyclists are the problem.

That points towards it being deliberate.

That and the fact the "lady" is shouting and the driver is sounding the horn for several seconds before they "accidentally" run into the cyclist who has been in plain view of them the entire time.

Completely agree with you on the facilities by the way - plenty of room for something much better there, but that's the UK for you.

(Help make it better: [url= http://www.sustrans.org.uk/getbritaincycling ]Write to your MP and tell them to attend the Get Britain Cycling debate[/url] and push for all the recommendations to be accepted)

Personally I think it should have been a Careless Driving charge and points on his license as a minimum. Funeral or not.

I am not au fait enough with ranks of driving offences but surely hitting someone, you have seen, from behind who has right way whilst attempting an "overtake" on someone trying to turn right is pretty high up the scale of bad driving

TBH If they wont prosecute that they wont prosecute anything

Do any of us really think the outcome will be the same if I do this to a copper on their bike?

Really Piss poor decision

PS I salute your indefatigability on these threads

Meanwhile a teenager on a bike causes a bus to do an emergency stop, one of the passengers gets injured and the teenager gets charged with Dangerous Cycling and Involuntary GBH.
http://road.cc/content/news/89871-updated-police-arrest-cyclist-after-bus-drivers-emergency-stop-leaves-passenger

So why can't this driver be charged with GBH?

GrahamS - Member

So why can't this driver be charged with GBH?

No proof of intent, no serious injuries.

Junkyard - lazarus

I am not au fait enough with ranks of driving offences but surely hitting someone, you have seen, from behind who has right way whilst attempting an "overtake" on someone trying to turn right is pretty high up the scale of bad driving

Worst thing is (and I may be wrong) that the driver will not have a conviction on record, so the only punishment they have received is that if they run someone else over within a year they won't be able to take another course.

Some people may think this is pretty harsh or unfair, but evidence proves he was entirely at fault and caused the incident. I will openly admit it is quite a freak accident, but one that could have been avoided had he been paying attention and riding correctly within the law. After all, if a car driver caused a serious accident by pulling out in front of someone, they too would be charged by the police

If only this was true and we got the same levels of protection as bus passengers. A car driver can see the cyclist and then run them over get out and threaten assault and just be told they are a very naughty boy 😕

Those of you who are unhappy with the response from Nottinghamshire police should raise your concerns by writing to them at the address below detailing your reasons;

Professional Standards Directorate
Police Headquarters
Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

or by e-mail at psd@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk

No proof of intent, no serious injuries.

Surely the teenager didn't have intent either?
He didn't intend to get hit by a bus or harm any passengers. He was just stupid/reckless/careless.

I guess the scale of injury is different in this case, but I'd say that's more through luck than anything else.

Balance of probabilities, the law is an ass.

ok ive meailed notts police, the IPCC and the CPS

Hello

I would like to ask a question

as the email in the linked article from notts police to the victim states that the highway code (as regards to prosecuting in this case) is effectively suspended for a passing funeral cortege.

I would like to know how you determine whether the cortege has passed, ie whats the average number of cars in a cortege.

I only ask as a concerned cyclist and wouldnt want to be run over by a driver in a funeral cortege who now realises that he has reduced culpability when hitting a cyclist.

The charging guidelines for Dangerous Driving (with a mandatory 12 month ban) include incidents where the driver has not given due regard to vulnerable road users such as cyclists and "overtaking that could not have been completed safely".

So it's a pretty clear case of dangerous driving, but the CPS don't follow their own guidelines.

The bus vs cyclist case is interesting. Could it set a precedent? Driver hits me when I'm cycling, he now gets charged with assault?

Of course not, we're cyclists, we don't matter, but it would be nice if it happened.

bails - Member

So it's a pretty clear case of dangerous driving

No it isn't.
The burden of proof for DD is very high and it is an incredibly hard charge to stick.

Balance of probabilities, the law is an ass.

We agree on something at last sbob 😀

The bus vs cyclist case is interesting. Could it set a precedent? Driver hits me when I'm cycling, he now gets charged with assault?

Of course not, we're cyclists, we don't matter, but it would be nice if it happened.

Yeah that's the thing - I don't really object to the charges in that Bus vs Cyclist case. Assuming the reporting of the circumstances is correct then they seem a little harsh but reasonable.

But they are only "fair" if we can expect drivers to face the same kind of charges and quite obviously they don't - even when caught on video and clearly in the wrong.

BTW did anyone catch the quite excellent pro-cycling pieces on BBC News and Newsnight the other night?

Newsnight piece (watch from 22:28) :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/bigscreen/tv/episode/b038bpyg

BBC article: "Why is cycling so popular in the Netherlands?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587916

Great to see this stuff hitting mainstream media.

I have to quote the ABD guy in full as his frankly deranged world view deserves as much public scrutiny as possible:

"I think Boris' plans for spending more on cycling are, in essence, bonkers. Cycling is one of the most dangerous occupations you can undertake. You should realise that. And that's why, if you've got any sense, you get off your bike and actually use public transport or buy a car.

They are becoming a very pushy minority group. You don't get that from motorists who are much better behaved generally."

- [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038bpyg/Newsnight_07_08_2013/ ]Roger Lawson, Alliance of British Drivers, speaking to Newsnight on 7th August 2013[/url] (31 mins in)

😯

Just reread this thread and viewed the vid again. My flabber remains gasted, not by the driver (we all know there are plenty of psychopathic killers piloting cars round the roads), but by the police response. That there is somehow mitigation because they were on their way to a funeral.

Sorry, but that can only wash (very slightly, if at all) if there was some contriteness to the driver's behaviour in the run up and after. If the response had been 'OMG. I'm so sorry, I'm following that hearse to my Grandad's funeral and wasn't paying proper attention, are you OK, let me help you up' etc. then I could see why the police might take a more lenient position. But sorry - the horn beeping first and the behaviour after removes any mitigation in my mind.

Deliberate, premeditated assault with a deadly weapon.

You don't get that from motorists who are much better behaved generally.

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Brilliant! Ow, god I think I've pulled something laughing too hard.

What a ****.

Good work Kimbers, keep on poking them. 🙂

Deliberate, premeditated assault with a deadly weapon.

Yup. I'm getting the urge to by one of [url= http://www.spservices.co.uk/item/EMI_EMIWindscreenCenterPunch_76_0_24_0.html ]these[/url] again. I'm really beginning to think that the only way cyclists are ever going to get some redress in these situations is if they start dishing it out themselves.

sbob - Member
[i]bails - Member
So it's a pretty clear case of dangerous driving[/i]

No it isn't.
The burden of proof for DD is very high and it is an incredibly hard charge to stick.

Burden of proof. Like a video of a driver failing to give due regard to a cyclist and making an overtaking manouver that could not have been completed safely? That kind of proof?

This: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/motorist-convicted-of-dangerous-driving-after-being-caught-on-hidden-in-car-camera-1-4855955 led to a conviction for DD, a 12 month ban and 40 hours of community service. And he didn't even run anyone over.

Like I said, if the CPS & police follow their own guidelines then the incident in the OP should have been charged as dangerous driving (obviously, the CPS are reliant on the police sending files in the first place).

Here's a quote from the CPS ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/)

Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an aggravating feature of the offence.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:

racing or competitive driving;

[b]failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, [/b]motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;

speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;

aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;

disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;

disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;

[b]overtaking which could not have been carried out safely[/b];

How is it not dangerous driving?

How is it not dangerous driving?

Your evidence shows FA.
Your evidence shows a cyclist cycling along and then falling over.
It doesn't show a car overtaking.
It doesn't show a collision.

The video you link to is totally different.
It does show a car ignoring solids and ignoring a keep left bollard.
That is evidence.

Like I said, the burden of proof for DD is very high and it is an incredibly hard charge to stick.
You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

See, now it would help if the police said that.

Rather than "it was kinda your fault, don't do it again". "We're sorry, but X is the best we can hope for because a good lawyer would make sure that DD doesn't stick" is much more reassuring to hear.

I'm still waiting back to hear from the police (after 2 months) after a driver deliberately cut me up and stamped on the brakes, causing a collision. That could also be dangerous driving (on the due regard for cyclists and safe overtaking points mentioned above). That [i]is[/i] all shown on camera, so we'll see, but personal past experience suggests that as I said, the police don't follow CPS guidelines and downgrade the charges.

I was assaulted by a teacher in full view of witnesses, firstly directly (by trying to pull me off my bike by my hair) then by knocking me off my bike (he was on a bike).
I was 11yrs old.

I suffered a concussion that triggered frequent migraines for the next 10-15yrs, although I don't get them too often now, plus a couple of broken bones and other minor injuries.

He received a caution for common assault.

Life is a bitch sometimes. 😀

Yeah, but I'd imagine you probably deserved it 😉

😆

Those of you who are unhappy with the response from Nottinghamshire police should raise your concerns by writing to them at the address below detailing your reasons;

Professional Standards Directorate
Police Headquarters
Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

or by e-mail at psd@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk

Sent my message on Friday, but typically haven't received a reply!!

I'm really losing confidence in the police, on saturday the burglar alarm went off in the school across the road, there's no live in caretaker so I called the police on 101. They said that they'd only come out if I subscribed to their 'call-out' service!

I'd always thought that as a tax-payer I already subscibed enough, but apparantly not.

Maybe it was a false alarm, maybe somebody nicked all the computers or maybe it was kids trashing the classroom, but the police don't care........

Sent my message on Friday, but typically haven't received a reply!!

Not to take any sides, but that is quite a short amount of time to get pissy about a non-reply.

Not to take any sides, but that is quite a short amount of time to get pissy about a non-reply.

I should probably also say that the course of action taken by the police wasn't all [i]that[/i] unreasonable IMO, it was the badly worded letter that (literally) added insult to injury.

Wow.

Police response is ridiculous. I can't think of any valid* mitigation for driving into the back of a cyclist indicating to turn right at a traffic island.

*Being on your way to your gran's funeral is NOT a valid mitigation nor is "I'm a ****-ing idiot and don't know how to drive"

No wonder they haven't replied, probably too busy having sex on duty (and knowing that they'll still keep their job if they're found out!!)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/12/police-man-sex-gun-ankles-gwent

Deliberate collision IMO - time gap between horn sounding and impact gave plenty of time to slow / stop.

If the government really want to encourage people to use bikes, first they need to make them feel safe on the roads. A big part of that is making drivers aware that this kind of assault is not acceptable. Piss poor effort on the part of the police here....

Was that really an approprate dress for a funeral? And with those shoes to?

Or am I missing the point. ❓

I got a reply from the CPS......

Dear Chris,

Thank you for raising this incident to our attention. May I assure you that the CPS treat cyclists as vulnerable road users with great consideration and identify that an act of Bad Driving can have much greater repercussions. We have recently updated our legal guidance on charging offences arising from driving incidents, careful consideration is given to all road users www.cps.gov.uk , following the link to legal guidance. The comments made by the police are not ones that the CPS have made, it may be worth noting that the fact that the driver was placed on a course does identify that there was some bad driving that needed addressing. It seems that the CPS had little, or no role in this case as it was a matter diverted, as it was felt that the driver did need educating with regard to his driving. The CPS would have been forwarded the case if the police had deemed that diversion was inappropriate. Clearly the police must have made this decision and we have had no role in it.

I have made these comments having only read the article. It would be unfair for me to comment on any offences to consider or the Highway Code as it would seem that this was a case that the CPS had no role in. I hope this assists,

Regards

Katy Waterman

Senior Policy Advisor
Strategy and Policy Directorate
United House
York.

Nice note from the CPS and the guidelines are improved.

The injustices are daily though, maybe its just me/us because we read them but every day there seems to be some new tragedy.

You do wonder at what point more direct action is justified? This is people lifes 2k per year and ten of thousands more seriously injured.

Not all cyclist but all victims of road traffic.

Not to take any sides, but that is quite a short amount of time to get pissy about a non-reply

OK, but I still haven't had a reply, even now.............

[img] https://docs.google.com/viewer?attid=0.1&pid=gmail&thid=1408244e7dce83db&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3Dfe62588962%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1408244e7dce83db%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&docid=d086057c198da9059832fd0549ef5f6c%7Cd82bc04f41d05449969ab1a1eb89d97e&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=844 [/img]