Three quarters of Brits want drivers to retake their driving test; Alexandar Richardson smashes London to Brighton (and back) at 40km/h solo; Burgos organiser blames RIDER for crash; Fly tipper caught thanks to cyclist's camera + more on the live blog

hirsute wrote:

Hopefully this will be a news item on Monday.

https://twitter.com/MatBurnham/status/1556228868201218049

"So if I’m turning left or right and someone is crossing the road where I want to turn. I can just hit them because they put themselves in harms way, as long as I look like I’m not trying to hit them! Cool"

That's almost the definition of not doing their job. Matt Morris of Northants police should be sacked for that.

Hmm I don't disagree about the shoddy statements from the police but I'd like to see a longer video before making a call as to whether this is one sided or not.  From the start of the video on twitter it's not clear how the OP got into conflict with the driver in the first place. 

Aggressive use of the horn.

How is using your 2.5T vehicle as a weapon a proportionate response even if it were one sided (although what would amount to being one sided ?)

edit: as per the twitter thread this one sided argument lead to a dangerous driving charge

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/insulate-britain-range-rover...

hirsute wrote:

Aggressive use of the horn.

It does seem inappropriate. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask the driver why they beeped their horn if there's no obvious imminent danger. Could be they've noticed your QR is loose.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Hmm I don't disagree about the shoddy statements from the police but I'd like to see a longer video before making a call as to whether this is one sided or not.  From the start of the video on twitter it's not clear how the OP got into conflict with the driver in the first place. 

I'd usually agree, but the officer admits that it was assault. Even if someone deliberately lies down in the middle of a busy junction, no right-minded individual is then going to ride/drive over them without expecting consequences.

The message that Matt Morris and his sergeant are sending is that it is acceptable to assault people who are obstructing your forward progress. I think that's incorrect and morally wrong.

Let's see the video.  However it sounds like PC Morris is grasping a potential improvement on mere victim-blaming to avoid work.  He's got the logic to use the cyclist's evidence to do them for e.g. obstructing the highway or threat of criminal damage to the car's paintwork.  I see him going far.

The video is on the Twitter link. Basically, the cyclist didn't move quickly enough in a traffic jam for the Range Rover so got hooted (against HC 112 "Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively."), turned his bike at an angle to look round and remonstrate with the driver, after some to and fro the driver attempts to drive round him but smashes into the front wheel. Antis (and the police, it seems) are clearly going to say he shouldn't have stopped, not sure how that justifies being driven into. Also not sure how the police can write "there is an assault" and then follow that by saying they're doing nothing. The police's job is to investigate and charge assaults, if they admit there's an assault it should be charged, deciding on mitigating circumstances is the job of CPS and/or the courts, not the cops.

Thanks.  I think I can see how this one will go now - "you could have just cycled onward and sent footage later.  Instead you were blocking the driver - you moved the bike towards their car - while confronting them.  They could have felt threatened by you.  They made an attempt to move away from the confrontation and tried to avoid you and merely clipped the front of your bike. If they'd meant to hit you they could have driven straight forward".  Probably toss in a "man vs. woman" / "but the cyclist could have moved over into the gutter / onto the pavement before having a debate or to let them through" / "rather be safe than right" etc.

Of course you could also argue that the motorist shouldn't have honked, the cyclist was clearly not threatening them (they're behind the bike and make no attempt to move towards the driver after "establishing themselves") and this was careless driving at the least as the driver could clearly see them, made a choice to drive forward and still hit them.

So this won't go anywhere and we'll have the usual suspects out in force on here.

Chief constable has just tweeted he is on to it.

I was bit worried they'd outdo lancs !

I was bit worried they'd outdo lancs !

I appreciate that my public is expecting me to rubbish this possibility- the responses from PC 856 are poor, but Lancashire has really upped their 'cyclists are the rats of the road' game and simply refuse to respond to anything sent to the abysmal OpSnapLancs. It is difficult for outsiders to appreciate just how thick these traffic officers are- in the days when responses were issued they were clearly not up to working out what a headcam is. They persist in referring to all cameras as 'dashcams' despite all my reports describing a 'headcam'. I try to leave in sections of me looking right down at the cassette for gear ascertainment but despite that they invariably interpret me looking right, when the psycho Sainsbury's or Stagecoach driver 'cuts me up a treat', as me swerving to the right. It's not a difficult concept, but they just can't grasp it.

What your Chief Constable is 'on to' is confirming to the officers concerned 'keep it up lads, and I'll talk my way out of it with the usual'. This is black Transit MC18 EHR cutting me up a treat at speed and avoiding collision with oncoming larger white Transit by pulling over much closer to me, but still earning a well-deserved blast of the horn from the other Transit. There will be no response from OpSnapLancs and I'm now in the 5th week of waiting for a reply from Lancashire PCC over the complete failure of OSL to respond or act. When it comes it's likely to be really stupid.

hirsute wrote:

Chief constable has just tweeted he is on to it. I was bit worried they'd outdo lancs !

Oh!  Let's see then.  I still think the most that'll happen is a statement like "I'm sorry an officer misspoke somewhat; now, as you were".

This is "failing a driving test"-level driving on at least one and likely more counts.  Sadly I can see far too many "outs".  I doubt it'd even get to court and (although it's a lottery) I'd bet on it failing for most charges should it do so.  A civil action over bike repair costs might be a winner though.  Can you recoup punitive damages on assault via the civil route?

I've watched the video and they clearly 'placed themselves in harms way'. The entitled cyclist was actually in the road!

As I was told by a defence witness in Magistrates Court last week, I shouldn't have wobbled away from a stop, gone slowly uphill or even been in the road when a perfectly good pavement was there.

