CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Today's rubbish driving...

(11258 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by Stepdoh
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is sticky

1…177178179…376

  1. Frenchy
    Member

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget
    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    NSFW language in both.

    Happened in April, but it scared me so much that I reported them to the police. They seemed to take it seriously initially, but needed to be chased up a couple of times to find out what was happening. Was told yesterday that I'd basically been wasting my time all along:

    "the crime does not fit into the category of careless and reckless driving but rather an error of judgment on behalf of the driver."

    "In this incident it was not considered to be careless, but a error of judgment due to the fact that no injury had occurred or has been any damage to your bike, as well as other other variables such as speed, weather conditions etc adding to the incident."

    "the driver [was] driving into the sun obstructing a clear line of sight, the driver at the time also had her sun visor down further limiting her line of sight. The driver has misjudged the distance between herself and you as she made efforts to move back into the correct lane after overtaking the car resulting in her coming to close to you. There was no intention to cause you distress or to be alarmed by her actions at the time."

    It thought it was a long shot to start with, but...bleh...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. Rob
    Member

    @Frenchy That's just crazy, she had no reason to move left (no oncoming vehicle) and every reason to stay where she was (you + further parked cars).

    To me, it looks like she doesn't see you at all as she only moves back out for the next parked car.

    Much more run of the mill rubbishness for me:

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. ih
    Member

    @Frenchy I think that's the worst example of a close pass that I've seen on this forum, possibly because you have the rear view too.

    I've cut and pasted a bit from one of those driving websites that basically aims to help defend drivers.

    "
    Careless driving (driving without due care)

    This offence is committed when the accused's driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case.

    The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

    The following [is an example] of driving which may amount to driving without due care and attention:

    driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;"

    It is difficult for me to see how your case doesn't fall under the category of driving without due care. The police seem to be saying that because there was no damage to you or your bike it wasn't careless, and that there were circumstances (bright sun, sun visor down) that made the driver's action acceptable, whereas those circumstances ought to have made them even more careful. Police just couldn't be .....

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. Frenchy
    Member

    @ih+erob Thanks for the reassurance that this was a particularly bad pass, I was starting to wonder if the video simply didn't capture how close she was, or that I was making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    To me, it looks like she doesn't see you at all as she only moves back out for the next parked car.

    I agree, as did the sergeant who took the statement. Proving that might have been tricky, though.

    Police just couldn't be .....
    I certainly think there's a large dollop of this involved (although I don't envy the case load of police officers, and understand that some prioritisation has to occur), but the police officer also sent me this:

    Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988 ( careless and reckless driving) , will normally only be recorded if one or more of the following criteria apply:
*The degree of carelessness is on the upper end of the scale.
*Injury has resulted other than the most trivial injury.
*Other offences are involved such as vehicle defects, document offences or failure to stop/report collision.
*The driver is young (under 25 years) or is inexperienced and affected by the provisions of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act, 1995.
*The driver is elderly (over 70 years) or infirm and a court may consider requiring a re-sit of the driving test.
*The driver is a persistent offender including not only those with 9 current penalty points on their driving licence but also those with a number of similar cases pending.
*The incident involves a PCV which is carrying passengers, particularly school buses.
*The incident involves left hand drive vehicles or foreign drivers and either of these factors have contributed to the collision.
*Where particular local circumstances have been agreed with the Procurator Fiscal.

    Which probably means the police have discovered that they are unlikely to gain a conviction outwith these circumstances, and that they'd be wasting their time, and mine, in trying. If this is the case, I don't fully understand why it took three months to tell me this, though.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. ih
    Member

    I think "careless" and "reckless" are different, aren't they, with the latter requiring worse behaviour.

    I too recognise that the police have quite a lot to do, and in your case, if they'd had the guts to say, "Look, we think it's bad, but our experience has shown that there's little chance of securing a conviction, so we'll record it just now in case the same car is involved in any other incident" I would at least respect their honesty.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Compare and contrast, Frenchy...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3714331/Dramatic-moment-teenage-Deliveroo-rider-tackled-ground-arrested-spooking-police-horses-riding-bike-close-them.html

    Perhaps the kid will get a savvy solicitor armed with folderol about sun direction etc

    God forbid these delicate flowers of police horses & riders be confronted with motor vehicles, never mind breaking up a football riot etc.

