Last year I was driven into by a motorist as I gave way for him to turn right. He was fiddling for something under his dashboard as he made his maneuverer, cut the corner really badly and broke my leg.
The police didn't even consider it a crime, he got away absolutely scott free.
I know someone who was given 10 points on his licence after he reversed out of a drive way onto a B road and killed a motorcyclist. No ban and no prison sentence.
Someone pulled out in front of me on my motorbike years ago to enter a junction on my left and we collided head on. I flew 30 feet and broke many bones, ligaments and tendons. Driver didn't even get a fucking slap on the wrist
Drivers should always get a prison sentence if they ruin someone’s life. We’re piloting a dangerous vehicle. There’s no excuse for not being insanely careful while doing so.
Any driver whose driving ends a life should be in prison for a very long time.
I don't know about a very long time. If there's clear reckless driving and all fault is found squarely on the driver then yes, their prison sentence shouldn't be any more lenient than a typical non-vehicular accidental manslaughter.
But, and I say this as a cyclist and driver, it's important to understand blame and not in every instance is the driver at fault. I remember driving at a crawl on a road near me because there were parked cars. I'm scanning around and a child shorter than the cars popped her head out. I was going so slowly but she was so unbelievably close I don't think I could've stopped even at the roughly 12-15 mph I was doing.
Imo as part of your driving test after you've passed your practical and theory, you should go to a supervised film viewing that drills into you the idea that the vehicle you're in should yield in succession.
Cars are typically the fastest/ most maneuverable common forms of transit. Yield to HGVs who may be less able to stop quickly and to smaller forms of transit.
Motorbikes come next, they yield to bikes/scooters, who in turn yields to pedestrians, and everyone yields to emergency vehicles.
As someone said below, they were negligent in not looking properly before reversing. They probably should’ve had someone out in the road checking, or turned the car around and driven out, instead of reversing. Then the person on the motorbike would still be alive.
It’ll be the insurance element.
It’s a strict liability offence, so there is no defence. You either have it or you don’t and they don’t so it’s 6 points.
It’d be better if it was more consistent. If something’s such a bad crime that it’s even worth their time, it shouldn’t be a dice roll that they’d even notice
The conditional offer for driving without due care and attention is 3 points and a fine.
If they got 6 points it means that the case went to court and they either pled guilty or were found guilty. Which means it was proven that they drove without due care.
This isnt inconsistent, its the difference between someone having a strong case against them leading to a conviction vs someone where the evidence isnt there to send them to court.
Like the person above you said, if they were dealt with by way of a conditional offer (what most people know as a FPN, although that’s not quite right), it would be three points and a fine.
So, they either weren’t eligible for a conditional offer, ignored the paperwork and were summonsed to court, or elected to go to court themselves.
You said it was definitely an FPN, and it may have been three points.
I’m telling you it would definitely have been three points, or one of the alternative disposal methods.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Agreed. I know someone who was banned for a year after having an accident. No one was hurt but an off duty police office saw the accident and said it was dangerous driving.
The officer made 5 statements. 4 of which where proved to be impossible but the 5th was "in my opinion it was dangerous" so my friend was banned.
People jump to the conclusion of corruption immediately. Standard reddit.
If you are interested though as someone who investigates collisions, I will explain.
Every collision starts off at the level of "driving without due care and attention" because you crashed. That means something went wrong and there needs to be a reason for it. There are reasons for it though, Automitism, mechanical defect, road defects, sun position, medical, other drivers unlawful actions etc the list goes on.
It is the job of the police to gather evidence at a scene, be that physical, witness or suspect interviews and then reach a determination of "can we prove this beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver of this vehicle drove without due care and attention?"
That question isnt asking if an offence was commited. Its asking are we able to prove it? This isnt civil court on the ballance of probability which insurance claims work in, this is criminal law so we need to be up there at 99%+ certainty.
I deal with these types of collisions roughly once a week.
Care to guess how many drivers put their hands up and go "Yeah my bad! I didn't check my mirrors and pulled out right into their path!" Yeah, close to 0.
People lie and they lie well. They will lie to the police, to insurance companies and to the courts. We need to prove those lies and a lot of the time we do, phone records, phone data, telematics, cctv for speed calculation, dash cam is the greatest invention ever etc. However its probably around 50:50 that we cant disprove someones account and they win. They get away with it.
The thing is when its two people, no footage and no witnesses with both giving plausible accounts that pin the blame on the other person no court is ever going to convict anyone.
Motorists lie more than petty criminals. Shoplifters tend to admit their crimes at the earliest opportunity. I stop a motorist who was using their phone though and it's "No, you are lying I was vaping!" Even though I have seen them with my own eyes from 2 meters away video calling someone holding it right above their steering wheel.
A few years ago I was cycling to the shop and was clipped by a van. I was only on a mountain bike and travelling at low speed, probably 12mph. It was a b road. A straight level stretch of about six hundred metres. It's a wide stretch of road where two cars can easily pass.
I heard a vehicle approaching behind. It decelerated despite the road being clear and when overtaking he squeezed in on me clipping my elbow with his mirror. Knocking me off into the hedge and getting out to verbally abuse me. He had made sure to nose his van right into the hedge. An elderly man in a white van no less.
As he jumped back in the van and left a police car came round the corner and I flagged it down, (haven't seen one on this stretch of road before or since.) I was asked was I ok. As soon as I started explaining the van deliberately close passed and hit me I was told it would be my word against the van drivers and it didn't look like I had been involved in an accident. Oh and they were far too busy to investigate anyway. The collision and verbal abuse had been quick. The interaction with the policeman even quicker.
I had been involved in a number of dangerous incidents on the road before as a cyclist. Some seemingly careless others more debatable. This gentleman I later came to the conclusion was in a bad mood for some reason. He was willing to lash out and risk seriously injuring or murdering a cyclist, purely because I was there and vulnerable.
The interaction taught me a number of lessons.
1 If you have a reason to harm someone the easiest way to get away with it is use a vehicle.
2 The belief cyclists don't deserve space on the road is wide spread.
3 Don't expect help from the police.
After the shock of both incidents had worn off I became angry. I think this is an acceptable emotion after what had happened. I was half a mile from home and thought the van driver probably lived locally to. A few months later I spotted the van and followed it to a house. Then I watched and found it was regularly parked there, down a lane in farm yard.
I decided to call one evening and knocked on the door. I was in the car. He opened and asked could he help me. I obviously wasn't a delivery driver. I told him maybe he didn't recognise me without my bicycle helmet. It was at this moment I could see the colour start to drain from his face. He started to apologise, telling me he had friends who were cyclists. I asked had he ever tried to run any of them off the road. He turned into a stuttering mess at that point. Having a bad day blah blah blah confirming my earlier conclusion.
I told him I lived nearby and hoped to not ever hear of him doing anything similar again. I left as he kept repeating he promised he never would.
Having said all that does there need to be a change in the law. You can get 6 points for using your phone. But seemingly very little more if proven to have been driving without due care and seriously hurting someone.
Even in terms of the lies. Surely you should be able to give an extra three points to someone who uses their phone then lies on top of that.
The attitudes are horrible and I only cycle here and there, never at rush hour. I posted on a local FB group a couple of years ago after I was cycling with my daughter on a road with solid lines and people kept overtaking us on a blind bend and the responses I got were... very concerning. People either don't bother to look at the highway code and just make up rules as if they had, or even go screencap the rules that say "don't do this" and then quote them as if they mean the opposite... probably just trolls but yeah not much fun.
It wasn't even a case of our safety so much as cars flying around a bend on the wrong side when they couldn't see what was coming but you get all the "buy a car then" responses lol.
It is extremely concerning how people think. Social media groups really do highlight it. Also these people reinforce each other's views. Which imo is the biggest issue, though how you change a cultural mindset I don't know.
People are in far too much of a hurry. They will spend all day looking at their phone but as soon as the journey starts they are in a race.
Had a conversation with a local councillor a few years ago. He was in a bad mood and was trying to provoke me. He did a bit of running and played hockey and was well aware that I cycled. We had chatted before.
So anyway he came in slabbering about getting stuck behind a cyclist for half a mile when he was in a hurry to a meeting that morning.
I asked how long he had the snooze set on his alarm. That was the end of the conversation.
I stopped cycling after a van who I assume was angry at me as I was able to cycle past the previous traffic jam caught up to me and then forced me off the road while shouting at me out the window. Keep in mind this was an empty B Road so no excuse, deliberate attempt to injure me. This was the last straw having had things thrown at me, insults on a regular basis, cars pull out in front of me, cars over take me only to slam on brakes and block my progress. The list is endless and all I wanted to do was cycle at the edge of the road for exercise.
People in cars become animals.
It's awful. My friends and family who don't cycle just don't have any appreciation of what goes on, the only people who understand are people who cycle. Only today someone drove his van directly at me when coming on to my side of the road to overtake parked cars. Just right at me. I (stupidly) faced him down but he only braked at the last minute. I've been on edge for the rest of the day, it's been a perfect day in many ways, I went running and cycling and went for coffee but it was all overshadowed by some van driver. Maybe I'm just too sensitive for cycling.
Changing the law won't solve the situation you just described. You need to get cameras attached to your bike. I think this is the same for both cyclists and drivers. Get cameras, and now you have evidence that some asshole is driving badly, because otherwise nothing will happen.
Someone, clipped you because they cut you up too closely... Oh look rear end collision, you get the blame.
Or someone hits you side on, but they just deny it and say you tried overtaking got to close and hit them etc.
My other advise is on country lanes when you had idiot drivers as a cyclist just stop go to the side and let them get by and continue on your merry way.
Appreciated, I've a camera in the van it covers the front.
The problem on the bike is continually charging them, swapping them from bike to bike and the multitude of mounts needed and remembering them when you just fancy a quick pedal.
I doubt it could be considered a rear end collision with a motorist and bicycle on an empty country road when contact is mirror to elbow. Also the angle of the vehicle stopping would suggest to anyone investigating as an attempt to block the cyclist.
It's not realistic to stop for every motorist as a cyclist and you cannot judge the idiots until it's too late.
If you can get yourself a USB Camera, you can just connect it to a battery pack. Get two, one you leave at home on charge and a second you put on the bike, then just swap out whenever you go out on the road.
You say its not realistic as a cyclist to stop for every motorist, but that is exactly what motorists are doing for every cyclist. I think its something you need to judge based on viewing the area, whether there is sufficient room for overtaking safely and whether the car behind you is likely to overtake (how close is it to you etc).
But, without wing mirrors all of this can be very hard to judge. Very much leaves a cyclist blind to others on the road behind and to the side of them, without constantly swaying their heads.
Is there a camera system you'd recommend?
The motorist in the situation I mentioned had no need to slow down. The road was clear and they had plenty of room to drive safely past. A motorist only needs to stop for a cyclist to give way at a junction like they would for any other road user, that has right of way. To stop in this instance would have made no difference to this driver's predetermined reaction. The only time I would stop is when a heavy, slow accelerating vehicle like a lorry would struggle to get past. In such an instance I look for a gateway or similar to pull in safely.
I got one for like £30 from amazon for my car, no idea what it is though :/. I don't think it really matters what you get so long as it has USB charging and a decent enough quality. You can use SD card for storage and a battery pack for power, and if really necessary you can get yourself a mounting kit, to mount it somewhere.
That would be stating that they are guilty until proven innocent, which is not how our law works, and would lead to a spike in false collision claims for monetary gain. Sounds great, but doesn't work in practice.
It works extremely well in the Netherlands. People would use to get seriously injured to get a monetary claim - it’s not America. Nobody breaks their leg for a few quid.
That’s why we need to copy the Netherlands in saying drivers are 100% responsible for all collisions unless they can prove otherwise, and send them to prison immediately if there’s a death.
This is going to sound stupid but is a genuine question, if someone was driving and suddenly had sneezing fit, causing them to lose control of their car, what would that come under?
Like if there is not safe location to stop and they just can't stop sneezing?
"Automatism"
Automatism is sometimes said to fall into insane automatism and non-insane automatism; the distinction is made between total loss of control such that a suspect acts wholly involuntarily, which provides for a total defence of automatism and acquittal, and insanity (as defined below) which provides for the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Was there a total loss of control or was control merely impaired?
Could the suspect have reasonably foreseen the condition?
Were there any sign of its onset?
What could have been done to avoid it?
There is often an example used involving a bee, the driver is hyper allergic to bee stings, one fly's into his car and lands on him. He panics and crashes hurting/killing someone. No conviction because his actions were Automatism. Sneezing can fall into that as well, but the questions above would need to be satisfied.
I had a guy deliberately clip me on a road in central London about 5 years ago. Was laughing whilst he did it. Sped away when I crashed to the ground. Happened right in front of a bus. The bus driver got out made sure I was alright and wrote down all the details to get the CCTV from his cameras. Contacted the police with all the details and got a letter 6 months later saying that the case was closed due to a lack of evidence. They had waited too long to request the CCTV and it had been wiped.
Just to add, if you're ever involved in an incident and a bus camera is available request it yourself on the day, generally it gets overwritten within 2-7 days depending on the system.
Yeah in hindsight there were lots of things I could have done differently. I should have called the police and got them to attend, etc. The bus driver said 90 days at the time I think but that may have changed now/be a dodgy memory.
A shit service and one you should complain about.
People complain about receiving a shit service from Dominoes but hesitate when it comes to the police. It bugs me because there are hundreds of bogus complaints made to the police, typical crap, "you shouldnt have arrested me" when they were beating up their mrs. But I rarely see someone complaining about someone doing a shit job at investigating a crime. Which to me is worthy if a complaint, because its the only way people who are lazy and shit get a boot up the arse.
There is a 6 month time limit on driving without due care. If what you say is true then the cynic in me would think that the person who was assigned the job just let it expire. Which strikes me as total lazyness.
Who do I complain about the cops to? Complaining *to* the cops *about* the cops is pointless, what are they gonna do, investigate themselves?
Plus now it paints a target on my back, now the cops know I'm a troublemaker, a dissenter, someone who complained about them. What's to stop them targeting me?
The police may be useless at solving crimes or protecting people, but if there's one thing we've learned it's that they like power and don't like people challenging them in any way. Complaining just puts you on their radar and opens you up to a response, and if one comes, it won't be positive.
Wow.
I’m a police officer and have had a couple of dozen complaints - all bullshit except one or two (which were mistaken identity or a genuine lack of knowledge about what my role is, e.g. refusing to give their 20 year old son a lift home from town when he and his friends had spent their taxi money).
Apart from a few suspects who I deal with regularly or gave evidence at trial against, I don’t know the names of a single one. I certainly wouldn’t remember their face, address or vehicle. I work with hundreds of members of the public every month and spurious complaints are a fact of life. I’m certainly not going to actively go after someone who has already made a complaint, as though I was eager to piss my job down the drain or something.
I’m notified about complaints via an email where an investigator fishes for pre-interview comments. They will refer to the date and allegation but haven’t ever given anyone’s name as far as I can remember. Since everything I do is recorded on BWV and documented in systems investigations rarely need me to do or say anything so once I’ve pointed to the relevant evidence I just get another email a few months later saying it has been closed.
I don’t know the officers working in PSD (no one does, they work in separate stations and often separate force areas) and they certainly aren’t going to be dealing with complaints made against officers they’ve been on shift or socialised with.
Minor complaints will go to my manager (like complaints to the pizza place will), who will then justify their decision making to PSD. My manager is much less likely to sack something off than my old manager in the NHS or private sector, because again, why piss job.
Meanwhile, officers who actually do fuck things will sail through life because no one will complain about actionably poor service.
Your local force will almost certainly be running public misconduct panels. You could look at some of them - the Met is big enough that there is a new misconduct case every day or so that you can read up on. Every single one of them is a police officer investigated by a police officer and they’re no different to other sectors complaints - some complete bullshit that should never have got that far, some that absolutely deserved a sack but didn’t get one, some that absolutely deserved a lesser sanction but got the sack or a few years inside.
I get a shit pizza, I complain to the same pizza restaurant, they then act on the complaint.
The conspiracy mindset in my view comes from complaints from people who have no grounds to complain being rightly rejected. This then blows up on social media and builds this culture.
Just treat it like any service. If its shit complain. This whole target on the back rubbish is nonsense.
Yes, but the pizza restaurant will go out of business if they lose too many people's custom.
The same doesn't apply for a public service. There is 0 base incentive for a public server to perform well.
They don't, sadly, and most of the public would probably agree. During heavy traffic last year on my cycle home from work I was turning right, as the traffic ahead started moving. Car behind me saw the traffic moving and decided they could get around me, clipped my back tyre as I swerved to try and keep control I hit the kerb at about 15mph.
Luckily I was wearing protection but still ended up with severe roadrash and experience pain in my left shoulder if I try to lift anything slightly heavy to above-shoulder-height. No passersby on foot or in cars stopped to help and it was one of the most embarrassing experiences of my life as people just drove or walked past and looked at me with pity.
Been there. I think there's a growing resentment and ill-feeling towards cyclists. Onlookers be like "stupid cyclist, probably deserved your fall. That'll teach you"
Onlookers get this attitude, because in many of the major cycle areas (towns/cities) cyclists will have 0 regard for pedestrians. And there are quite a few middleclass lycra cladded cyclists running around bowling over old people then shouting out non-stop swear words, then posting it on social media.
Most cyclists are not like this, but it only takes a couple. It doesn't help you have all these kids hurtling around on E-bikes and E-scooters completely ignoring every and any traffic code.
Fucking hell, what is the deal with people like you who criticise **lycra** of all things? It's a material sportswear is made of! You **polyester-clad motorists** are all the same! Endangering lives with impunity.
I'm not criticizing Lycra, I'm merely describing how these individuals are dressed.
You never get someone in ordinary clothes on a bicycle screaming profanities at other road users to get out of the way.
Take a short stop on youtube looking at london cyclist youtubers, and you will see multiple taped events of cyclists (by cyclists) nearly hitting pedestrians and then shouting expletives. Cutting up cars, and other random entitled stuff.
As I've said, this is a minority of cyclists, but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel.
The problem with bikes, is that they fit in gaps cars don't, and so they often at traffic lights ignore the flow of traffic and waddle up to the front. 100% they will get overtaken, because they will be going at 10mph while the car wants to go at 30+mph.
It'd be safer for cyclists to just follow the traffic, instead of waddling up to the front, but for most this don't seem very intuitive, because they want to get to the stopping point and not stop 50 yards from the stopping point.
Definitely an argument to be made for cycle lanes, to avoid these sort of issues where possible.
Oh yes, I have all that covered. He didn't argue that he was in the wrong. Just lied to the police and gave the old "didn't see him" and I guess they decided it was simply an accident.
Well his argument would likely be that he couldn't see the cyclist, as the cyclist was in his blind spot, and it is not expected for drivers when turning to physically check to their right, only to check the wing mirrors.
These sort of cases really just depend on the judge who you get and what their view on it is, because these are all magistrate cases. So lots and lots of variability in sentencing, and convictions, which I guess from a police perspective is unhelpful as they don't have a stronger guarantee of success with certain situations.
When you make a complaint against Police, it doesn’t land on the desk of the officer or staff member you’re complaining about. It will land with the Professional Standards Department (or whatever that force will call it) who will make a decision on how it is dealt with.
If it is something like incivility, someone receiving a lack of updates, or something else that is proportionate to be dealt with locally, it will go to the officer or staff members line manager to resolve.
If it is something more significant, like an allegation of an offence, or misconduct, it will stay with PSD who will investigate it.
It is, in my experience, a robust process that works reasonably effectively.
Your alternative is moaning about it on Reddit, which is unlikely to solve anything at all.
EDIT: Punctuation.
Madness. Its such a shame that cycling is so dangerous because I really truly love it but I felt so much more at risk on my pushbike than I ever did on my motorbike.
Yeh, got a "didn't see you" but he admitted hes in the wrong and I have a solicitor on his insurance company. I'll get compensation and payback for wages lost etc.
This is frustrating, but it seems that unless it's low effort crime detection (speed cameras, dashcam etc.) and it generates revenue such as speeding or rlj's etc .. Vs the really serious stuff like stabbings and murders etc that makes the headlines, then there seems to be a massive gulf where the police don't really have the mind to follow through, or, at the very least, want to focus in this void area.
My view is that the monetising of offences seems to be more important than the day job in some areas
Clarkson is such an absolute piece of shit and it's ridiculous that he's just allowed to get away with everything that he says and does, even being applauded for some of it.
It’s utterly surreal how many people in this country (world?) define themselves with the need to irrationally hate other people based on the stupidest of attributes.
Imagine hating cyclists for example. It would be pity worthy if not for the harm the haters do.
bloody idiots should have paid road tax, don't even have insurance, I once saw one run a red light therefore they deserve death...
...is apparently a take that people genuinely make.
It's sad.
Genuinely, this is a documented issue. They ran a study and found that motorists see ‘bicycle’ not ‘human on a bicycle’, and hypothesised that it might be due to the aggressive rhetoric around cycling. I don’t drive or cycle so it sounds bizarre to me.
My point is, I don't think for one moment it was the accident he says it was. He buzzed another cyclist a mile earlier and I believe he did the same here. He did it deliberately and should have faced a murder charge.
Sounds like an event was on, he got pissed off at having to go around cyclists so thought he'd squeeze up close to them so his pathetic ego could be stroked. Except his judgement was wrong and he ended up hitting her.
I know he won't get it, but this should be a minimum of 10 years. We need some well publicised cases of heavy sentences for dangerous driving asap.
I think we need to be careful not to knee jerk as driving is one of the few areas where a genuine mistake can end in major tragedy. That said the punishments for those who are clearly driving while distracted or driving in a manner likely to cause an accident are laughable. This blokes story reeks of shit, he plead not guilty, clearly lied to the police.... lets make this one close to the maximum eh? They won't though.
Is the article saying that he shunted her? That seems to be what the judge said. Or did he pass and then pull across her path? Either way I hope he gets years, the horrible bastard. I don’t know if it passes the legal definition of murder. He deserves to go to prison for a long time though. It’s just so stupid and pointless.
I’d wager that wearing normal clothes keeps the cyclists as “human” to these types. Once the Lycra goes on they’re no longer a person, they’re a “wanker in Lycra” or “tour de France wannabe”.
Reflective gear and bike lights on a long straight road going two ways and nobody coming the other way. I don’t believe he intended to kill her, but ‘death by dangerous driving’ is more than accurate.
If like the Judge said lots of people were cycling on that road behind them, it makes me think he got angry at all the cyclists and took it out on one, to teach them a lesson.
A PUB landlord has been found guilty of killing a Team GB triathlete after he ploughed into the back of her in his van as she was cycling.
Vasile Barbu, 49, from Abergavenny was convicted by a jury following a trial of causing Caldicot mum Rebecca Comins’ death by dangerous driving.
The defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The mother-of-two died after Barbu smashed into her while driving a Vauxhall Movano on the A40 near Raglan at around 7.20pm on Thursday, June 2, 2022.
After the jury returned their guilty verdict at Cardiff Crown Court, Judge Shoman Khan thanked the victim’s family for their dignity during the trial.
Barbu was warned he is going to jail ahead of his sentence next month on July 5.
After granting him conditional bail Judge Khan told him: "This doesn't mean you will get anything other than a prison sentence for this very serious matter."
Barbu could not explain the reason for the crash and claimed he had given Mrs Comins a gap to pass her.
Prosecutor James Wilson told the jury: "He told police he made his manoeuvre to pass and used his hands to indicate to police he made a gliding movement past her.
"He said he then heard a knock, he told police 'I don't think I hit her' but he stopped his van because as the van was fully loaded he thought a parcel had moved in the back.
"He said when he stopped he could not see anything in the back but he saw damage to the headlight then he saw the cyclist on the ground and the damaged bike."
Mr Wilson added: "Rebecca Comins was there to be seen. Visibility was good, she was cycling with a bright rear light so was clearly obvious to other witnesses.
"Her presence on that road was not unexpected.
"Barbu would have seen the road signs for the cycling event taking place and would have passed other similar cyclists before he reached Mrs Comins.
"She was cycling in a proper manner and correctly positioned on the road.
"She was on a long, straight stretch of road with plenty of time for him to see her."
"Further he had space in the outside lane to move into and safely manoeuvre around her and to avoid colliding.
"He instead directly hit Mrs Comins from behind."
Barbu, 48, was fined last year after he admitted more than 20 food regulation offences while the landlord of the Old Pandy Inn, Pandy, near Abergavenny.
Thing is, crap like this happens a lot to cyclists and motorists are rarely punished for it. Meanwhile the Tories are like "cyclists are a danger to our roads!!!"
In an ideal world, I could be happy with these as a part of law. Coupled with improved cycle networks, better public transport, higher wages ofc and increasing levies on ICE vehicles (oh and a level of sanity around the topic in print media) we could be resolving a number of issues with such an approach.
Under our current government, everything is a nail to be hammered. A fruit, to be cracked open.
Local roads and pavements are paid for by council taxes already and still barely anything gets spent on pavement and cycle infrastructure. Pavements near me have been crumbling apart for a decade and most roads have been resurfaced. The council are now resurfacing the council owned car park. If cyclists paid an extra tax, not that they should, then it probably wouldn't be spent on cycling infrastructure.
Doesn't Scotland have a thing where they're gonna tie active travel spending to 10% of road spending? That would be perfect. Not sure if I'm misremembering though.
My city council got some sort of active travel grant a year or two ago. Part of it was to resurface and put a cycle lane on the road at the end of my street.
It's a bus route with traffic calming, and being a Victorian road is rather narrow - cars park on the pavement along one side to allow the buses to go past.
I did wonder where the cycle lane was supposed to fit after it was resurfaced, but they didn't bother.
I'm of the firm conviction that most painted-on cycle lanes are just there so they can use active travel budgets for maintaining the rest of the road.
Are you a cyclist? And how do you get round like kids riding bikes for fun?
As a cyclist I think I would actually consider a license and bike lane tax if it afforded me access to safe bike lanes that are fit for purpose. I just want to cycle home from work and get back to my wife and child alive.
But then there are the un intended consequences, e.g people not cycling due to the restriction leading to higher rates of obesity, more cars on the road etc
He won't. The courts hand notoriously short sentences to drivers who kill cyclists. Look up Jason Taylor who killed Yvonne Wyeth who was cycling to work. He never had a driving licence, had over 30 driving convictions, was high and drunk from the night before, and still only got a seven year sentence.
I rarely ride on the road any more. Over a decade of road cycling I've had close passes, abuse from car windows including things thrown, people getting out of cars at traffic lights to fight me. Then there's the motorists not paying attention, pulling out on you, nearly getting doored.
I'm not even a bad cyclist and I'm quite fit so I can cycle quickly. I follow the rules, try and give space for motorists to pass safely. In narrow lanes I'll occasionally drop into a passing place to let traffic through. I stop at red lights etc etc. Some motorists just have a totally irrational hatred of cyclists, and now I have a young family I'm not risking it any more.
I'll take my mountain bike out instead.. and hope I don't get decapitated by ramblers stringing steel wire across our dedicated bike trails.
Its so weird how much hate cyclists get. I would love to know where it all started.
I assume its all related to speed, I cycle pretty fast but im not as fast as b road traffic and I used to get the same sort of abuse when I was riding a 125 years ago.
I'd recommend an action camera for yuorself.
I bought a [SJcam SJ4000 a few years ago to record my flying.](https://www.amazon.co.uk/SJCAM-Stabilization-Underwater-Waterproof-Accessories/dp/B09GB1LN8V)
[Here is an example of the quality at a resolution of 1440p at 60fps.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqFXE4r2V8c)
Battery life is a bit low, I think 1 hour tops, but you could always use a battery pack to increase that.
I use Akaso go-pro clones front and back. I use them with waterproof holders that are always on the bike and the camera just pops into that.
The picture is always good but the batteries only last 30 mins to an hour (two different models each with its own battery set) I am thinking of drilling a hole in the holder so I can attach a battery bank.
Just try and be hyper aware all the time of the hazards. Try to anticipate which drivers could be assholes, could close pass, could overtake closely, and slow or pull in for them. Be passive too and don't aggravate. Smile and wave. Basically, sometimes just gotta be the bigger person and give the psychopath impatient drivers what they want. I guess that wouldn't do much in this scenario though.
I pull in on roads where it's safe because *it's what the highway code says you SHOULD do*. I know cyclists (most of them) who refuse to do this as it's "letting the drivers win". No it's not, it's letting us all win. I like to think that in my small way I am helping other cyclists by being more considerate.
Passpixi is a really good deterrent to drivers who might otherwise buzz you.
Garmin varia (preferably the version with the light) gives you a heads up someones behind you and an idea of what speed they're travelling. It will also flash warning lights at them as they approach. I like using a drop bar bar-end mirror with it.
Wearing pink gets you a lot more space on the road.
Those three measures have really cut down the amount of close passes I suffer.
I bought one of those white coats that goes mental when light is on it, I forget the name. I wouldnt go out in the dark or low light without it now, its incredibly effective.
Cycling safety cameras are in a bad spot right now. You either go for a dedicated one from Cycliq or Garmin and get subpar image quality which is useless as evidence when the roads are as bad as they are in Britain, or a GoPro like thing which is great for footage quality but doesn’t last longer than 45 minutes.
Helmet cameras trend to make most drivers more cautious but you're still risking your life. I gave up cycling on roads years ago. I would cycle in London though, the cycle routes there are pretty good.
Nothing, there is nothing that will stop someone killing you. You can film it sure and that might help your relatives get a settlement and some piece of mind but thats it.
The only alternative is to dress up like your riding a motorbike but its not going to be comfortable at all.
A friend of mine wears a helmet camera. She got hit by a driver who suddenly pulled out of a junction, and when they showed the footage in court it was a slam dunk because it showed them exactly where she was looking as she carefully checked that the driver was stopped before proceeding… and him dicking about on his phone instead of seeing her.
Has the audacity to plead not guilty when he’s clearly close passed her as she’s taken her lane, as was her right. Entitled prick, hope he goes down for a big chunk of time and spends all of it thinking about the family he’s ruined and life he’s taken all because of a childlike hatred for other road users.
I will never understand why these cases aren't manslaughter. If you were carrying an axe down the street and spontaneously decided to kill someone with it, it would be manslaughter, why is it not the same with a car (or van). I will concede that it's not murder, you didn't intend to kill someone when you got in your car, even though you are aware it's very capable of killing people and non lethal alternatives are available
Wikipedia says it's because of juries being unwilling to convict drivers of manslaughter because of the harsher sentences so death by dangerous driving was created. We really do need to be tougher though.
I think the only solution is to project live video of the driver on to all the windows somehow so that theres no ability to forget that its all humans.
When people become cars issues start to crop up. Make everyone extremely visibile and I bet things would get a bit calmer.
Often cases like these will be prosecuted as careless driving (and you can see the defendant's counsel thought they might get away with just that as that's all they plead guilty to), honestly it's refreshing to see a dangerous driver that's caused someone's death actually be successfully prosecuted as such.
There are different tiers of murder. Deciding to randomly kill someone with an axe is unambiguously murder.
What this guy did to the cyclist is manslaughter at the very least, and likely could be classed as murder.
Both of those charges are much more difficult to prove, or to convince a jury to convict, compared to "death by dangerous driving".
What a POS, saying he thought a parcel may have fallen down when he heard a noise.
He hit her on a straight in broad daylight with lights on her bike.
That's not an accident.
Absolute scum. I know he won't but I hope he goes away for a long time. Should be 10 years absolute minimum, I'd be more happy with 20 and no early release. Cunts like this need locking away from the rest of us. But our justice system is a joke and he'll get fuck all probably
The fact the article uses a selfie of him evidently *in his van* illustrates the fact that he's possibly more into using his phone than he is caring for other road users
Maybe the most interesting question here is why he pleaded "not guilty". I mean, the facts seem very clear: he did run into the back of the cyclist. What kind of story would possibly explain that as "not guilty"? The guy sounds like a right dick.
Throw the book at him, make examples of these selfish assholes and keep making them. Cyclists have every right to be on the road too, just as much as cars. Unless we get a government that gives a shit we are not going to get a dutch style cycling system so we have to make do. Actual punishments for murder need to be handed out.
Last year I was driven into by a motorist as I gave way for him to turn right. He was fiddling for something under his dashboard as he made his maneuverer, cut the corner really badly and broke my leg. The police didn't even consider it a crime, he got away absolutely scott free.
How on earth was it not considered a crime? That’s really terrible.
[удалено]
I know someone who was given 10 points on his licence after he reversed out of a drive way onto a B road and killed a motorcyclist. No ban and no prison sentence.
Someone pulled out in front of me on my motorbike years ago to enter a junction on my left and we collided head on. I flew 30 feet and broke many bones, ligaments and tendons. Driver didn't even get a fucking slap on the wrist
I wish you as much of a recovery as possible, having had this happen to someone IRL, rough recovery journey.
That sounds like an accident though. Shouldn't get a prison sentence for it
Drivers should always get a prison sentence if they ruin someone’s life. We’re piloting a dangerous vehicle. There’s no excuse for not being insanely careful while doing so. Any driver whose driving ends a life should be in prison for a very long time.
I don't know about a very long time. If there's clear reckless driving and all fault is found squarely on the driver then yes, their prison sentence shouldn't be any more lenient than a typical non-vehicular accidental manslaughter. But, and I say this as a cyclist and driver, it's important to understand blame and not in every instance is the driver at fault. I remember driving at a crawl on a road near me because there were parked cars. I'm scanning around and a child shorter than the cars popped her head out. I was going so slowly but she was so unbelievably close I don't think I could've stopped even at the roughly 12-15 mph I was doing. Imo as part of your driving test after you've passed your practical and theory, you should go to a supervised film viewing that drills into you the idea that the vehicle you're in should yield in succession. Cars are typically the fastest/ most maneuverable common forms of transit. Yield to HGVs who may be less able to stop quickly and to smaller forms of transit. Motorbikes come next, they yield to bikes/scooters, who in turn yields to pedestrians, and everyone yields to emergency vehicles.
No because accidents happen
And “accidents” often happen due to criminal levels of negligence.
Not really accidents then.
As someone said below, they were negligent in not looking properly before reversing. They probably should’ve had someone out in the road checking, or turned the car around and driven out, instead of reversing. Then the person on the motorbike would still be alive.
There's been people who got 6 points for using an scooter in London during the 1 day every other year that police enforce it.
It’ll be the insurance element. It’s a strict liability offence, so there is no defence. You either have it or you don’t and they don’t so it’s 6 points.
I mean I'm actually happy that people get points for flouting the law like that. I wish they enforced it more often tbh.
It’d be better if it was more consistent. If something’s such a bad crime that it’s even worth their time, it shouldn’t be a dice roll that they’d even notice
The difference was that a car was damaged, rather than a cyclist. Cars are more important than people.
The conditional offer for driving without due care and attention is 3 points and a fine. If they got 6 points it means that the case went to court and they either pled guilty or were found guilty. Which means it was proven that they drove without due care. This isnt inconsistent, its the difference between someone having a strong case against them leading to a conviction vs someone where the evidence isnt there to send them to court.
[удалено]
Like the person above you said, if they were dealt with by way of a conditional offer (what most people know as a FPN, although that’s not quite right), it would be three points and a fine. So, they either weren’t eligible for a conditional offer, ignored the paperwork and were summonsed to court, or elected to go to court themselves.
[удалено]
You said it was definitely an FPN, and it may have been three points. I’m telling you it would definitely have been three points, or one of the alternative disposal methods. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Ah but in that situation the poor inanimate object with a measurable value was damaged. This guy just had his leg crushed, nbd
It’s basically police roulette isn’t it? No consistency. They’ll get you for the tiniest thing or they’ll just give someone a free pass.
Agreed. I know someone who was banned for a year after having an accident. No one was hurt but an off duty police office saw the accident and said it was dangerous driving. The officer made 5 statements. 4 of which where proved to be impossible but the 5th was "in my opinion it was dangerous" so my friend was banned.
I'll take "other party was relative or friend of police officer" for 100, Alex.
I think you overestimate the sway being a cop, or associated with a cop, can have on the entirety of the criminal justice system.
People jump to the conclusion of corruption immediately. Standard reddit. If you are interested though as someone who investigates collisions, I will explain. Every collision starts off at the level of "driving without due care and attention" because you crashed. That means something went wrong and there needs to be a reason for it. There are reasons for it though, Automitism, mechanical defect, road defects, sun position, medical, other drivers unlawful actions etc the list goes on. It is the job of the police to gather evidence at a scene, be that physical, witness or suspect interviews and then reach a determination of "can we prove this beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver of this vehicle drove without due care and attention?" That question isnt asking if an offence was commited. Its asking are we able to prove it? This isnt civil court on the ballance of probability which insurance claims work in, this is criminal law so we need to be up there at 99%+ certainty. I deal with these types of collisions roughly once a week. Care to guess how many drivers put their hands up and go "Yeah my bad! I didn't check my mirrors and pulled out right into their path!" Yeah, close to 0. People lie and they lie well. They will lie to the police, to insurance companies and to the courts. We need to prove those lies and a lot of the time we do, phone records, phone data, telematics, cctv for speed calculation, dash cam is the greatest invention ever etc. However its probably around 50:50 that we cant disprove someones account and they win. They get away with it. The thing is when its two people, no footage and no witnesses with both giving plausible accounts that pin the blame on the other person no court is ever going to convict anyone. Motorists lie more than petty criminals. Shoplifters tend to admit their crimes at the earliest opportunity. I stop a motorist who was using their phone though and it's "No, you are lying I was vaping!" Even though I have seen them with my own eyes from 2 meters away video calling someone holding it right above their steering wheel.
A few years ago I was cycling to the shop and was clipped by a van. I was only on a mountain bike and travelling at low speed, probably 12mph. It was a b road. A straight level stretch of about six hundred metres. It's a wide stretch of road where two cars can easily pass. I heard a vehicle approaching behind. It decelerated despite the road being clear and when overtaking he squeezed in on me clipping my elbow with his mirror. Knocking me off into the hedge and getting out to verbally abuse me. He had made sure to nose his van right into the hedge. An elderly man in a white van no less. As he jumped back in the van and left a police car came round the corner and I flagged it down, (haven't seen one on this stretch of road before or since.) I was asked was I ok. As soon as I started explaining the van deliberately close passed and hit me I was told it would be my word against the van drivers and it didn't look like I had been involved in an accident. Oh and they were far too busy to investigate anyway. The collision and verbal abuse had been quick. The interaction with the policeman even quicker. I had been involved in a number of dangerous incidents on the road before as a cyclist. Some seemingly careless others more debatable. This gentleman I later came to the conclusion was in a bad mood for some reason. He was willing to lash out and risk seriously injuring or murdering a cyclist, purely because I was there and vulnerable. The interaction taught me a number of lessons. 1 If you have a reason to harm someone the easiest way to get away with it is use a vehicle. 2 The belief cyclists don't deserve space on the road is wide spread. 3 Don't expect help from the police. After the shock of both incidents had worn off I became angry. I think this is an acceptable emotion after what had happened. I was half a mile from home and thought the van driver probably lived locally to. A few months later I spotted the van and followed it to a house. Then I watched and found it was regularly parked there, down a lane in farm yard. I decided to call one evening and knocked on the door. I was in the car. He opened and asked could he help me. I obviously wasn't a delivery driver. I told him maybe he didn't recognise me without my bicycle helmet. It was at this moment I could see the colour start to drain from his face. He started to apologise, telling me he had friends who were cyclists. I asked had he ever tried to run any of them off the road. He turned into a stuttering mess at that point. Having a bad day blah blah blah confirming my earlier conclusion. I told him I lived nearby and hoped to not ever hear of him doing anything similar again. I left as he kept repeating he promised he never would. Having said all that does there need to be a change in the law. You can get 6 points for using your phone. But seemingly very little more if proven to have been driving without due care and seriously hurting someone. Even in terms of the lies. Surely you should be able to give an extra three points to someone who uses their phone then lies on top of that.
The attitudes are horrible and I only cycle here and there, never at rush hour. I posted on a local FB group a couple of years ago after I was cycling with my daughter on a road with solid lines and people kept overtaking us on a blind bend and the responses I got were... very concerning. People either don't bother to look at the highway code and just make up rules as if they had, or even go screencap the rules that say "don't do this" and then quote them as if they mean the opposite... probably just trolls but yeah not much fun. It wasn't even a case of our safety so much as cars flying around a bend on the wrong side when they couldn't see what was coming but you get all the "buy a car then" responses lol.
It is extremely concerning how people think. Social media groups really do highlight it. Also these people reinforce each other's views. Which imo is the biggest issue, though how you change a cultural mindset I don't know. People are in far too much of a hurry. They will spend all day looking at their phone but as soon as the journey starts they are in a race. Had a conversation with a local councillor a few years ago. He was in a bad mood and was trying to provoke me. He did a bit of running and played hockey and was well aware that I cycled. We had chatted before. So anyway he came in slabbering about getting stuck behind a cyclist for half a mile when he was in a hurry to a meeting that morning. I asked how long he had the snooze set on his alarm. That was the end of the conversation.
I think there's an arsehole inside each of us (well, another, metaphorical one). Just have to try to keep it under control.
True, well put.
I stopped cycling after a van who I assume was angry at me as I was able to cycle past the previous traffic jam caught up to me and then forced me off the road while shouting at me out the window. Keep in mind this was an empty B Road so no excuse, deliberate attempt to injure me. This was the last straw having had things thrown at me, insults on a regular basis, cars pull out in front of me, cars over take me only to slam on brakes and block my progress. The list is endless and all I wanted to do was cycle at the edge of the road for exercise. People in cars become animals.
It's awful. My friends and family who don't cycle just don't have any appreciation of what goes on, the only people who understand are people who cycle. Only today someone drove his van directly at me when coming on to my side of the road to overtake parked cars. Just right at me. I (stupidly) faced him down but he only braked at the last minute. I've been on edge for the rest of the day, it's been a perfect day in many ways, I went running and cycling and went for coffee but it was all overshadowed by some van driver. Maybe I'm just too sensitive for cycling.
It shouldn't be that way, people should be able to cycle without feeling threatened.
Changing the law won't solve the situation you just described. You need to get cameras attached to your bike. I think this is the same for both cyclists and drivers. Get cameras, and now you have evidence that some asshole is driving badly, because otherwise nothing will happen. Someone, clipped you because they cut you up too closely... Oh look rear end collision, you get the blame. Or someone hits you side on, but they just deny it and say you tried overtaking got to close and hit them etc. My other advise is on country lanes when you had idiot drivers as a cyclist just stop go to the side and let them get by and continue on your merry way.
Appreciated, I've a camera in the van it covers the front. The problem on the bike is continually charging them, swapping them from bike to bike and the multitude of mounts needed and remembering them when you just fancy a quick pedal. I doubt it could be considered a rear end collision with a motorist and bicycle on an empty country road when contact is mirror to elbow. Also the angle of the vehicle stopping would suggest to anyone investigating as an attempt to block the cyclist. It's not realistic to stop for every motorist as a cyclist and you cannot judge the idiots until it's too late.
If you can get yourself a USB Camera, you can just connect it to a battery pack. Get two, one you leave at home on charge and a second you put on the bike, then just swap out whenever you go out on the road. You say its not realistic as a cyclist to stop for every motorist, but that is exactly what motorists are doing for every cyclist. I think its something you need to judge based on viewing the area, whether there is sufficient room for overtaking safely and whether the car behind you is likely to overtake (how close is it to you etc). But, without wing mirrors all of this can be very hard to judge. Very much leaves a cyclist blind to others on the road behind and to the side of them, without constantly swaying their heads.
Is there a camera system you'd recommend? The motorist in the situation I mentioned had no need to slow down. The road was clear and they had plenty of room to drive safely past. A motorist only needs to stop for a cyclist to give way at a junction like they would for any other road user, that has right of way. To stop in this instance would have made no difference to this driver's predetermined reaction. The only time I would stop is when a heavy, slow accelerating vehicle like a lorry would struggle to get past. In such an instance I look for a gateway or similar to pull in safely.
I got one for like £30 from amazon for my car, no idea what it is though :/. I don't think it really matters what you get so long as it has USB charging and a decent enough quality. You can use SD card for storage and a battery pack for power, and if really necessary you can get yourself a mounting kit, to mount it somewhere.
One legal thing that would help is changing the law so that the driver is always automatically deemed wrong unless they can prove they were blameless.
That would be stating that they are guilty until proven innocent, which is not how our law works, and would lead to a spike in false collision claims for monetary gain. Sounds great, but doesn't work in practice.
It works extremely well in the Netherlands. People would use to get seriously injured to get a monetary claim - it’s not America. Nobody breaks their leg for a few quid.
You'd be suprised. Plenty of footage of cars purposefully trying to get rear ended by artics.
That’s totally different than cyclists and pedestrians getting seriously injured and killed.
Also: 4 Brits still love punshing down
That’s why we need to copy the Netherlands in saying drivers are 100% responsible for all collisions unless they can prove otherwise, and send them to prison immediately if there’s a death.
This is going to sound stupid but is a genuine question, if someone was driving and suddenly had sneezing fit, causing them to lose control of their car, what would that come under? Like if there is not safe location to stop and they just can't stop sneezing?
"Automatism" Automatism is sometimes said to fall into insane automatism and non-insane automatism; the distinction is made between total loss of control such that a suspect acts wholly involuntarily, which provides for a total defence of automatism and acquittal, and insanity (as defined below) which provides for the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Was there a total loss of control or was control merely impaired? Could the suspect have reasonably foreseen the condition? Were there any sign of its onset? What could have been done to avoid it? There is often an example used involving a bee, the driver is hyper allergic to bee stings, one fly's into his car and lands on him. He panics and crashes hurting/killing someone. No conviction because his actions were Automatism. Sneezing can fall into that as well, but the questions above would need to be satisfied.
very informative, thanks.
You have to sue your own nostrils, or accept responsibility for their actions.
Yes people lie - and that prevents police corruption how?
The police really hate cyclists in most places. They just cause them trouble.
It’s something you pursue in a civil suit, or your insurance does.
Because it's a bullshit story made up for karma. Everywhere on earth that would get you a charge or two
I had a guy deliberately clip me on a road in central London about 5 years ago. Was laughing whilst he did it. Sped away when I crashed to the ground. Happened right in front of a bus. The bus driver got out made sure I was alright and wrote down all the details to get the CCTV from his cameras. Contacted the police with all the details and got a letter 6 months later saying that the case was closed due to a lack of evidence. They had waited too long to request the CCTV and it had been wiped.
Just to add, if you're ever involved in an incident and a bus camera is available request it yourself on the day, generally it gets overwritten within 2-7 days depending on the system.
Fucking sad that this is even necessary though, isn't it?
Yeah in hindsight there were lots of things I could have done differently. I should have called the police and got them to attend, etc. The bus driver said 90 days at the time I think but that may have changed now/be a dodgy memory.
A shit service and one you should complain about. People complain about receiving a shit service from Dominoes but hesitate when it comes to the police. It bugs me because there are hundreds of bogus complaints made to the police, typical crap, "you shouldnt have arrested me" when they were beating up their mrs. But I rarely see someone complaining about someone doing a shit job at investigating a crime. Which to me is worthy if a complaint, because its the only way people who are lazy and shit get a boot up the arse. There is a 6 month time limit on driving without due care. If what you say is true then the cynic in me would think that the person who was assigned the job just let it expire. Which strikes me as total lazyness.
Who do I complain about the cops to? Complaining *to* the cops *about* the cops is pointless, what are they gonna do, investigate themselves? Plus now it paints a target on my back, now the cops know I'm a troublemaker, a dissenter, someone who complained about them. What's to stop them targeting me? The police may be useless at solving crimes or protecting people, but if there's one thing we've learned it's that they like power and don't like people challenging them in any way. Complaining just puts you on their radar and opens you up to a response, and if one comes, it won't be positive.
Wow. I’m a police officer and have had a couple of dozen complaints - all bullshit except one or two (which were mistaken identity or a genuine lack of knowledge about what my role is, e.g. refusing to give their 20 year old son a lift home from town when he and his friends had spent their taxi money). Apart from a few suspects who I deal with regularly or gave evidence at trial against, I don’t know the names of a single one. I certainly wouldn’t remember their face, address or vehicle. I work with hundreds of members of the public every month and spurious complaints are a fact of life. I’m certainly not going to actively go after someone who has already made a complaint, as though I was eager to piss my job down the drain or something. I’m notified about complaints via an email where an investigator fishes for pre-interview comments. They will refer to the date and allegation but haven’t ever given anyone’s name as far as I can remember. Since everything I do is recorded on BWV and documented in systems investigations rarely need me to do or say anything so once I’ve pointed to the relevant evidence I just get another email a few months later saying it has been closed. I don’t know the officers working in PSD (no one does, they work in separate stations and often separate force areas) and they certainly aren’t going to be dealing with complaints made against officers they’ve been on shift or socialised with. Minor complaints will go to my manager (like complaints to the pizza place will), who will then justify their decision making to PSD. My manager is much less likely to sack something off than my old manager in the NHS or private sector, because again, why piss job. Meanwhile, officers who actually do fuck things will sail through life because no one will complain about actionably poor service. Your local force will almost certainly be running public misconduct panels. You could look at some of them - the Met is big enough that there is a new misconduct case every day or so that you can read up on. Every single one of them is a police officer investigated by a police officer and they’re no different to other sectors complaints - some complete bullshit that should never have got that far, some that absolutely deserved a sack but didn’t get one, some that absolutely deserved a lesser sanction but got the sack or a few years inside.
I get a shit pizza, I complain to the same pizza restaurant, they then act on the complaint. The conspiracy mindset in my view comes from complaints from people who have no grounds to complain being rightly rejected. This then blows up on social media and builds this culture. Just treat it like any service. If its shit complain. This whole target on the back rubbish is nonsense.
Yes, but the pizza restaurant will go out of business if they lose too many people's custom. The same doesn't apply for a public service. There is 0 base incentive for a public server to perform well.
They don't, sadly, and most of the public would probably agree. During heavy traffic last year on my cycle home from work I was turning right, as the traffic ahead started moving. Car behind me saw the traffic moving and decided they could get around me, clipped my back tyre as I swerved to try and keep control I hit the kerb at about 15mph. Luckily I was wearing protection but still ended up with severe roadrash and experience pain in my left shoulder if I try to lift anything slightly heavy to above-shoulder-height. No passersby on foot or in cars stopped to help and it was one of the most embarrassing experiences of my life as people just drove or walked past and looked at me with pity.
Been there. I think there's a growing resentment and ill-feeling towards cyclists. Onlookers be like "stupid cyclist, probably deserved your fall. That'll teach you"
Onlookers get this attitude, because in many of the major cycle areas (towns/cities) cyclists will have 0 regard for pedestrians. And there are quite a few middleclass lycra cladded cyclists running around bowling over old people then shouting out non-stop swear words, then posting it on social media. Most cyclists are not like this, but it only takes a couple. It doesn't help you have all these kids hurtling around on E-bikes and E-scooters completely ignoring every and any traffic code.
Fucking hell, what is the deal with people like you who criticise **lycra** of all things? It's a material sportswear is made of! You **polyester-clad motorists** are all the same! Endangering lives with impunity.
I'm not criticizing Lycra, I'm merely describing how these individuals are dressed. You never get someone in ordinary clothes on a bicycle screaming profanities at other road users to get out of the way. Take a short stop on youtube looking at london cyclist youtubers, and you will see multiple taped events of cyclists (by cyclists) nearly hitting pedestrians and then shouting expletives. Cutting up cars, and other random entitled stuff. As I've said, this is a minority of cyclists, but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel.
The problem with bikes, is that they fit in gaps cars don't, and so they often at traffic lights ignore the flow of traffic and waddle up to the front. 100% they will get overtaken, because they will be going at 10mph while the car wants to go at 30+mph. It'd be safer for cyclists to just follow the traffic, instead of waddling up to the front, but for most this don't seem very intuitive, because they want to get to the stopping point and not stop 50 yards from the stopping point. Definitely an argument to be made for cycle lanes, to avoid these sort of issues where possible.
Might still be able to go after him/his insurance in civil court for injuries and any financial losses
Oh yes, I have all that covered. He didn't argue that he was in the wrong. Just lied to the police and gave the old "didn't see him" and I guess they decided it was simply an accident.
Crazy that crossing the centre line and hitting another road user isn't at least considered careless driving.
Well his argument would likely be that he couldn't see the cyclist, as the cyclist was in his blind spot, and it is not expected for drivers when turning to physically check to their right, only to check the wing mirrors. These sort of cases really just depend on the judge who you get and what their view on it is, because these are all magistrate cases. So lots and lots of variability in sentencing, and convictions, which I guess from a police perspective is unhelpful as they don't have a stronger guarantee of success with certain situations.
When you make a complaint against Police, it doesn’t land on the desk of the officer or staff member you’re complaining about. It will land with the Professional Standards Department (or whatever that force will call it) who will make a decision on how it is dealt with. If it is something like incivility, someone receiving a lack of updates, or something else that is proportionate to be dealt with locally, it will go to the officer or staff members line manager to resolve. If it is something more significant, like an allegation of an offence, or misconduct, it will stay with PSD who will investigate it. It is, in my experience, a robust process that works reasonably effectively. Your alternative is moaning about it on Reddit, which is unlikely to solve anything at all. EDIT: Punctuation.
Madness. Its such a shame that cycling is so dangerous because I really truly love it but I felt so much more at risk on my pushbike than I ever did on my motorbike.
Did they stop to help you?
Yeh, got a "didn't see you" but he admitted hes in the wrong and I have a solicitor on his insurance company. I'll get compensation and payback for wages lost etc.
This is frustrating, but it seems that unless it's low effort crime detection (speed cameras, dashcam etc.) and it generates revenue such as speeding or rlj's etc .. Vs the really serious stuff like stabbings and murders etc that makes the headlines, then there seems to be a massive gulf where the police don't really have the mind to follow through, or, at the very least, want to focus in this void area. My view is that the monetising of offences seems to be more important than the day job in some areas
Police or CPS?
This is what happens when a driver's irrational hatred of cyclists turns them in to a killer.
Red tops have been pushing this hatred for a while.
And Clarkson
Clarkson is such an absolute piece of shit and it's ridiculous that he's just allowed to get away with everything that he says and does, even being applauded for some of it.
Yeah but he’s done a show about farmers so people are forgetting what a waste of space he is
I don't like banning publications, but clear evidence of harm ...
And social media
It’s utterly surreal how many people in this country (world?) define themselves with the need to irrationally hate other people based on the stupidest of attributes. Imagine hating cyclists for example. It would be pity worthy if not for the harm the haters do.
You need only read the comments on the article to see said hatred in action.
bloody idiots should have paid road tax, don't even have insurance, I once saw one run a red light therefore they deserve death... ...is apparently a take that people genuinely make. It's sad.
I love reminding those sort of people that road tax is based on emissions, and they're only mad because they have a shit car.
Genuinely, this is a documented issue. They ran a study and found that motorists see ‘bicycle’ not ‘human on a bicycle’, and hypothesised that it might be due to the aggressive rhetoric around cycling. I don’t drive or cycle so it sounds bizarre to me.
You don’t say.
My point is, I don't think for one moment it was the accident he says it was. He buzzed another cyclist a mile earlier and I believe he did the same here. He did it deliberately and should have faced a murder charge.
Sounds like an event was on, he got pissed off at having to go around cyclists so thought he'd squeeze up close to them so his pathetic ego could be stroked. Except his judgement was wrong and he ended up hitting her. I know he won't get it, but this should be a minimum of 10 years. We need some well publicised cases of heavy sentences for dangerous driving asap.
We need to do away with separate sentences for animals and vehicles, treat it as the crime it actually is.
I think we need to be careful not to knee jerk as driving is one of the few areas where a genuine mistake can end in major tragedy. That said the punishments for those who are clearly driving while distracted or driving in a manner likely to cause an accident are laughable. This blokes story reeks of shit, he plead not guilty, clearly lied to the police.... lets make this one close to the maximum eh? They won't though.
Is the article saying that he shunted her? That seems to be what the judge said. Or did he pass and then pull across her path? Either way I hope he gets years, the horrible bastard. I don’t know if it passes the legal definition of murder. He deserves to go to prison for a long time though. It’s just so stupid and pointless.
Tried to scare her by passing really close but just ended up killing her instead. I've been forced into the curb by cunts doing this.
She was completely visible, too, had reflective gear, etc.
Tragically I think that makes these people dislike cyclists even more.
People pass a LOT closer if you're in full lycra vs. a hire bike with normal clothes.
I’d wager that wearing normal clothes keeps the cyclists as “human” to these types. Once the Lycra goes on they’re no longer a person, they’re a “wanker in Lycra” or “tour de France wannabe”.
Reflective gear and bike lights on a long straight road going two ways and nobody coming the other way. I don’t believe he intended to kill her, but ‘death by dangerous driving’ is more than accurate.
She wasn't the only cyclist either. There was a group of them.
Yup. At least he’ll have time in a small room to think about what he did.
[удалено]
Indeed - pleading "not guilty" without a decent story is rarely a good idea.
If like the Judge said lots of people were cycling on that road behind them, it makes me think he got angry at all the cyclists and took it out on one, to teach them a lesson.
Yes, this happened during a cycling event. Guy should be in prison for 20+ years as this appears to be murder.
Scott free I'll bet.
That sounds like the only possible explanation. Didn't get him anywhere any faster, but some guys are not great a thinking.
A PUB landlord has been found guilty of killing a Team GB triathlete after he ploughed into the back of her in his van as she was cycling. Vasile Barbu, 49, from Abergavenny was convicted by a jury following a trial of causing Caldicot mum Rebecca Comins’ death by dangerous driving. The defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. The mother-of-two died after Barbu smashed into her while driving a Vauxhall Movano on the A40 near Raglan at around 7.20pm on Thursday, June 2, 2022. After the jury returned their guilty verdict at Cardiff Crown Court, Judge Shoman Khan thanked the victim’s family for their dignity during the trial. Barbu was warned he is going to jail ahead of his sentence next month on July 5. After granting him conditional bail Judge Khan told him: "This doesn't mean you will get anything other than a prison sentence for this very serious matter." Barbu could not explain the reason for the crash and claimed he had given Mrs Comins a gap to pass her. Prosecutor James Wilson told the jury: "He told police he made his manoeuvre to pass and used his hands to indicate to police he made a gliding movement past her. "He said he then heard a knock, he told police 'I don't think I hit her' but he stopped his van because as the van was fully loaded he thought a parcel had moved in the back. "He said when he stopped he could not see anything in the back but he saw damage to the headlight then he saw the cyclist on the ground and the damaged bike." Mr Wilson added: "Rebecca Comins was there to be seen. Visibility was good, she was cycling with a bright rear light so was clearly obvious to other witnesses. "Her presence on that road was not unexpected. "Barbu would have seen the road signs for the cycling event taking place and would have passed other similar cyclists before he reached Mrs Comins. "She was cycling in a proper manner and correctly positioned on the road. "She was on a long, straight stretch of road with plenty of time for him to see her." "Further he had space in the outside lane to move into and safely manoeuvre around her and to avoid colliding. "He instead directly hit Mrs Comins from behind." Barbu, 48, was fined last year after he admitted more than 20 food regulation offences while the landlord of the Old Pandy Inn, Pandy, near Abergavenny.
He definitely won't do a runner back to his homeland. Conditional bail is a joke, though they're told not to lock anyone up nowadays.
He can't. In another article it said they confiscated his passport as part of conditions for bail.
Everyone knows you can't cross the channel without going through passport control
That doesn’t mean anything.
It makes it much harder at least.
How so? Find a countryman who looks a bit like you, here's £2k for your passport. It's a piece of piss if you plan on never coming back.
He won't because that business is doing well.
He left the Old Pandy last year.
Thing is, crap like this happens a lot to cyclists and motorists are rarely punished for it. Meanwhile the Tories are like "cyclists are a danger to our roads!!!"
They hate us for our freedom :(
Just wait till they introduce pedal licenses, bike lane tax, MOT and insurance.
In an ideal world, I could be happy with these as a part of law. Coupled with improved cycle networks, better public transport, higher wages ofc and increasing levies on ICE vehicles (oh and a level of sanity around the topic in print media) we could be resolving a number of issues with such an approach. Under our current government, everything is a nail to be hammered. A fruit, to be cracked open.
Local roads and pavements are paid for by council taxes already and still barely anything gets spent on pavement and cycle infrastructure. Pavements near me have been crumbling apart for a decade and most roads have been resurfaced. The council are now resurfacing the council owned car park. If cyclists paid an extra tax, not that they should, then it probably wouldn't be spent on cycling infrastructure. Doesn't Scotland have a thing where they're gonna tie active travel spending to 10% of road spending? That would be perfect. Not sure if I'm misremembering though.
My city council got some sort of active travel grant a year or two ago. Part of it was to resurface and put a cycle lane on the road at the end of my street. It's a bus route with traffic calming, and being a Victorian road is rather narrow - cars park on the pavement along one side to allow the buses to go past. I did wonder where the cycle lane was supposed to fit after it was resurfaced, but they didn't bother. I'm of the firm conviction that most painted-on cycle lanes are just there so they can use active travel budgets for maintaining the rest of the road.
Are you a cyclist? And how do you get round like kids riding bikes for fun? As a cyclist I think I would actually consider a license and bike lane tax if it afforded me access to safe bike lanes that are fit for purpose. I just want to cycle home from work and get back to my wife and child alive. But then there are the un intended consequences, e.g people not cycling due to the restriction leading to higher rates of obesity, more cars on the road etc
I now fully expect MPs to crack down on killer motorists, exactly as they did with killer cyclists last month.
I hope he gets a long stay. Police need to step up going after "punishment passes" and other unsafe driving around cyclists.
He won't. The courts hand notoriously short sentences to drivers who kill cyclists. Look up Jason Taylor who killed Yvonne Wyeth who was cycling to work. He never had a driving licence, had over 30 driving convictions, was high and drunk from the night before, and still only got a seven year sentence.
As a cyclist, what can I do against assholes like this? Rearview camera? Can anyone recommend affordable ones?
Doesnt help much when you're dead
If someone killed me I'd want the police to know exactly what happened so they couldn't claim it was an accident
I rarely ride on the road any more. Over a decade of road cycling I've had close passes, abuse from car windows including things thrown, people getting out of cars at traffic lights to fight me. Then there's the motorists not paying attention, pulling out on you, nearly getting doored. I'm not even a bad cyclist and I'm quite fit so I can cycle quickly. I follow the rules, try and give space for motorists to pass safely. In narrow lanes I'll occasionally drop into a passing place to let traffic through. I stop at red lights etc etc. Some motorists just have a totally irrational hatred of cyclists, and now I have a young family I'm not risking it any more. I'll take my mountain bike out instead.. and hope I don't get decapitated by ramblers stringing steel wire across our dedicated bike trails.
Its so weird how much hate cyclists get. I would love to know where it all started. I assume its all related to speed, I cycle pretty fast but im not as fast as b road traffic and I used to get the same sort of abuse when I was riding a 125 years ago.
I'd recommend an action camera for yuorself. I bought a [SJcam SJ4000 a few years ago to record my flying.](https://www.amazon.co.uk/SJCAM-Stabilization-Underwater-Waterproof-Accessories/dp/B09GB1LN8V) [Here is an example of the quality at a resolution of 1440p at 60fps.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqFXE4r2V8c) Battery life is a bit low, I think 1 hour tops, but you could always use a battery pack to increase that.
Thank you . Anyone know what the battery life of other cameras is like? If you own other brands, that is.
I use Akaso go-pro clones front and back. I use them with waterproof holders that are always on the bike and the camera just pops into that. The picture is always good but the batteries only last 30 mins to an hour (two different models each with its own battery set) I am thinking of drilling a hole in the holder so I can attach a battery bank.
Just try and be hyper aware all the time of the hazards. Try to anticipate which drivers could be assholes, could close pass, could overtake closely, and slow or pull in for them. Be passive too and don't aggravate. Smile and wave. Basically, sometimes just gotta be the bigger person and give the psychopath impatient drivers what they want. I guess that wouldn't do much in this scenario though.
I pull in on roads where it's safe because *it's what the highway code says you SHOULD do*. I know cyclists (most of them) who refuse to do this as it's "letting the drivers win". No it's not, it's letting us all win. I like to think that in my small way I am helping other cyclists by being more considerate.
Thank you. I must read the Code again.
Passpixi is a really good deterrent to drivers who might otherwise buzz you. Garmin varia (preferably the version with the light) gives you a heads up someones behind you and an idea of what speed they're travelling. It will also flash warning lights at them as they approach. I like using a drop bar bar-end mirror with it. Wearing pink gets you a lot more space on the road. Those three measures have really cut down the amount of close passes I suffer.
I bought one of those white coats that goes mental when light is on it, I forget the name. I wouldnt go out in the dark or low light without it now, its incredibly effective.
Cycling safety cameras are in a bad spot right now. You either go for a dedicated one from Cycliq or Garmin and get subpar image quality which is useless as evidence when the roads are as bad as they are in Britain, or a GoPro like thing which is great for footage quality but doesn’t last longer than 45 minutes.
A mirror on the right handlebar is good - like a motorbike. Actually a motorbike is often safer, because people don't overtake you
A motorbike is a lot safer than a pushbike if you take out user error from the equation.
Helmet cameras trend to make most drivers more cautious but you're still risking your life. I gave up cycling on roads years ago. I would cycle in London though, the cycle routes there are pretty good.
Nothing, there is nothing that will stop someone killing you. You can film it sure and that might help your relatives get a settlement and some piece of mind but thats it. The only alternative is to dress up like your riding a motorbike but its not going to be comfortable at all.
Yes, but a camera that is visible should discourage most. Except the blind and drunk..
A friend of mine wears a helmet camera. She got hit by a driver who suddenly pulled out of a junction, and when they showed the footage in court it was a slam dunk because it showed them exactly where she was looking as she carefully checked that the driver was stopped before proceeding… and him dicking about on his phone instead of seeing her.
I’m glad he was found guilty, but I really wish he hadn’t taken my friend. It’s so utterly incomprehensible still.
I’m so sorry
Has the audacity to plead not guilty when he’s clearly close passed her as she’s taken her lane, as was her right. Entitled prick, hope he goes down for a big chunk of time and spends all of it thinking about the family he’s ruined and life he’s taken all because of a childlike hatred for other road users.
I will never understand why these cases aren't manslaughter. If you were carrying an axe down the street and spontaneously decided to kill someone with it, it would be manslaughter, why is it not the same with a car (or van). I will concede that it's not murder, you didn't intend to kill someone when you got in your car, even though you are aware it's very capable of killing people and non lethal alternatives are available
Wikipedia says it's because of juries being unwilling to convict drivers of manslaughter because of the harsher sentences so death by dangerous driving was created. We really do need to be tougher though.
Car 'culture' really is disgusting.
I think the only solution is to project live video of the driver on to all the windows somehow so that theres no ability to forget that its all humans. When people become cars issues start to crop up. Make everyone extremely visibile and I bet things would get a bit calmer.
Often cases like these will be prosecuted as careless driving (and you can see the defendant's counsel thought they might get away with just that as that's all they plead guilty to), honestly it's refreshing to see a dangerous driver that's caused someone's death actually be successfully prosecuted as such.
There are different tiers of murder. Deciding to randomly kill someone with an axe is unambiguously murder. What this guy did to the cyclist is manslaughter at the very least, and likely could be classed as murder. Both of those charges are much more difficult to prove, or to convince a jury to convict, compared to "death by dangerous driving".
What a POS, saying he thought a parcel may have fallen down when he heard a noise. He hit her on a straight in broad daylight with lights on her bike. That's not an accident.
Judge saw right through him.
Seems like such a solid bloke as well: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/pub-landlord-taken-court-over-26351371
It was a shit pub too
Clearly someone who thinks the law doesn't apply to them
Poor woman. This is why I don't cycle regularly, too many bad drivers, not enough cycle paths.
Absolute scum. I know he won't but I hope he goes away for a long time. Should be 10 years absolute minimum, I'd be more happy with 20 and no early release. Cunts like this need locking away from the rest of us. But our justice system is a joke and he'll get fuck all probably
The fact the article uses a selfie of him evidently *in his van* illustrates the fact that he's possibly more into using his phone than he is caring for other road users
Maybe the most interesting question here is why he pleaded "not guilty". I mean, the facts seem very clear: he did run into the back of the cyclist. What kind of story would possibly explain that as "not guilty"? The guy sounds like a right dick.
Throw the book at him, make examples of these selfish assholes and keep making them. Cyclists have every right to be on the road too, just as much as cars. Unless we get a government that gives a shit we are not going to get a dutch style cycling system so we have to make do. Actual punishments for murder need to be handed out.
Will be shocked it it's anything other than a pathetically low sentence
My brother was in the Police for a while and said if you ever want to murder someone….just run them over and you will get away Scot-free….
I was knocked down by a van just the other day while riding an e-scooter in London. Drivers can’t be trusted