If only there was some code for users of the highway that everyone could follow then cyclists wouldn't keep stupidly and dangerously getting in the way.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Mandatory theory retest every 5-10 years, seems fairly obvious.

The statistically safest transport mode, Aviation, has a safety first mentality including Fitness for Type, and Currency.

Fitness for Type means that in addition to the foundation of license for each level of conditions; visual flight , night flight, instrument meteorological conditions, multi-engines, etc. the pilot is fully trained on the specific type of aircraft e.g. 757-200 so fully aware of all peculiarities required for safe operation.

Currency means that the pilot has been flying recently enough to be sharp on all the practical skills and specific knowledge. So not: I used to, but not so much now...

So all of this is safety best practice justified by the low appetite for risk that is the consensus between manufacturers, operators, passengers and regulators.

I suppose, what is our risk appetite for road transport and is the regulation effective to deliver it?

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Mandatory retests every 5 years would be incredibly unpopular with drivers but realistically every driver on the road should be at a standard far higher than the driving test standard so a test shouldn't be a problem.

The day you are worst at driving should be the day you pass your test, if after 5 years of driving you couldn't sail through the test with no minor faults then you should be doing additional training, if after that your bad habits are so ingrained you can't shake them then you shouldnt be driving.

It would save hundreds of lives and it would cost drivers almost nothing (around 4p and 2 seconds per day if you average the £69 and one hour over 5 years).

I used to think that mandatory retests would be a good idea, but I've got my doubts now. Some of the poor driving behaviour is entirely optional (e.g. mobile phone use; speeding; MGIF; close-passing) so a retest wouldn't catch those issues. I prefer the idea of better road policing, whether that's actual police, increased dashcam usage or automated driving evaluation (e.g. black boxes).

Interesting. I agree it's certainly not a guarantee of or quick fix for safety.  And we could definitely do with (much) more immediate feedback e.g. enforcement, however delivered.  I would like to see something in the way of retest / skills refresher however to:

• Demonstrate this is indeed a regulated activity (hence you're tested and licenced), not like a society you have to get into but then you're there for life.
• Provide a means of updating people's knowledge and skills.  Rules, practices and even vehicles and infra change.
• Pick up some reasonably common things like "this person has now gone mostly blind" or other issues which would prevent you from driving safely but which people might not have not reported themselves.

I do appreciate that all tests (and indeed black box monitoring) can be circumvented and indeed that may set up a market for "getting past".  Reminds me of Withnail and I too:

https://y.yarn.co/8c95981d-f4c7-4210-994d-76292d661a0b.mp4

And it's not an either /or - doing periodic retesting doesn't somehow preclude also improving / increasing policing and enforcement.

I agree. I see some ridiculously bad drivers, many are youngsters who must have only just passed their tests, so theoretically should be among the best drivers on the road. One lad wrote his car off up the road and killed a passenger a few years ago. He was speeding, on his phone, and had passed his driving test three weeks previously.

Most bad driving is sheer lazy driving. Not helped by modern cars being so easy to drive with so many distractions inside.

biker phil wrote:

I agree. I see some ridiculously bad drivers, many are youngsters who must have only just passed their tests, so theoretically should be among the best drivers on the road. One lad wrote his car off up the road and killed a passenger a few years ago. He was speeding, on his phone, and had passed his driving test three weeks previously.

Most bad driving is sheer lazy driving. Not helped by modern cars being so easy to drive with so many distractions inside.

The driving test should be considered the minimum standard - you pass the test and then gain experience and learn from it, but that doesn't seem to apply to a lot of drivers. Certainly, younger drivers have far worse insurance rates due to their inexperience and lack of judgement.

biker phil wrote:

I agree. I see some ridiculously bad drivers, many are youngsters who must have only just passed their tests, so theoretically should be among the best drivers on the road.

Where is the data to prove that there is an issue and that this survey 'common sense' is not just ageist nonsense?

100% of motor vehicle drivers are expected to be aware of their fitness to drive whether related to vision, reaction, DVLA notifiable medical conditions, alcohol or medicine side effects.

Similarly, responsible for checking the vehicle fitness for purpose before driving, yet how many do?

Not many if the number of defective lights I see are a fair guide...

PS: fog lights in fine weather seems an indication of people who either don't know what all the vehicle controls do or haven't checked the lights before moving off. Either way, incompetence.

I agree with this but would also like to see more co-ordinated adverts like drink driving or seat belt wearing campaigns of yester-year for mobile phone use at the wheel and drug driving, which now seems to be really on the rise.

However, they would need to be properly researched and organised so we don't get the Twitter style, #cyclelikeyoudrive nonsense. I can't believe it would be too difficult to get these signed off by all concerned, including the likes of Chris Boardman and markandcharlie etc 

hawkinspeter wrote:

I used to think that mandatory retests would be a good idea, but I've got my doubts now. Some of the poor driving behaviour is entirely optional (e.g. mobile phone use; speeding; MGIF; close-passing) so a retest wouldn't catch those issues. I prefer the idea of better road policing, whether that's actual police, increased dashcam usage or automated driving evaluation (e.g. black boxes).

The sooner we get the wetware out of the loop, and software in control, the safer we will be.

The default corporate liability will provide a strong push to safety that isn't there with plausible deniability that manufactures have now.

'It's not a dangerous product, rather people...'

Couldn't agree more.

My employer has to re-test all of us on any of the 6 different pieces of equipment we have licences for every 3 years to comply with the insurance policy and all of them are limited to 10mph.

There must be some tangible benefit.

EDIT: I forgot the yearly medical and eyesight test too, no idea if it's insurance related though.

'There must be some tangible benefit' 

still non found. Mogg did mention something about Hoovers though.