    The police are part of the problem, not the solution unfortunately.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. gembo
    Member

    That is a shocking near miss and we were chatting about it at the canal were we? The driver goes on blithely as if nothing has happened ignorant of the impact of their poorest ever driving in this category we have ever seen.

    Having said that I do not think the police are part of the problem. I think we need presumed liability and then we will have slightly improved driving.

    The police are busy (sometimes too busy to get into a discussion with us about the fact they won't be proceeding so just take the statement etc and let it roll on). They have to prioritise amongst crimes and that starts with those where actual harm has occurred. I imagine you could get flashback from near misses and I firmly blame drivers and indeed car manufacturers for making it harder to die in cars with airbags etc which then let's people start using phones etc in cars instead of concentrating on the road. But compared with being mugged or burgled etc these near misses are way down the list and it is a bit unrealistic to think that they will get up the list. However, when a driver knows they will be presumed liable for any injury, damage, lose their precious no claims etc then they will drive more carefully. There won't be more police involvement in near misses or cyclists being hit by drivers but there will be fewer actual accidents and near misses. This is my hope and energy needs to go into presumed liability campaign as that is what has a chance of making a difference.

    I will try to introduce an Inspector I have had dealings with recently to this forum. Think he might be on holiday.

    Not diminishing the effect this had just stating my view that it cannot be fixed by the police.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. algo
    Member

    @gembo - I entirely agree about presumed liability, and I also agree that it is understandable that an overstretched police force need to prioritise. I do, however, think that some of these close passes are within inches of causing a fatality.

    I know it's a philosophical question which you are far better equipped to reason about than I, but if I swing a knife and miss you causing no damage I suspect the police would still want to arrest me. I struggle to see a well defined difference between deliberately almost hitting someone with a vehicle and doing that. Admittedly some of these close passes are just idiotic and careless but I am convinced some are deliberate punishment passes. We've all experienced them. The fact that they don't cause damage is not enough reason to discount them. I'm afraid I think the attitude of the police is part of the problem. Even when they see misdemeanours which are potentially dangerous with their own eyes they often do nothing - almost certainly because they are overstretched and have more pressing matters to attend to. I completely understand that.

    I don't think the police are wilfully negligent about this, but I think there is an institutional disregard of threats to cyclists. I don't think this is malice, I just think that if they know nothing will be done then they won't pursue anything which just cements that attitude and prolongs the problem.

    I agree presumed liability will help, but so will the odd reported case of drivers actually being prosecuted or banned.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    After following the above link, I came across this -

    "

    Mr Zhou, a scientist for Cancer Research UK, told the paper: 'Given the evidence that has been shown in court it’s hard to understand why there was no prosecution.'

    Law firm Leigh Day will also be making a formal complaint against the police for 'victim blaming'.

    ...

    PC Harryman also told the court Mr Williams had not 'acted carelessly' and that Ms Tao was in the 'wrong gear', was in an 'unsafe position' in the bike lane next to the lorry and was 'too slow to move off'.

    "

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3714419/Horrific-moment-Oxford-graduate-cyclist-26-sucked-lorry-crushed-beneath-wheels-one-London-s-dangerous-junctions.html

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. gembo
    Member

    Algo

    In theory I am happy to consider your premise but my opinion is that it is a little shaky in that the car is being driven in a manner slightly different from normal. Poorly or with intent to miss. Whereas the knife is being used outwith the purpose it is designated for. And brandishing a knife is rarely done with intent to miss. With a punishment pass I do feel assaulted briefly and on occasions in the past I have had to stop, get off the bike take some time. I have also taken routes to avoid roads when the behaviour of the drivers starts getting to me.

    The police will proceed when they feel sure of a conviction. I concede you can be treated like a whinging cyclist or with respect dependent on officer. When the Matthew Laing drinks lorry drove deliberately at me and I got the brush off from that company I reported it to the police and they came to my office within a couple of hours and took my statement. They were clear that as I had managed to get onto the pavement and away from the nutcase who then abused me verbally for making a fuss there was unlikely to be any Action with regard to the procurator fiscal etc but they would be paying him a visit and looking at CCTV at the Tron where the incident took place. The two officers were genuinely thoughtful and professional. Also they came down to me. My office near st Leonard's maybe quieter day in gang land or something about the particulars I gave that tripped an act on their part?

