Police action on motorists endangering cyclists

[tinfoilhat 11]

Cyclists should also be educated about blind spots when driving a lorry, I have a lorry licence and there are blind spots that cyclists should be made aware of by taking a ride in a lorry to see for themselves.

I do agree though that there are some idiotic lorry drivers out there..

 

A partnership of (I think) transport for London and the met police set up a lorry (simulator maybe?)and got cyclists to sit in the drivers seat, with a "cyclist" setup behind them. Most didn't have a clue where they were. I'll try and find a link.

 

EDIT: here we go. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34115046

[Bargepole23 337]

I totally agree with the anti cycling brigade.Try going out Derbyshire on sundays and watch the stupid antics of the numpties on bikes,they do their level best to create havoc.

 

Havoc? Is that what happens in Derbyshire on a Sunday?

 

You're talking uttet rubbish.

 

Just like the earlier poster who says cyclists contribute nothing to the upkeep of roads.

 

I have two cars and pay tax at the higher rate. I ride to work most days. So I'm producing less wear amd tear on the road surface but paying plenty in tax.

 

So I consider myself perfectly entitled to use the road whenever I choose. I could extend that argument to say that those who pay less tax should give way when I cycle past. Maybe an unemployed person should only be allowed onto the roads when us high rate taxpayers are tucked up in bed? After all, its all about contribution isn't it, Angelfire1

[Bob Arctor 11]

Cyclists riding dangerously, every single day. Period.

 

Motorists driving dangerously, every single day. Period.

 

Difference is one group pays hard earned brass to be on the road. The other pay bugger all.

 

I will let you decide which is which.

 

Angel1.

 

So if I pay £120 a year can I shoot at you?

[The Joker 10]

Difference is one group pays hard earned brass to be on the road. The other pay bugger all.

 

Correct. I have no time for cyclists

 

Hiya Penny, you alright flower ?

 

Should an illegal tax-dodger be criticising those who are legally exempt from paying road tax, for not paying their taxes?

[tzijlstra 11]

worth reading the entire blog post from West Midlands Police Traffic Unit

 

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/

 

It seems in this case the carrot approach of social media campaigns and publicity events aren't reaching the drivers who as the post says are almost always the party to blame in incidents with cyclist. Therefore their time and effort is being switched to the stick approach as they think it will give them better results. Its the same with the mobile phone thread, if the driver believes they can get away with they will just continue until we get needless and preventable deaths like Lee Martin

 

Conclusions from the statistical analysis and what to do about it……

For those of us that cycle daily to work the results came as no surprise. Although the “close pass scenario” remains the greatest concern for the majority of cyclists or for those considering cycling the actual greatest threat we cyclists face on the roads of the West Midlands is the driver pulling out in front of or across a cyclist mid junction, either because they haven’t seen them or miss-judged the cyclists speed or path.

 

What can be done, well we have two parties involved in this type of collision, analysis of the collisions shows that in such circumstances the blame would lie solely with the driver not the cyclist. This is not uncommon as most drivers are trained and habitually look for other vehicles when negotiating junctions and show a total disregard when it comes to looking for or being aware of vulnerable road users (analysis of KSI collisions involving motorcyclists and pedestrians would prove similar).

 

We could make use of social media, press releases etc. to tell motorists to “look out” for cyclists, but this has been ongoing with both cyclists and motorcyclists and although has some positive effect it doesn’t reach the target audience we need to engage, those unwilling to take on the message or dismissive of vulnerable road users altogether, which given the rise in KSI collisions involving vulnerable road users seems like the majority of motorists.

 

Our time and effort, we have quickly realised, is better spent enforcing the law and prosecuting, thus creating a scenario whereby should someone not give a cyclist the time and space necessary or fail to see them completely they should expect to be prosecuted. In other words the carrot goes out the window and in comes the stick. Why some might ask? Well if drivers expect to be prosecuted for committing offences they suddenly stop committing them, unsurprising correlation I know but it’s the truth. Once drivers become aware that an infringement involving a cyclist is one they should expect to be prosecuted for, they suddenly become more aware of them on the road and in turn start giving them the time and space they should lawfully have as an equal road user. Cyclists suddenly occupy a drivers attention, they actively look out for them and so are less likely to miss them at junctions and contribute to our KSI statistics.

 

That is interesting - makes me think about the Dutch law where in any incident between a motorised vehicle and a cyclist the motorist is always found guilty unless there are very strong extenuating circumstances in which case it will be dealt with in court.

[Orzel 10]

That is interesting - makes me think about the Dutch law where in any incident between a motorised vehicle and a cyclist the motorist is always found guilty unless there are very strong extenuating circumstances in which case it will be dealt with in court.

 

If police assumes your guilt and you have prove you are not guilty in court this is just wrong.

[stifflersmom 11]

If police assumes your guilt and you have prove you are not guilty in court this is just wrong.

 

It isn't this. It is presumed liability whereby the fault is deemed to be with the least vulnerable road user unless they can demonstrate otherwise. It is not the same as guilty until proven innocent ( which is criminal law). The closest we have to presumed liability in the UK is in the case where you hit another car from behind. The fault is deemed to be with the rear vehicle unless they can show fault lies with the front vehicle.

[Fogey 10]

As both cyclist and motorist more and more I believe that use of the roads by cyclists should require a minimum level of competence to be tested and proved, particularly a sort of hazard perception type of assessment. There should be better enforcement of highway code rules with cyclists, as indeed there should be with motorists. If a car is required to give a cyclist 1.5m I see no reason why cyclists shouldn't provide the same to motorists.

 

In all honesty, I would like to see cyclists and motorists separated wherever possible by much better investment in cycling infrastructure.

[Orzel 10]

It isn't this. It is presumed liability whereby the fault is deemed to be with the least vulnerable road user unless they can demonstrate otherwise. It is not the same as guilty until proven innocent ( which is criminal law). The closest we have to presumed liability in the UK is in the case where you hit another car from behind. The fault is deemed to be with the rear vehicle unless they can show fault lies with the front vehicle.

 

But police in UK can asses circumstances. And if you can demonstrate otherwise to police you won't have to go to court. The point is

in any incident between a motorised vehicle and a cyclist the motorist is always found guilty unless there are very strong extenuating circumstances in which case it will be dealt with in court

I don't think we have anything like that here. They have to prove your wrongdoing, circumstances only make that easier.

Like the fact that most cars move forward in your example.

That single fact makes strong case against anyone with smashed front end.

Assuming that motorist is always at fault just because car is heavier is just wrong. Bicycle is more manoeuvrable. At sea more manoeuvrable lighter vessels usually have to give way to heavier less manoeuvrable ones.

But this might be debate over nothing as we don't really know Dutch law or police practices. And they have totally different cycling culture and infrastructure there.

[therascal 10]

just out of curiosity how do you pay to be on the road?

 

you do realise your VED does not go for roads, its just general taxation. and it has not been a "road tax" since 1938

 

Bit of a silly reply you have given, did you give it any thought before posting it?. Quite simply if you do not pay VED you cannot use a motor vehicle on the highway, so again quite simply if you do pay VED you can use a vehicle on the highway, so pay the VED and you have paid to be on the road.

[I1L2T3 10]

When cyclists pay to be on the road, pay for insurance and obey road signs, then I might have more sympathy for them.

 

Angel1.

 

It's not about having sympathy, but about not risking killing other people.

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2016 at 00:12 ----------

 

Bit of a silly reply you have given, did you give it any thought before posting it?. Quite simply if you do not pay VED you cannot use a motor vehicle on the highway, so again quite simply if you do pay VED you can use a vehicle on the highway, so pay the VED and you have paid to be on the road.

 

That's funny because my car is in the zero tax band. Are you saying I'm not allowed to drive it?

[Obelix 11]

That is interesting - makes me think about the Dutch law where in any incident between a motorised vehicle and a cyclist the motorist is always found guilty unless there are very strong extenuating circumstances in which case it will be dealt with in court.

 

Wonde rhow that would have gone down then with the cyclist that went under my landrover.

 

If the Dutch really do have a law like that then I'm sorry it's completely insane and I'm amazed they think it's fine.

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2016 at 01:18 ----------

 

Bit of a silly reply you have given, did you give it any thought before posting it?. Quite simply if you do not pay VED you cannot use a motor vehicle on the highway, so again quite simply if you do pay VED you can use a vehicle on the highway, so pay the VED and you have paid to be on the road.

 

I had three cars, two of which I never had to pay an VED on, so presumaly I couldnt use them on the road?