CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 17 min 48 sec ago

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 3:09pm
Paulatic wrote:Here's another case just come to light of driver failing to nominate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cBm93E7HU ... e=youtu.be

It's all just too easy isn't it?

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 12:08pm
Just as an aside,
The victim of this crime has a civil right to claim against the owner of the vehicle for loss and damages in order to put them into a position where they at least no worse off from the incident. Hopefully they will have done that and as a result the will be (presuming that you can compensate for injury with money) no worse off. Criminal prosecution is therefore academic.

Cyclists often seem reluctant to make these civil claims where a motorist wouldn't think twice about it- as if broken bones matter less because they will heal on their own where scratched paintwork has to be paid for. A greater readiness by cyclists to make these claims (better still strict liability rules) would help motorist to be aware that they can't attack vulnerable road users with impunity, that their insurance premiums will suffer even if they escape criminal prosecution.

UK roads are effectively policed by insurance companies based on the assumption that 'accidents' will happen & that's what you have to have insurance for. The owner of this car will be severely penalised through their insurance premiums both because of the points on their licence and hopefully as consequence of a heavy financial claim against them.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 11:50am
So we all know what to do now if we want to murder someone, do we? Just blame spouse, have spouse blame us, and the CPS will walk away saying 'fine, that's alright then'?

If this really is the law in this country it is high time the law was changed.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 11:42am
Samuel D wrote:The natural optimist in me says we haven’t heard the last of this. Many people must know the names of the people who could have driven that car and some must even know who was driving it. Those names will probably come out, for better or worse.

And hopefully the downed cyclist will at least get some restitution from the insurance company.



Edit: a particularly galling thing about this case is that the driver has got away (so far, at least) despite the car having been clearly filmed. Would a polarising filter on the camera lens have made a difference to this outcome? See what that may have done here.

A polarising filter isn't an easy option. At best, it cuts out light (even a good one cuts out one 'stop' on a DSLR).
I don't know how they work on a video camera, but for an autofocus SLR/DSLR they have to be 'circular' polarisers rather than the simple linear ones you can use with manual focus cameras, and circuar polarisers aren't as effective. Both types need readjusting if the angle of the camera to the light changes.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 11:40am
Apparantly the court case was in September 2015.

Can someone from Nottingham do a bit of research? In my area the local rag has an 'around the courts section' where this sort of thing would be listed.

Would be great if someone could get the papers from that period (local library should have them) and get some names....these people deserve to be shamed.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 11:29am
Postboxer wrote:I can see this incident putting people off cycling because even with good video evidence, front and back, the driver has essentially got away with it. Although I assume any insurance claim is unaffected by the failure to decide who was driving.

I'm certainly a lot more nervous about what these people can get away with. God help us when the rest find out.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 11:20am
we are missing two pieces of information:

1, The date of the hearing

2, Which court

Their details ought to be on the public record, if they are not we need to be asking why?

Re: Main roads that don't allow cycling

4 February 2016 - 10:57am
OldGreyBeard wrote:One that comes to my mind is the A505 through the Weston Tunnels near Baldock, Herts where there is a sign listing prohibited traffic (pedestrians, cycles, invalid carriages, animals and motorbikes under 50cc). They have to go the long way round.
Which is 2.7 miles instead of 2.6, a whole tenth of a mile longer. I think they should have tarmacked the remaining gravel section and ripped out the barriers, but a fairly short route via South Road does exist.

pwa wrote:I think the prohibitions I have no problem with are those on new dual carriageways where no cycling access ever existed in the first place, and where the new road makes the existing cyclable roads better.
I have a problem with those, as industrial, office and retail estates tend to sprout up along those dual carriageways before long and are unreachable by cycling or walking, or if the planners insist, they get a fig-leaf less-than-minimum connection to an inconvenient place on the existing networks. That was the basis of my objection to the proposed cycling ban and lack of provision on the forthcoming A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass... of course, it was ignored just as happened with the CTC/NCyC objection to the lack of "cycle proofing" on the forthcoming Norwich nothern bypass (aka N25)

Re: Main roads that don't allow cycling

4 February 2016 - 10:36am
jgurney wrote:What is the rationale for banning cyclists in the first place?
They say it's for our own good. the truth of the matter is that they can't tolerate the peasants getting in the way

Re: Main roads that don't allow cycling

4 February 2016 - 10:23am
What is the rationale for banning cyclists in the first place?

If the issue is concern that faster-moving motor vehicles may be held up by slow-moving cyclists they cannot overtake, or may cause collisions through attempting to overtake without sufficient space, then on a new road being built the obvious solution is the make the inside lane, or each lane if it is a two-lane road, wide enough to allow motor traffic to overtake cyclists at a safe separation without having to change lanes. The Darlington bypass is an example.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 9:17am
The natural optimist in me says we haven’t heard the last of this. Many people must know the names of the people who could have driven that car and some must even know who was driving it. Those names will probably come out, for better or worse.

And hopefully the downed cyclist will at least get some restitution from the insurance company.



Edit: a particularly galling thing about this case is that the driver has got away (so far, at least) despite the car having been clearly filmed. Would a polarising filter on the camera lens have made a difference to this outcome? See what that may have done here.

Re: When police patrolled

4 February 2016 - 9:05am
I remember round about 1959 there was an elderly woman dubbed "The Queen of the M1" who drove her high performance car at very high speeds - accompanied by several cats.
I'm not sure of the penalty she incurred.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 9:04am
I can see this incident putting people off cycling because even with good video evidence, front and back, the driver has essentially got away with it. Although I assume any insurance claim is unaffected by the failure to decide who was driving.

Re: something you don't see every day....

4 February 2016 - 9:04am
Brucey wrote:All this merely looked awkward from where I was... ...but goodness knows what it must have looked like from any other angle.... I happened to glance up at a passing bus and the passengers in it were somewhat slack-jawed and goggle-eyed at the sight of this chap hunched over 'pumping away' so vigorously....

I wonder if it looked anything like this....

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/12/van-drive ... 5-5560998/

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 9:01am
Vorpal wrote:It was a hire car.And I presume that the hire company did indeed provide details of the hirers to the police. It's the next step along the line, where the process broke down.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 8:58am
Brian73 wrote:I think the insurance company is going to be the only arbiter of justice.

The registered keeper has been convicted of failing to provide details (s172(3) RTA 1988) and should get 6 penalty points as well as the £150 fine, the insurance company will have to pay out for the collision and I'm sure they've viewed the footage.

At the very least the insurance company is going to cancel the policy and the registered keeper is going to find it very difficult to insure the vehicle at reasonable cost for the next 5 years.
It was a hire car.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 8:56am
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this...

Did anyone else notice that this story got a brief airing on the main BBC News on TV last night? The national news, I mean, not the regional programmes. They showed the relevant snippet of video along with the comment that no-one had yet been brought to justice.

Up till now I've been thinking, the more the Press gets involved in this, the better the likelihood that the culprit(s) will indeed, in due course, face justice. But I'm beginning to worry about the negative impact of all this. Whenever a news story about a cycling accident gets aired, how many people does it put off cycling on the roads - for good?

I'm tired of repeating myself yet again, but here goes: "There is risk in cycling, but it is far outweighed by the benefits".

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 8:50am
irc wrote:being an associate does not automatically make you responsible for the actions of your fellow associates as the law does not recognise guilt by association. The accused must have been aware of what the others involved in the criminal act were doing and have participated in some way in the criminal act.

http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Crim ... w_%28uk%29
That didn't work out very well for Derek Bentley, did it?

Re: Careless of inconsiderate driving?

4 February 2016 - 8:45am
In nearly 60 years of cycling, I've reported about four drivers to the police.

Or to be more accurate, I've reported four incidents: in one of them the vehicle couldn't be identified so it got no further. I got one person cautioned and another 'put on file'. And there was the guy who knocked me off, but it wasn't I who reported that, the police arrived anyway, summoned by witnesses. That offender got put on a Driver Awareness course.

Maybe some cyclists act more as 'magnets' than others...

Re: something you don't see every day....

4 February 2016 - 8:44am
How did you get through that story without a

About

CTC

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