    So yes report to the police but do not expect more than a note against the driver?. Unless you have been physically assaulted by them have witnesses to corroborate your footage etc.

    If you have the energy back presumed liability campaign too.

    Sorry if I have been nit picky, I just do not locate the issue in the police response. Your choice there is either they are respectful about not doing anything or in a worst case scenario not interested. Unless the footage / witness statements or the reaction from the driver leads them to wish to take matters further.

    In the big Lebowski which features strongly in my terms of reference .(I once gave an ethics lecture which was actually listened to, ethics is sooooo boring by calling it The Big Lebowski Ethics Lecture) anyway in that film, the dude gets his car stolen but the police find it and he is called to the pound to pick it up. The dude thinks there was a bag with a million dollars in it in the car so he asks the cop if they are pursuing any leads in tracking down the car thief. The cop pisses himself laughing and says Oh, yeah we got three teams working on that round the clock.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. Frenchy
    Member

    @Gembo Not me you were talking to at the canal.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. gembo
    Member

    Ah, sorry frenchy, there was a discussion about a near miss and indeed I think fisticuffs that police took months to do nothing about.

    I think the tipper truck link that ChDot just posted is a shocker. It confirms my view that the police route is unlikely to work (changing now to even when driver appears to have murdered the cyclist). Not that we should not pursue that route just that what will change the behaviour of some drivers is knowing they will have their insurance premium increased and therefore they will drive a little more carefully.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. algo
    Member

    @gembo - good points - I can see what you're saying about the knife being used outwith its purpose. I have also had very professional and excellent dealings with police, but a word in a malicious driver's ear is not a deterrent - prosecution is. However I do agree with you about presumed liability being a better thing to campaign for.

    I am struggling to reconcile your view that the police are not part of the problem, and that the horrifying story chdot posted as confirming "the police route is unlikely to work". For me that just confirms my thoughts that police treatment of such cases are very much part of the problem. I will give it some thought though.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    I thought the decision to prosecute was up to the procurator fiscal not the police.

    For me I agree with what others have posted in that the police are part of the problem. A lot of them have the attitude of if the cyclist isn't seriously injured then why bother and they will even accept ridiculous explanations for reasons not to proceed.

    I was told that the reason the driver who knocked me down didn't see me (on a straight road of about 500m) was 'that he didn't see me'.

    Frenchy I would complain if I was you and quote the carless driving law back to them (not what they have made up).

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. Frenchy
    Member

    "I thought the decision to prosecute was up to the procurator fiscal not the police."

    The decision on whether an incident is reported to the procurator fiscal belongs to the police though, right?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    I always thought they were separate entities

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. gembo
    Member

    Ok I have perhaps condensed what I mean by saying the police are not part of the Problem.

    The fact that the police cannot prioritise an ostensibly unharmed cyclist's desire for them to do something about a close pass is not something the police can fix.

    The driver who killed the cyclist was prosecuted the police did participate in the driver being sent for trial. There then does appear to have been a mis trial and the individual policeman quoted does appear to have been part of that. He may have been led up the garden path by the driver's lawyer, I don't know.

    Returning to near passes I have already stated these have a terrible effect on me personally and on people I know. Through following this forum for many years I know that reporting this to the police is not going to lead to anyone being prosecuted. I do not see that as the police being part of the problem though. As I have stated I see it as the police prioritising between crimes where injury has been sustained and those where they may or may not wish to be involved but that is irrelevant because they are not staffed to follow up what are broadly victimless crimes.

    Man I am going to get so many close passes tomorrow after this.

    Anyway I feel energy is needed to push for presumed liability. That is my favoured option. I do get reporting to police as I said upstream in the thread I did this and was treated well. I am just saying I did not do it expecting a prosecution.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. Frenchy
    Member

    "I always thought they were separate entities."

    Yes, but I don't think the procurator fiscal is told of every crime report; for most crimes, the police conduct their enquiries and then decide whether to involve the procurators.

