Got to be something else to this
Discussion
They must have determined that it was a category 1 careless driving offence.
Category 1 = higher culpability and greater harm.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
Category 1 = higher culpability and greater harm.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
ts… that was absolutely ridiculous and well worthy of 9 points, if not a ban !agtlaw said:
They must have determined that it was a category 1 careless driving offence.
Category 1 = higher culpability and greater harm.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
What's the definition of 'harm' in relation to an incident like this?Category 1 = higher culpability and greater harm.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
From the video I see no physical harm, rather a few seconds alarm as the car whizzes by so, in my view, that's lesser harm and higher culpability; i.e. Category 2.
Riley Blue said:
agtlaw said:
They must have determined that it was a category 1 careless driving offence.
Category 1 = higher culpability and greater harm.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
What's the definition of 'harm' in relation to an incident like this?Category 1 = higher culpability and greater harm.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
From the video I see no physical harm, rather a few seconds alarm as the car whizzes by so, in my view, that's lesser harm and higher culpability; i.e. Category 2.
It's not, because the spineless CPS went for careless rather than dangerous.
Riley Blue said:
What's the definition of 'harm' in relation to an incident like this?
From the video I see no physical harm, rather a few seconds alarm as the car whizzes by so, in my view, that's lesser harm and higher culpability; i.e. Category 2.
It was only luck that meant the cyclist swerved in time and didn't take out someone else in the group.From the video I see no physical harm, rather a few seconds alarm as the car whizzes by so, in my view, that's lesser harm and higher culpability; i.e. Category 2.
agtlaw said:
Riley Blue said:
What's the definition of 'harm' in relation to an incident like this? 2.
Try reading the link.Factors indicating greater harm:
Injury to others
Damage to other vehicles or property
High level of traffic or pedestrians in vicinity
Factors indicating lesser harm:
All other cases
Does that mean, in the absence of injury or damage, that it's purely the number of cyclists that make it greater harm?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This road does not look very busy, so they can ride two abrest. Why are you trying to shift the blame?And I don't think there is anything in highway code about riding close to and parrallel with the curb, but happy to be corrected.
What happened to "give cyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" rule? This is poor driving and that driver deserved what they got, no excuses.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I actually asked my 10 year old this very question, after he did his Bikeability at school (similar to the old Cycling Proficiency of my day).Apparently they now teach you that if you're in a group (ie more than one solo cyclist) you should ride 2 abreast to improve visibility to other road users. Upon the approach of other traffic you should fall-in line astern to occupy less road.
In the clip posted there seems to be a limited amount of moving back to line astern, possibly because the road seems littered with traffic calming measures. That said, the driver of the i10 doesn't give them a lot of room, shouldn't be overtaking near a traffic island and appeared to be going quite quickly given road conditions.
Tony1963 said:
There’s no legal requirement for either of those. Drivers very rarely notice the condition of the left side of the road anyway. Yes, the cyclists may have gone against guidance, but the driver committed an offence, simple as that.
If they were single file the offence would have been essentially the same, so this is irrelevant.I think if they'd gone for Dangerous the driver might have argued that he'd missed seeing the bollard thingy and the CPS would then struggle to prove the intent to pass within very limited space. Not seeing the bollard would more likely fall under Careless, with the intent being to pass with more space.
Anyone that's ridden a bike on the road knows what happened there though and that the group was lucky the driver didn't do the usual trick of immediately stopping and forcing the group into the kerb.
It’s the definition of careless and part of the reason why I don’t cycle on the road anymore
People approach a cyclist and don’t plan an overtake, they just think ‘I need to get past the cyclist’ ignoring blind corners, oncoming cars and traffic islands then swerve towards you when they finally realise they’re driving straight at an obstacle
People approach a cyclist and don’t plan an overtake, they just think ‘I need to get past the cyclist’ ignoring blind corners, oncoming cars and traffic islands then swerve towards you when they finally realise they’re driving straight at an obstacle
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What ever happened to the motorists' rule of spotting hazards and being courteous to other road users? Annoying though it might be when you think someone isn't being a courteous road user, it doesn't excuse driving at them. Otherwise every secondary school would be surrounded by roads covered in squashed teenagers who did that super slow-mo road crossing thing that Kevin types do for some reason.
Bet he wouldn't have done that move to a massive tractor...
paulrockliffe said:
If they were single file the offence would have been essentially the same, so this is irrelevant.
I think if they'd gone for Dangerous the driver might have argued that he'd missed seeing the bollard thingy and the CPS would then struggle to prove the intent to pass within very limited space. Not seeing the bollard would more likely fall under Careless, with the intent being to pass with more space.
Anyone that's ridden a bike on the road knows what happened there though and that the group was lucky the driver didn't do the usual trick of immediately stopping and forcing the group into the kerb.
It's not even current guidance any more and hasn't been for over a decade.I think if they'd gone for Dangerous the driver might have argued that he'd missed seeing the bollard thingy and the CPS would then struggle to prove the intent to pass within very limited space. Not seeing the bollard would more likely fall under Careless, with the intent being to pass with more space.
Anyone that's ridden a bike on the road knows what happened there though and that the group was lucky the driver didn't do the usual trick of immediately stopping and forcing the group into the kerb.
Cyclists are encouraged to cycle 2 abreast if the road is wide enough to increase visibility and to discourage vehicles from trying to overtake whilst there is oncoming traffic.
Cyclists are advised to take the centre of the lane in some circumstances as well for the same reasons.
QuickQuack said:
There's no such rule.
If anyone quotes rule 66 it's in the process of being rewritten, virtually to say the diametric opposite of what it used to re narrow roads!Proposed Changes
I.e. that part of the highway code is outdated.
Also see new rule 72.
Edited by Solocle on Friday 27th August 10:09
Strict liability to protect cyclists
"Strict liability makes motorists financially liable for collisions with pedestrians or cyclists. Only when the pedestrian or cyclist is proved to be negligent does the driver avoid paying compensation through their insurance."
https://www.eta.co.uk/2015/10/02/strict-liability-...
"Strict liability makes motorists financially liable for collisions with pedestrians or cyclists. Only when the pedestrian or cyclist is proved to be negligent does the driver avoid paying compensation through their insurance."
https://www.eta.co.uk/2015/10/02/strict-liability-...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff