CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 37 min ago

Re: How to complain about bad driving.

20 February 2015 - 3:16pm
thirdcrank wrote:Re NIPs

The subject is covered in some detail on the CPS website here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... P344_37188

In brief, if you have correctly quoted the person who advised you, they were talking rubbish. O tempora, O mores!

In the absence of an "accident" several traffic offences, including careless/ dangerous/ inconsiderate driving cannot be the subject of criminal proceedings unless an NIP is served either on the driver or registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged offence.

Apart from "accidents" the only other leeway is if the name and address of the accused or the registered keeper could not with reasonable diligence be ascertained within the (14 days) or the defendant contributed to that failure by his or her own conduct. (See the same link.) The idea is that the suspect is alerted to the possibility of proceedings while things are fresh in their mind and the prosecution certainly does not have six months to consider the evidence before deciding about an NIP (That six months is the time limit for obtaining a summons - with certain exceptions - for summary offences and is explained further down my CPS link.) From the same link, here's one of the biggest understatements ever made:
A claim that the requirements of the section have not been complied with is a popular technical defence
Google "NIP" and you will die of boredom before ploughing through to the end of all the ads from loophole merchants. Talking of ploughing, plough through some of my own trips down memory lane on here and the subject of NIPs looms large. If your incident was now more than a fortnight ago and if you provided registration details which were good enough to trace the vehicle, if no NIP has been served, then it's one of those things you put down to experience (to quote lyrics which betray my age )

I reported the incident to the police station 2 days after the incident. I'll chase it up again early next week to see how goes. May be he was talking about it being an accident but I did mention to him that it was not an accident but a near miss due to dangerous driving.

Re: How to complain about bad driving.

20 February 2015 - 3:08pm
Re NIPs

The subject is covered in some detail on the CPS website here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... P344_37188

In brief, if you have correctly quoted the person who advised you, they were talking rubbish. O tempora, O mores!

In the absence of an "accident" several traffic offences, including careless/ dangerous/ inconsiderate driving cannot be the subject of criminal proceedings unless an NIP is served either on the driver or registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged offence.

Apart from "accidents" the only other leeway is if the name and address of the accused or the registered keeper could not with reasonable diligence be ascertained within the (14 days) or the defendant contributed to that failure by his or her own conduct. (See the same link.) The idea is that the suspect is alerted to the possibility of proceedings while things are fresh in their mind and the prosecution certainly does not have six months to consider the evidence before deciding about an NIP (That six months is the time limit for obtaining a summons - with certain exceptions - for summary offences and is explained further down my CPS link.) From the same link, here's one of the biggest understatements ever made:
A claim that the requirements of the section have not been complied with is a popular technical defence
Google "NIP" and you will die of boredom before ploughing through to the end of all the ads from loophole merchants. Talking of ploughing, plough through some of my own trips down memory lane on here and the subject of NIPs looms large. If your incident was now more than a fortnight ago and if you provided registration details which were good enough to trace the vehicle, if no NIP has been served, then it's one of those things you put down to experience (to quote lyrics which betray my age )

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 3:04pm
AGREE.

As a (vulnerable)cyclist and human being I think it is incumbent to also be aware of wotsgoin-on 'in-the-rest-of the-world'. By this I mean,our roads are becoming over-crowded,this island(GB)is filling up,the population is growing,more and more people are 'having to travel by car'. Some(not all)van and truck drivers have delivery times,bonus schemes they have to meet,or want to meet. Add all the above to a mixing-pot and stir: everyone now seems to be stressed out,targets-to-meet. Cyclists are an inconvenience: not my thinking. If I don't meet my target someone else will: I will be replaced. Howsabout if I do knock someone over: chances of being caught? Then,if caught? Chances of the slammer? I wouldn't think that great. Following this logic...go for the risk,go for the bonus,you have a wife or husband to support,a mortgage to pay.

No. As a cyclist you should be aware of the culture you're living in,the policing of laws and cycle defensively. David versus Goliath was a one off. Big Boys in most respect win small boys: Darwinian Rules. And as echoed through our flawed society.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 2:59pm
661-Pete wrote:I would also add that I think my truck driver was in the wrong to half overtake me. Do others agree?
Yes - I'd say it was bordering on careless driving.
tyreon wrote:It can be frightening out there. Glad I am no longer a cycling commuter.
Frightening because you can limit some of the common ways of ending up in a collision (don't overtake on left, don't continue when you should stop, don't ride in the door zone) but not others (left hooks, others continuing when they should stop, side-swipes) but despite all that, keep remembering it's not as dangerous as it may feel... unlike driving, breathing in the exhaust of the car in front and failing to take a great opportunity for exercise, which is more dangerous than it feels.
pwa wrote:To limit deliveries to certain times of day would be problematic. I'm not discounting it completely, but it would be hugely disruptive and expensive for all of us in the end.
Yes, it would be expensive, but is killing people for mistakes really cheaper and the cost we'd prefer to pay?