    ...I think...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. ih
    Member

    @Gembo When you say "the driver who killed the cyclist was prosecuted", (the case that chdot referred to in the Mail) that was a coroner's court to establish the cause of death, not a trial. It appears the coroner was quite careful in his verdict, mindful that the case might come to trial, but the police together with the Crown Prosecution Service agreed not to take further action, if the newspaper report is accurate. In this, the police are definitely part of the problem in that they expressed several opinions about the driver and victim that they had no business expressing. Pc Harryman's evidence to the coroner was a disgrace. He said that the driver was not careless in not seeing the cyclist, despite evidence proving that the victim was visible in 3 of the truck's mirrors. He then blamed the victim by giving the opinion (in which he had no expertise) that the cyclist was "in the wrong gear", she "moved off slowly", and she "had placed herself in an unsafe position". How can these 3 factors have been the cause of her own death when the driver, who had the opportunity to see her and drive carefully, simply didn't and drove over her? He needs prosecuted, and the stupid policeman needs to be looking at something like Misconduct in a Public Office.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @ih

    Hear hear

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. gembo
    Member

    @ih thanks for that detail. I said I thought it was a mis trial and fully support the husband in his effort to obtain legal redress. Agree the individual officer is at fault. Very shocking.

    Different thread perhaps as this one has hitherto been about poor driving, near misses and punishment passes not drivers killing cyclists which we have discussed previously in separate threads (the double killer for example).

    Or maybe I am alone in making this distinction?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. algo
    Member

    @gembo - you are not alone. I agree this thread is usually about bad driving with no serious harm done. I think it's a good distinction to make. @ih good words - the report by the policeman is deeply upsetting and should be actionable.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. Frenchy
    Member

    Today's rubbish driving is the gentleman on the deafening motorbike going up and down Gilmerton Road and nearby side streets. Has been speeding and revving the engine all evening - and I saw him overtake a car through a traffic island. The car swerved into the bike lane. Thankfully nobody was cycling beside the car (the driver may even have checked their mirrors first). Might post video later, it's breathtaking.

    Very dangerous and, more importantly, it's quite upset my dog :(

    EDIT: Video:

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    I took 12s to get from one traffic island to the second and according to strava I was going around 15mph. He went the same distance in no more than 4s, so was going at least 45mph.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. minus six
    Member

    Through following this forum for many years I know that reporting this to the police is not going to lead to anyone being prosecuted

    well my reported incident from last year is still due to be heard in court later this year. i did not hit the deck, but do have third party corroboration.

    that said i assume that the crucial factor here is likely to be separate to all this.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. gembo
    Member

    Good luck bax, hope you get redress.

    Fietsclub Balerno took ten men over the Forth Bridge today and round to Kincardine then over to Linlithgow and through the Bathgate Alps and home. Great day out, three nearish passes all pretty much impatience from drivers who were stuck behind the peloton then overtook too close to cars coming the other way. Poor driving but not near misses nor punishment passes. The boy in the red cosworth made most noise.

    Lot of police activity around the MOD at rosyth. Maybe they heard we were coming over? I tried my Mick McGaghey impersonation just before the power station when I was expanding on The Battle of Longannet which the miners won in 1973 back when flying pickets could fly.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "I tried my Mick McGaghey impersonation"

    I don't think you've smoked enough cigarettes to be convincing.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. gembo
    Member

    Yes I was a pale imitation. I also cannot generate enough spit when I speak. Mighty Mick could expect orate all over a mass rally of miners as if they were getting a shower.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. Frenchy
    Member

    Reported the motorcyclist to the police this morning, but basically nothing they can do without a registration number, which I didn't get right (the VRN I remembered didn't match a motorbike).

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. acsimpson
    Member

    @bax, that bus passing you is shocking and the driver really needs to be hauled up before his bosses to explain himself.

    The road layout there is possible the worst part of my commute home. At the bus stop the lane is far too wide to make it possible to take the lane which is what I would normally do on a two lane road, however it then narrows just as you approach the corner so I often find the kind of drivers who can't think further ahead than a goldfish will cut in towards the apex of the corner while they are still along side me. Such a large vehicle doing it at speed is very scary.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  30. Rothar
    Member

    Capital Wholesalers van (WX63 UGV) that pulled out in front of a cyclist and squeezed his way ahead just to get in front of a few cars at Salisbury Place around 8.25 this morning.

    Appalling driving and he was lucky not to swipe the cyclist out.

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…177178179…376

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin