CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 13 min ago

Re: Didn't know cyclists could be fined for speeding!

23 March 2015 - 11:18pm
Vorpal wrote:No one expect a 4 year old to cycle in the road, yet where do you draw the line?
The easiest one is the age where they can be held liable for breaking the law.

Vorpal wrote:it becomes reasonable to confiscate a 4-year-old's bicycle.
It is never reasonable to confiscate a 4 year old's bike. In fact is is never reasonable, or legal for that matter to randomly confiscate someone's property. To quote from a different context - press photographers (one of my friends was, until fairly recently, a semi-pro freelance photojournalist).
However, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) police have no right to confiscate cameras, film or memory cards from an individual unless they have first convinced a judge that the evidence is required in connection with a “serious arrestable offence” or that it would be admissible in court.(Statewatch PDF)
Police officers do not have the authority to ... confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or disciplinary action.
(quoting Nottinghamshire Police: Guidelines for Police and Media at Incidents - p7 in this Levenson Enquiry Submission PDF).

If it isn't legal to confiscate a press photographer's camera (without having convinced a judge of the importance to do so - I'd like to see that one tried ) how can it be any more legal to confiscate a 4 year old's bike (unless it acceptable just because they are smaller & weaker!)

Rick.

Re: Utility Pannier Bags

23 March 2015 - 11:00pm
TBH I rarely lock my bike. Haven't lost any panniers yet.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 11:00pm
Another curious aspect of his case is that I assume that the family can (perhaps) claim the cost of the damage to the bike from the driver's insurers (this would be normal in the case of a rear shunt) even though they wouldn't be able to claim for any damage to the lad himself. And the deceased would have been able, had he lived, to have done the same. In any case, in the event of an insurance claim the driver would have been deemed to be at fault (I presume). I don't know why the court would find that the driver wasn't at fault. It's a strange distinction IMV. Is this not where a private civil claim for damages often comes in (rather than a private prosecution)?

Re: Utility Pannier Bags

23 March 2015 - 10:55pm
pete75 wrote:Super C - just last and last.Do they stay on the bike when it's locked up? I've got Super C's for the tourer. Even though I live in a fairly low crime area, I couldn't bring myself to leave them on the bike, unless they were permanently fixed. The QR zip tie anti sway device I fixed on the SJS bags was fine for what they were (locking them semi permanently), but I'd want something more substantial to make a secure fastening for quality panniers.

So is it better to use nice quality panniers, which require removing when the bike's locked up, or ratty panniers left permanently on that no one would want to nick? Preferably ones which are highly functional, without the nickability.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 10:12pm
I hope they also got the driver to display his one handed without looking texting ability and compared the spelling etc with the standard of messages he'd been sending, then got him to read out a text, one handed, without looking.

Re: It me or do SUVs alway drive to close

23 March 2015 - 10:03pm
toomsie wrote:It me or do SUVs always seem to drive to close. More then half of the cars that do so are 4x4.
I don't seem to have the same problem with minivans, which is strange I consider them more
or less the same type of car.

The minivan was tiny being only 11 ft long and about 4ft wide. Stopped being made in the early eighties so few about now.


This bias against trucks seems to be a town v country thing.
What do they expect someone who has to use muddy farm tracks, tow heavy trailers filled with 2 or 3 beast to market, use on shoots where there's often lots of rough ground to cover,drive over fields etc. A 4wd drive truck is generally bought as a working vehicle.
BTW how do you know they are 4x4 - many of the townie type vehicles that look like a 4wd are actually 2wd.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 9:55pm
horizon wrote:... does anyone know what was put forward as an alternative explanation of the cause of the collision?
We have the reported account of the driver.
“I realised it was a cyclist on the pavement on my left hand side. He started to come off the pavement and I started to react. I started to brake and steer around the cyclist.

“It was all very quick but it seemed to me he had adjacened (sic) out slightly from the lane he should have been on.”

He told the jury that Daniel had turned around and looked behind him “just before it (the van) struck the bike”.