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 2:32pm
We should certainly not speculate further on this particular case, even after the eyewitness account.

But, although the cases of cyclists stupidly filtering up the nearside are common enough (as a simple browse through YouTube will testify), there are other circumstances which can lead to a collision.

Only yesterday as I was coming up to a roundabout (slowly - it's a slight uphill), a large refuse truck half overtook me, then came to a standstill, still alongside me. This put me in a bit of a quandary: even if the truck was about to turn right (it wasn't indicating), being a roundabout it would have had to move to the left first. So I could either stop, myself, and wait until the truck had passed, or filter forward until I was ahead of the truck once more, and then firmly put myself in primary to stop it from trying to pass me again.

I chose the latter option. The truck driver didn't seem to object. Conflict avoided.

The point? I wouldn't normally filter on the left of a truck approaching a roundabout, but I was already on its nearside in a potentially dangerous position, through no action of my own. I think my only mistake was not being in primary before the truck approached. But that's hard to justify sometimes especially when I'm going very slowly.

I would also add that I think my truck driver was in the wrong to half overtake me. Do others agree?

Re: How to complain about bad driving.

20 February 2015 - 2:21pm
Tonyf33 wrote:Well done, hope you get the outcome desired.
Think if you're able to post the resultant on the forum as a seperate thread with how you went about things that would be interesting for people to read about.

Yes, I'll definitely do that after I've heard back from them. But I agree with the opening posters comments about no point going to the effort of capturing evidence (i.e. using cycle cams) if all you do with it is whinge on forums where nothing really will get done. Just need to do a few things just to bring it to the Police's attention in a manner they can actually do something about it. It's extremely unlikely Police will do anything from a forum post whinge.

But just for info, I don't believe the call to get an incident number is necessary. The Police for my area is Metropolitan Police station, I just have to fill in Section 4 of the Self Reporting Form (Form 207, also available here).

If the video evidence fully explains the situation then the form only takes 2 minutes to fill in. However, just to save time in future, I'm going to create a Word template that'll allow me to enter details on the computer and then printing it on an already printed PDF 207 form will then just have all the fields aligned. The only thing I'd need to hand write is my signature.

Re: How to complain about bad driving.

20 February 2015 - 2:11pm
Well done, hope you get the outcome desired.
Think if you're able to post the resultant on the forum as a seperate thread with how you went about things that would be interesting for people to read about.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 2:07pm
FWIW: Might is Right.

When newly qualified as a car driver my wife would be heading down some highway where,at the same time,a humungous lorry would be overtaking...on a blind bend,over a humpbacked bridge,over double white lines. As we were being transported to our deaths my wife would say she had the right of way and was right in her driving. At the top of my voice I would be reminding my wife whilst legally she was correct we were on the way to a coffin or a wheelchair. There was then a lot of screamin and shoutin involved,from me.

At any stop sign or corner any heavy goods vehicle can then arrive and park themselves alongside the cyclist. HG decides to go left(and may signal): its then over if you're going straight ahead or going left. When HGV arrives beside me and when I am stationary before that vehicle,I either get well ahead,or make sure on my left side there's some avenue of exit.

£500,000 in compo with no legs is no compo at all should I even gain such amount for wrong driving. Your own fatality is just a glance-over the local newspaper.

It can be frightening out there. Glad I am no longer a cycling commuter.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 12:45pm
pwa wrote:Mark

I agree that the blame thing is a distraction and we should be concentrating on getting solutions. But I feel the segregation you want is just going to put bicycles on the footpaths, having to give way at every junction, mixing it with pedestrians.

That's a common fear of course, but it always seems to be that the assumption is that there is nothing between cycling on the road with construction traffic and riding on the pavement. Far from it, dedicated cycling infrastructure - not converted footpaths, doesn't have nearly as many of those type of problem.

Most cities have a shortage of street space. If we were building cities from scratch we would do it differently, but I think we are stuck with riding on roads for a lot of the time. Many of us know how to do this in a way that minimises the danger to ourselves, but some do not. How do we get the message across?

Most cities, even our most ancient ones have more than enough space, however we've decided to prioritise motor transport in that space - it's our own priorities rather than physical space which is the issue

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 12:21pm
AlaninWales wrote:Indeed, AIUI a banksman is required on work sites - where everyone is (or at least should be) trained and aware of the danger of large, heavy, un-sighted, dangerous vehicles. Where these same vehicles are used around inexperienced road users however, no such safety feature is required. The logic of this is patently daft.

The difference in a works site though is that the contractor is in total control of what happens there. On a public road, the rules of the road apply and the contractor - along with everyone else - should be following those. If temporary road layouts are necessary these have to be designed and approved by the local authority in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Occasionally there are instances where an operative may need to intervene - hold up traffic for example, but a full time banksman wouldn't be permitted out on the road in my view on the grounds that it's impractical. The road layout in question wass a "tunnel" with no safe space for a banksman to be.

Re: How to complain about bad driving.

20 February 2015 - 12:13pm
Shootist wrote:I’ve read quite a few posts here about the futility of cyclists complaining to the police about bad driving of car drivers. So, here’s a guide as to how I think it can best be done. For those of you who think it too much trouble I can only say stop your futile whining on BBSs and at the tea shops as it’s utterly pointless.
It is not nearly as difficult as it might seem for what follows. Feel free to offer imrovements.

Here’s a few things for starters.
1. The police will almost certainly fail to prosecute anyone involved in an incident of which they are unaware. So bloody well report it. Also, if cyclists are being carved up regularly on a particular road and these events are not reported to the police and the council then both of those ‘organisations’ can, and will, deny there is a problem.
2. There has to be some fairly good evidence. Video cameras, witnesses, audio recordings, all are good. But, sometimes you have to accept that there is insufficient evidence and move on.
3. But, if you have gone to the bother of gathering the evidence, then why on earth waste it? You may end up saving someone’s life in the future if you pursue your complaint. It’s that serious.
4. Police officers today are only interested in whatever the police officers of today are interested in today. It’s an unfortunate fact that they do not care to be directed towards doing their job, so you have to apply pressure to persuade them.

So, let’s assume you have evidence, you’ve made the effort at the scene, written down car numbers, obtained the details of witnesses, photographed the scene etc. and finally, and most importantly, it isn’t your own stupid fault.

(A classic example of a good complaint is the left hooker video posted on this forum that I have commented upon previously. Perhaps the OP will be kind enough to post a link on this thread.)

There are two types of incident, one where the police attend, and the other where they don’t. I’ll start with the one where they don’t.

You have all the details and evidence. You have written them down in that little note book you carry with the little pen you also carry. As soon as you get home and have had your first cup of tea, you call the police (not 999) and tell them you wish to report a case of dangerous driving. Don’t bother to try and get it right about careless or inconsiderate. That doesn’t matter. You will be asked for your details which you will obviously supply. It is possible, even probable, that the person you speak to will suggest that there is insufficient evidence or to otherwise put you off. Ignore their advice as they are mostly call handlers who have no interest whatever in you or your problems. Here’s a list of things to insist upon.

1. That you wish to see a police officer to make a complaint of a criminal offence i.e. dangerous driving.
2. Insist you are given an incident number for your complaint.
3. Insist that (if there was no accident as defined in the road traffic act) the incident includes a requirement that the officer it is allocated to sends a written Notice Of Intended Prosecution (NIP) immediately he receives the report. Ask the call handler to confirm that this has been included in the incident report.
4. Make sure that the call handler has noted correctly the vehicle registration, type, colour, etc. correctly.
5. Ensure that the call handler notes that you have video evidence and witnesses etc. (assuming you have).
That should signal the end of phase 1. Note, on the above, they may not follow the sequence I have listed, but make sure they are all there.

Now for phase 2.

If you have video. Make copies. Lots of copies. On CD as well as all over your hard drive/s.
Then, as soon as is practicable and very much preferably the same day, sit and write or type a full summary of the event. Include:
1) Time, day, date, location of the incident.
2) Weather conditions, visibility, road surface conditions, traffic flow.
3) A basic sketch plan of the scene and what went where. Include a pointer to the north.
4) Time day and date you wrote this summary and prepared any video evidence.
Have another cup of tea.

Phase three. This can depend upon what the police do and when they do it, or not, as the case may be.
If you have not heard from them after no more than three days, phone up and, referring to the incident number (which you wrote down, didn’t you) and ask what is happening. Make particular reference to the NIP and ask if it has been sent. If the answer is not a definite yes, accompanied by details of who sent it and when, ask for a reminder to be sent. The NIP is vital in a non-accident complaint of dangerous / careless / inconsiderate driving and a few other relevant offences as if it isn’t sent within 14 days of the incident, there can be no prosecution. Be sure to press this point.

When, assuming one does, the police officer visits, make your statement and press for prosecution. Hand over copies of your notes and a video CD if requested, which you should be, at least in the case of the CD, and almost certainly your notes also. Make sure you retain copies as if you appear at court you can refer to these notes to assist you.

With luck you are now waiting to hear if you are going to have to attend court. CPS (Couldn’t Prosecute Satan) will have to make a decision. At the very least the driver will have had an NIP and a notice to require the ID of the driver at the time of the incident, which might buck his ideas up a bit.
Note that if the driver is prosecuted and pleads guilty you won’t have to appear in court. The police should keep you informed of what is happening, particularly in reference to any court proceedings, but they usually will not. Too much time and effort.

Part the next will follow for if the police fail in their duty, for then they must be taken to task.

Sorry to dig up such an old thread but this was quite useful instructions which I had to follow recently due to a very near miss.

I made the initial call and got an Incident Reference number. Then filled in a Self Reporting Form at a local Police station giving them all the information and the Incident Reference number, I was told that I would hear back within 2 weeks time. I gave it a few days before chasing it up and spoke the Police offer who would be receiving the report and handling it (if not him then one of his colleagues in his department). What he gave me was some different information. He said they would need to wait for the report to come through from the Police station it was reported too, the evidence would then need to be obtained and then they'd need to speak to the driver in question before an NIP might be issued. It all sounded like it was going to take more than 2 weeks so I raised the concern, what happens if the NIP isn't issued within 2 weeks, does that mean that there's no chance of prosecution?

He then clarified the points:
If after reviewing the evidence, there is grounds for prosecution, it doesn't matter whether an NIP is issued in 2 weeks or not. They can take up to 6 months to put together evidence before a summons to court is issued. He said that they cannot issue an NIP without reviewing the evidence and speaking to the other party to get their side of the story. His explanation was that if they didn't, it could be very distressing for someone to be given an NIP when they are falsely accused of something. However, my video evidence (both front and rear camera views) are very clear cut that it was a dangerously close overtake so I can't imagine that they'd even need to speak to the other person to get their side of the story because there's nothing really to tell from their side.

Anyhow, I'm going through this process for the first time so I'm a little confused with what is correct and what is not. He did categorically say that I was misinformed about the 2 week deadline for sending out an NIP as a precursor for any legal court summons as they can summon anyone up to 6 months later even without sending out the NIP.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 12:03pm
In fairness to reohn, I have never ridden up the left hand side of a lorry that was indicating left, or that could be turning left without indicating. Never. That would be suicidal.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 11:55am
reohn2 wrote:
You'll have to forgive me if you don't agree,but to ride up the inside of a left indicating HGV is inviting disaster and is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Incredibly stupid yes. But have you honestly never done something very stupid? Never?

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 11:43am
Indeed, AIUI a banksman is required on work sites - where everyone is (or at least should be) trained and aware of the danger of large, heavy, un-sighted, dangerous vehicles. Where these same vehicles are used around inexperienced road users however, no such safety feature is required. The logic of this is patently daft.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 11:26am
TonyR wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Additional safety devices (mirrors, banksmen) are clearly needed on these vehicles in London (and probably elsewhere).

The fact that it is yet another construction vehicle just shows how idiotic and short sighted were the decisions to exempt that class of vehicle from requirements for side barriers and additional mirrors etc.

All of these will become mandatory in London this year from 1 September. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/freight/ ... rry-scheme

But as they say, the single most important piece of safety equipment in a vehicle is the nut holding the steering wheel.

No banksmen though...

And that's the one "feature" which could reasonably be expected to have a focus purely on the space "swept" by the lorry, and therefore able to warn the driver AND the cyclist of impending collision.

Re: Vehicle as a murder weapon

20 February 2015 - 11:26am
Elizabethsdad wrote: ... +1 why does it seem so often that someone has to be killed before a menace such as this is dealt with? Perhaps there are several cases where action is taken before a more serious incident occurs and these just don't get reported but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it

For the umpteenth time I'll point out that what used to be called traffic policing and is now roads policing is no longer any sort of priority.

A Home Office spokeswoman said crime had fallen by more than a fifth under the coalition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31260003
That news item is about reductions in traffic police over the last four years so the data were presumably obtained to try to embarrass the present govt., but the trend began three decades ago and there's no likelihood of any sort of reversal.

Since the establishment of the CPS and the enaction of PACE, policing in E&W has been converted from a system based, in theory at least, on prevention of offending by visible patrolling to one of investigation, especially investigation restricted to addressing priorities or meeting objectives. The trend to increased emphasis on investigation has also been driven by more attention being paid to what goes on behind closed doors, which uniformed patrolling cannot influence much. Now, using a vehicle as weapon is no different to using anything else, except that so much of it can be characterised as traffic incidents and ipso facto, not a priority. (Hence the weasel-words from the Home Office spinner.)

Within what I refer to as "road traffic" we know that priority has been given to the investigation of so-called KSI collisions. ie that's why it "seems that someone has to be killed" To illustrate with a recent case - which seems hardly likely to have been road-rage, a detailed investigation will reveal in due course why a runaway truck on a steep hill killed four people, but not why road haulage now goes largely unpoliced.

This affects us as vulnerable road users in several ways. First, as even a collision between a motor vehicle and a human being is much more likely to be KSI than a collision between two motor vehicles, we are seen as the problem, rather than the victims As in "Cyclists are their own worst enemy" (Not something that's so easy to slip off the tongue when it's a child on a pedestrian crossing.) Then, it's now been reported that KSI colliisions do not necessarily merit a review of the evidence by the CPS before a decision to conclude an investigation. Thirdly, even when there's any sort of "crackdown" it has to be limited to the available police resources. eg Operation Safeway, the "response" to riders being crushed by tipper trucks seems constrained by the fact that there are restricted numbers of police officers with the training and experience to check lorries and their drivers but countless PCSO's available to advise cyclists about helmets and high-viz togs and to issue tickets for pavement cycling.

Here's a thought for MIckF from my link

In the 12-month periods ending March 2012 and March 2013, Devon and Cornwall had no full-time traffic officers

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 11:12am
pwa wrote:I agree that the blame thing is a distraction and we should be concentrating on getting solutions. But I feel the segregation you want is just going to put bicycles on the footpaths, having to give way at every junction, mixing it with pedestrians.
No, mixed use footways are not segregation (or protected space). It's the sort of thing that might do at a push if space really is limited (for example, we're already down to a single-track carriageway or less), but no-one likes it alongside carriageways and none of the cycling organisations are calling for that as far as I know. People on foot need protected space alongside busy routes too and we haven't got it if there are bikes on it.
Most cities have a shortage of street space. If we were building cities from scratch we would do it differently, but I think we are stuck with riding on roads for a lot of the time.
Aieeee, it's the "there is no space" myth. Yet other countries with ancient towns can do it. They're not afraid to say some streets are for people only.

Also, Victoria Street is mahooosive: wide footways, wide carriageway, no cycleway. The junction where this happened has been narrowed by construction which should have been a huge hint to authorities that diversions should have been set up using nearby streets for at least some traffic (probably heavier motor vehicles).
Many of us know how to do this in a way that minimises the danger to ourselves, but some do not. How do we get the message across?
You can't. You can't fix killer roads with education because you'll never get 100% reach of that education (of riders or motorists - or walkers?). It's worth doing because it cuts numbers and is cheap but it's no substitute for Vision Zero design - that requires redesigns with refits at resurfacing time in most cases, or in some cases rebuilds.

Re: Vehicle as a murder weapon

20 February 2015 - 11:06am
On the basis of what we normally see happening in the courts I seriously doubt that there are people being removed from the road when they first show signs of dangerous behaviour. It's only when that behaviour is converted into the inevitable consequence that they get any feedback about their behaviour.

Re: Filthy Drivers: Roadside Rubbish

20 February 2015 - 10:59am
reohn2 wrote:Me old Dad long dead,used to say ''you can talk all day to a chap with a wooden leg,but you can't talk to one with a wooden head''

That must be a local saying. I've never heard anyone 'round here say that - except for my Dad. And he was born in... Lowton!

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

20 February 2015 - 10:50am
Given the account of what happened I am now wondering whether the lorry had side guards on it. We can't stop people making mistakes but we can try to mitigate the consequences of those mistakes. Side guards are a cheap and simple mitigation that stops the cyclists falling under the lorry and its rear wheels. That may or may not have helped here depending on whether she was squashed against the hoardings or knocked under the wheels (the reports of hearing the bike being crushed under the wheels tends to suggest the latter). Side guards are not mandatory on construction lorries but will be in London from September and we should be campaigning for them to be nationwide.

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