“He just came out more than I expected. I spiked my brakes," he added.
It would appear that the driver believed the fault for the collision lay with the deceased's standard of cycling. It would appear that the jury agreed.

I believe this is a form of SWISS as defined by TonyR. Dead men can't apportion blame.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 9:49pm
Since posting about the reasoning behind this verdict, I've found this in the CPS guidance.

Although proving causation in fatal collision cases can, on occasion, be straightforward, prosecutors should be alive to the fact that it is possible, (though this is likely to be extremely rare), for a vehicle to be driven carelessly or dangerously without the careless or dangerous act or omission being causative of death. For example, causation may not be made out where a driver was avoidably distracted by something in the car, and suddenly a pedestrian stepped out into the road and was so close to the drivers car that a collision was inevitable, even if the driver had been paying full attention. Here, the death that occurred was unavoidable, irrespective of the manner of the driving. (My emphasis.)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a23

From stuff linked further up, I think that part of the defence case was that the deceased rode off the pavement unexpectedly.

Re: SUV/Lorry/BMW/Insert/delete as appropriate Driving Too C

23 March 2015 - 9:47pm
pete75 wrote:It's a type of car not a make and it's small hatchbacks which seem to have the most inconsiderate drivers. Most of the bike/ car incidents I've had have been with one of the hoard of Golfs, Minis, Metros, Polos, Escorts, Fiestas, Meganes, Clios, Yaris etc which infest our roads. They also seem to be responsible for most of the congestion.

But then they would do,as they're by far the most numerous vehicle on UK roads so proportionately there must be more idiots driving small HB's than any other vehicle.That seems by law of averages to be a given.

I'm close passed on a regular basis by a variety of vehicles,ranging from small hatchbacks to HGV's.By far the most numerous are small HB's,the most aggressive IMO are German prestige cars BMW's Audi's,etc.
But disproportionately for their percentage by number on the road the most close passes are SUV's/large 4x4's.

I'm of the opinion there are those drivers who can't judge timing and vehicle width(idiots who can't drive very well) and those who can but choose to drive with extremely fine tolerances(idiots who IMO spend to much time playing silly games on Xbox,etc),and those that deliberately are out to intimidate and bully smaller vehicles especially cyclists(maniacs out to cause harm either physical or mental and who have to do something to make up for their small genitalia).
Whatever the purpose the result is the same,I get a fright,which makes me angry,if I catch the vehicle up I tend to have a word,which initially is cordial but depending on the response I can either become irate with them or if they apologise as they were unaware of the effect they've had on me it remains cordial.

The one that sticks out in my mind the most was Range Rover who passed very close and fast.I caught him up at the next TL as he was stuck in the inevitable jam.
It was a warm sunny afternoon,and I approached the drivers open window,I simply said ''how do'' right by his side.He jumped out of his skin I'd obviously made a bit of an impact ,I took the opportunity to explain how frightening it was to sneak up on some especially in 2tonnes of motor car.
He got the point.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 9:43pm
Hmmm...

Leaving aside the fact that the jury could acquit him if they so chose (something I would personally be keen to defend), does anyone know what was put forward as an alternative explanation of the cause of the collision? On a newspaper comments page, someone had suggested that if it wasn't careless driving it had to be murder (i.e. deliberate) as there was no other explanation. And the jury, for this reason alone, were right to acquit him of careless or dangerous driving.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 8:56pm
thirdcrank wrote: The big difference is that with drink driving, the objectivity in terms of evidence is provided by testing and scientific analysis. With an allegation of "bad driving," no matter how good the evidence or the advocate presenting it, if the jury believes the driving was OK, that's the end of it.

I was impressed with evidence for use of the phone. As with alcohol use, it was AIUI an open and shut case: texting is illegal and dangerous, the defendant was texting at the time of the accident and there was clear evidence of this. The shock to me in this case is that the jury then went on to find him not guilty. Had the jury found the same person not guilty in a drink driving case (i.e. causing death), surely there would have been some intervention possible? Or are we saying that even if the person had been several times over the limit, he could only have been charged with that (drinking while under etc), not with causing death?

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

23 March 2015 - 8:45pm
thirdcrank wrote:661-Pete wrote:Yes - I see that all right. But of course it doesn't explain how the guy referred to in this thread, who was prosecuted, got acquitted, after a full trial before a jury. Unless the CPS were negligent in not presenting enough evidence?

I don't think that that follows. I'm saying that there's a question of norms. eg Driving and texting is now accepted by many people as the norm, even though it can objectively be shown to be dangerous, in much the same way as drink driving. The big difference is that with drink driving, the objectivity in terms of evidence is provided by testing and scientific analysis. With an allegation of "bad driving," no matter how good the evidence or the advocate presenting it, if the jury believes the driving was OK, that's the end of it. I'm blaming the CPS for having led the way when the investigation of the majority of crashes was abandoned. I'm completely out of touch now, of course, but it's my impression that recently the CPS has tried quite hard to retrieve the situation, at least in KSI prosecutions, but as I've suggested on the current Michael Mason thread, we're past the point of no return.

I've a friend who is a magistrate. She texts while driving and things there'e nothing wrong with the practice.

Re: Utility Pannier Bags

23 March 2015 - 8:39pm
Super C - just last and last.

Re: SUV/Lorry/BMW/Insert/delete as appropriate Driving Too C

23 March 2015 - 8:38pm
It's a type of car not a make and it's small hatchbacks which seem to have the most inconsiderate drivers. Most of the bike/ car incidents I've had have been with one of the hoard of Golfs, Minis, Metros, Polos, Escorts, Fiestas, Meganes, Clios, Yaris etc which infest our roads. They also seem to be responsible for most of the congestion.

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

23 March 2015 - 8:16pm
Tonyf33 wrote:Where's the evidence to support that theory?

The police have basically made judgments on if, buts and unproved theories, simple actual facts have being overlooked as being unimportant/irrelevant. On top of that in exactly the same scenario with other road users there would be no 'get out clause' offered up as there couldn't possibly be anything 'reasonable' to excuse the culprit
This case and the other involving the young lad and the texting driver are imo a good reason as to why camera's are a good idea. In both cases they'd demonstrate exactly what happened.

Not that it excuses what seems to me like someone driving down a road without a clue what's happening in front of her. I can spot a guy in black in an urban environment a few hundred yards away no problem. But it seems we're heading down a path whereby unless you've ticked every box then any half wit can kill you no questions asked.

Re: Grab Theft - handle bar kit

23 March 2015 - 7:26pm
Si wrote: On the other hand I approach many people on the street in these same areas as part of my job. Many are migrants, but I don't have any more hassle than I do in similar areas of mainly white people of English origin. Well, that is anecdotal and an entirely different scenario, so it isn't really relevant.
Si wrote:It is not that I wouldn't be suspicious of someone with a foreign accent but that I would be equally suspicious of someone with a UK accent in the same circumstances - thus the accent/nationality doesn't play a part in my decision making process. The crux of my argument is that the criminal sounding foreign (although a little vague), is useful information (as are any identifying details). Even if not generally useful (maybe not all criminals who steal Garmins will be foreign), it is relevant to the case in hand and if someone is approached in a similar way in a similar area, perhaps by a foreign sounding person, then they are forewarned and forearmed. So, do you agree with me that this information has utility, any utility at all and should be stated or with PH that it has no utility whatsoever and shouldn't be uttered, because that would somehow make one prejudiced?

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

23 March 2015 - 7:25pm
pwa wrote:My reading of the police report is that there is no firm evidence to rule out the possibility that Mr. Mason veered to the right suddenly, requiring the driver to take rapid evasive action. In this scenario his inconspicuous clothing would not have helped the driver to spot his manoeuvre quickly enough. What might have led Mr. Mason to veer out is unknown (if it did happen) but it could be something as simple as a cat running out into the road. We don't know that he veered out at all, but we don't know that he didn't. We don't know that he didn't move out in the usual "safe" manner, but we don't know that he did.
Where's the evidence to support that theory?

The police have basically made judgments on if, buts and unproved theories, simple actual facts have being overlooked as being unimportant/irrelevant. On top of that in exactly the same scenario with other road users there would be no 'get out clause' offered up as there couldn't possibly be anything 'reasonable' to excuse the culprit

Re: Grab Theft - handle bar kit

23 March 2015 - 7:08pm
Freddie wrote:You are right, it was wrong of me to presume, so what would you do in said situation? I don't think it is an unrealistic hypothetical. Will you argue my points?

To be honest, I would be wary of anyone approaching me in such circumstances whether they appeared to be of UK origin or not. It probably does make a difference where it occurs - I work in many deprived areas of Birmingham and I concede that I would be much more weary of someone approaching me in the street here than out in the countryside, no matter what their nationality / origin.

On the other hand I approach many people on the street in these same areas as part of my job. Many are migrants, but I don't have any more hassle than I do in similar areas of mainly white people of English origin.

It is not that I wouldn't be suspicious of someone with a foreign accent but that I would be equally suspicious of someone with a UK accent in the same circumstances - thus the accent/nationality doesn't play a part in my decision making process.

And I have a lanyard on my garmin which means it's a pain to get off the handlebars....you can't just snatch it.

Re: Grab Theft - handle bar kit

23 March 2015 - 7:06pm
PH wrote:Freddie wrote:Will you address the argument?
You don't appear to have one, just some ill founded prejudices and a willingness to dismiss something you disagree with as utter drivel.
I'm sorry, but you misunderstand. From Oxford Dictionaries online:

prejudice

[MASS NOUN]
1 Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

What I have, by contrast, is a postjudice. I have looked at the situation and made a reasoned consideration of it. You, on the other hand, want to stop people sharing useful information about criminals because the OP has committed a thought crime by suggesting they had a foreign accent. Foreign accent is a bit of a broad brush stroke, I'll grant you, but it is useful information. I have made the argument why it is useful information, patterns of crime, certain groups doing certain crimes more often. Indeed, the more details a person knows, the more likely anyone going through that area will avoid making the same mistake, but it appears all you can do is resort to character assassination.

But there is one thing that is certain. It is not for you to police what other people say, especially when that information could be helpful to members of this forum. You, and people like you, who try to police language, usually in the name of tolerance, are in fact intolerant of other people views and their right to legitimately express them. Hence you try to shut me down not by refuting the argument, but resorting to petty name calling.

Re: It me or do SUVs alway drive to close

23 March 2015 - 7:01pm
reohn2 wrote:Last three close passes on the bike were two SUV's and a VW Tiguan or Touran(?) two out of the three were very close with a speed differential of 30mph+
An attempt to bully me along or out of his way on Saturday by an idiot driving a 'Barbarian' crewcab pick up 4x4 but I was driving my Ford Cmax at the time.

My folks have been up this weekend... in a Tiguan. One trip as a passenger makes me wonder if that was him! Half the time aghast, half the time suggesting the indicator may help, etc. After that I made sure we were in my car each time. Hope it wasn't him. Don't think any worse than with their previous cars, but it is chunkier, which could count for something.

Noticed a few 'Barbarian' branded crewcab jobbies the other day on a long trip south and back, and those were often more agressively driven than the usual car that style, but those were perhaps shinier ones than their working cousins. One though, was a 'discreet' emergency services one I guess, rushing down M6 with blues flashing behind grill, so seems it was a sneaky bobbymobile or such.

I maintain that the most inconsiderate are generally the 'entitled' (mature and seemingly wealthy), whilst the most agressive are Deutsche status brands, both types of which can and often do overlap. Around our way though, there are a lot of very entitled in 4x4 beasts- the landed gentry hooning around the Forest of Bowland and such places, in convoys, lamps often mounted on the Landies amongst them, all other cars Range Rovers or similar valued 4x4s. Those lot show no regard for others what so ever. Guess they own the land, so they must assume they own the roads also.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions