Driving standards

[kevinlms]

13 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Depressing thing is if it was not for the very obvious stupid load on the roof it probably would not have been stopped, even though there are several very obvious faults with the vehicle at just a casual glance.

But the driver was only nipping around the corner!

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, RedgateModels said:

Ill just leave this here ....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61794798

I once carried a heavy load on a roof rack, properly fitted and the load (a pair of flatpack wardrobes) was well within the cars limits. The only problem was the car rolled alarmingly going round a roundabout.

3 hours ago, MarkC said:

They walk amongst us...

 

...the driver may well be walking, after the courts have finished with them...

He certainly was, in the report it stated that he wasn't insured. 

[MarkC]

9 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I once carried a heavy load on a roof rack, properly fitted and the load (a pair of flatpack wardrobes) was well within the cars limits. The only problem was the car rolled alarmingly going round a roundabout.

He certainly was, in the report it stated that he wasn't insured. 

I saw that - plenty of penalty points up for grabs 😆

[PhilJ W]

17 minutes ago, MarkC said:

I saw that - plenty of penalty points up for grabs 😆

I don't think he would have been too fussed about the car being crushed though.

[MarkC]

8 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I don't think he would have been too fussed about the car being crushed though.

True - although, tbh, that job was half done already 🤣🤣🤣

[SamThomas]

20 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Depressing thing is if it was not for the very obvious stupid load on the roof it probably would not have been stopped, even though there are several very obvious faults with the vehicle at just a casual glance.

& that case simply re-inforces my point about active or passive policing - all the technology we have to monitor us would not detect that.

However, a Police/Traffic Officers mkI eyball would (as in this case.

[kevinlms]

23 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

& that case simply re-inforces my point about active or passive policing - all the technology we have to monitor us would not detect that.

However, a Police/Traffic Officers mkI eyball would (as in this case.

Do we know that someone didn't ring up? I would have, as that is just downright dangerous.

[Reorte]

34 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

& that case simply re-inforces my point about active or passive policing - all the technology we have to monitor us would not detect that.

However, a Police/Traffic Officers mkI eyball would (as in this case.

 

The way things are going we'll probably end up with compulsory sensors in the roof to "make sure this never happens again."

[boxbrownie]

42 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

& that case simply re-inforces my point about active or passive policing - all the technology we have to monitor us would not detect that.

However, a Police/Traffic Officers mkI eyball would (as in this case.

Be careful, you might be accused of big brother tactics trying to find criminals by using your eyes and a bit of common sense 😉

[SamThomas]

8 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Do we know that someone didn't ring up? I would have, as that is just downright dangerous.

Actually, we don't.

 

However, the chances of getting a quick response thesedays are not too good.

 

My money is on a Police Officer just being in the right place at the right time.

Edited June 15, 2022 by SamThomas

[PhilJ W]

8 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Do we know that someone didn't ring up? I would have, as that is just downright dangerous.

 

41 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Actually, we don't.

 

However, the chances of getting a quick response thesedays are not too good.

 

My money is on a Police Officer just being in the right place at the right time.

With all the other offences he was charged with its likely that the scrote was already on the police radar. If he'd passed an ANPR camera its possible that the lack of insurance was flagged up. Or for that matter he could have been picked up on CCTV.

[SamThomas]

17 minutes ago, Balgrayhill said:

My stepson is in the police, he's told me (a number of times) that there are a huge amount of vehicles, not just private cars, on the road that are registered in false names and addresses, which means they are uninsured, untaxed and not MOT'd.  So unless the driver is physically stopped then all the cameras in the world wont help!

Exactly, re-inforces my comments regarding passive/active policing & this time from someone who has some inside knowledge.

[mezzoman253]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61815609

[leopardml2341]

Dead simple answer.....

 

Use the whole of the oncoming lane to overtake, and if you can't see far enough ahead to do that then it ain't safe anyway.

 

#simples

Edited June 15, 2022 by leopardml2341

[johnofwessex]

10 minutes ago, mezzoman253 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61815609

 

Oh woe is me, I can afford an Audi, I didnt go on the course or pay the FPN so I got hammered.

 

Perhaps a case for a 'Fit and Proper' hearing as well

[SamThomas]

9 hours ago, mezzoman253 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61815609

I'd like to form an opinion about this but details are lacking such as the speed of the car & pushbike as well as the estimated clearance left between the car & the pushbike , also how far from the curb the pushbike was.

 

Dashcam images from the car may very well have made the whole incident look very different - does that mean that dilligent drivers need to keep downloading their images & store them for at lead 14 days ?

 

I always reconed that up to 30mph 1m was sufficient, 30 > 50mph 2m & over 50 3m. If driving an HGV double that & of course increased clearnace if it's windy. I would also increase "HGV" clearance on a wet road.

[Titan]

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

I'd like to form an opinion about this but details are lacking such as the speed of the car & pushbike as well as the estimated clearance left between the car & the pushbike , also how far from the curb the pushbike was.

 

 

It is in the article:

 

Following the narrow miss along the B4280 Pant Hirwaun outside Heol-y-Cyw, near Bridgend in September 2021, Mr Humphreys said he and his son later measured the road and claimed the gap he left for the cyclist was sufficient and safe.

 

He said: "Taking into account the cyclist and his bike, there would have still been at least 4ft (1.2m) space.

 

Motorists must now leave a 1.5m (5ft) gap when overtaking cyclists, as well as slowing down. The gap must be 2m (6.5ft) when passing pedestrians or horse riders.

 

Changes in the language of The Highway Code came in to force from 29 January

 

One wonders if the solicitors he paid to get him off looked at an old Highway code and thought if they claimed he was 1.2m away it would help his defence...

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, leopardml2341 said:

Dead simple answer.....

 

Use the whole of the oncoming lane to overtake, and if you can't see far enough ahead to do that then it ain't safe anyway.

 

#simples

 

It has become virtually impossible to overtake a cyclist on most ordinary roads; certainly in the country round here, where roads are bordered by high hedges and wind continuously. It can't be pleasant for a cyclist to have a queue of traffic on their tail.

[Reorte]

24 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

It is in the article:

 

Following the narrow miss along the B4280 Pant Hirwaun outside Heol-y-Cyw, near Bridgend in September 2021, Mr Humphreys said he and his son later measured the road and claimed the gap he left for the cyclist was sufficient and safe.

 

He said: "Taking into account the cyclist and his bike, there would have still been at least 4ft (1.2m) space.

 

Motorists must now leave a 1.5m (5ft) gap when overtaking cyclists, as well as slowing down. The gap must be 2m (6.5ft) when passing pedestrians or horse riders.

 

Changes in the language of The Highway Code came in to force from 29 January

 

One wonders if the solicitors he paid to get him off looked at an old Highway code and thought if they claimed he was 1.2m away it would help his defence...

Well the Highway Code isn't law, although where it says "must" (instead of "should") it's generally referring to the law somewhere.

 

6.5' for passing a pedestrian? Most of the time you're rather closer than that to the traffic when walking along the pavement! Apply that to a single track road and that's requiring you to drive in the hedge or ditch on the other side. And the same for passing a pedestrian as a horse? Very, very different circumstances (horses need a lot more room than pedestrians).

Edited June 16, 2022 by Reorte

[SamThomas]

24 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

It is in the article:

 

Following the narrow miss along the B4280 Pant Hirwaun outside Heol-y-Cyw, near Bridgend in September 2021, Mr Humphreys said he and his son later measured the road and claimed the gap he left for the cyclist was sufficient and safe.

 

He said: "Taking into account the cyclist and his bike, there would have still been at least 4ft (1.2m) space.

 

Motorists must now leave a 1.5m (5ft) gap when overtaking cyclists, as well as slowing down. The gap must be 2m (6.5ft) when passing pedestrians or horse riders.

 

Changes in the language of The Highway Code came in to force from 29 January

 

One wonders if the solicitors he paid to get him off looked at an old Highway code and thought if they claimed he was 1.2m away it would help his defence...

I did re-read the artical & you are of course correct about the estimated (by the car driver) gap of 1.2m.

 

Still no speed data though or distance of the syclist & the kerb/verge or was this another case of the median distorting the news by omission ?

 

Now, thinking about it how did the prosecution prove without a shadow of doubt to the Magistrates what the gap actually was - this could set a very dangerous precedent. Surely, a compenant solicitor would have had the case thrown out as "not proven" ?

[SamThomas]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It has become virtually impossible to overtake a cyclist on most ordinary roads; certainly in the country round here, where roads are bordered by high hedges and wind continuously. It can't be pleasant for a cyclist to have a queue of traffic on their tail.

Whilst agreeing that it can be diffecult to overtake cyclist safely on many road (especially with an HGV) if a cyslist feels unpleasant with a queue of traffic then they have the option to pull over & let the traffic pass.

 

I believe that it is also in the Highjway Code that slower moving vehicles (does that include pushbikes ?) should pull over where & when safe to allow a queue of tailing traffic to pass.

 

Works both ways - drivers & cyclists have to share the roads & a bit more give & take would not go amiss.

 

I would love to see a clip from the cyclists GoPro to see how bad (or otherwise) the quoted incident actually was.

[SamThomas]

15 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Well the Highway Code isn't law, although where it says "must" (instead of "should") it's generally referring to the law somewhere.

 

6.5' for passing a pedestrian? Most of the time you're rather closer than that to the traffic when walking along the pavement! Apply that to a single track road and that's requiring you to drive in the hedge or ditch on the other side. And the same for passing a pedestrian as a horse? Very, very different circumstances (horses need a lot more room than pedestrians).

More than agree about horses - in my part of the world (unless the road is very wide) I rarely even think about overtaking a horse, then again the riders round here tend go break into a trot & find a gateway or similar to pull intro & you waves exchanged.

[Reorte]

29 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

I did re-read the artical & you are of course correct about the estimated (by the car driver) gap of 1.2m.

 

Still no speed data though or distance of the syclist & the kerb/verge or was this another case of the median distorting the news by omission ?

 

Now, thinking about it how did the prosecution prove without a shadow of doubt to the Magistrates what the gap actually was - this could set a very dangerous precedent. Surely, a compenant solicitor would have had the case thrown out as "not proven" ?

Does it have to be proven to that level of proof? IANAL so may have gotten this completely wrong but whilst criminal cases need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt civil cases might only require on the balance of probability. Quite what offences such as this are I don't know (I don't really know the difference between civil and criminal cases).

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Whilst agreeing that it can be diffecult to overtake cyclist safely on many road (especially with an HGV) if a cyslist feels unpleasant with a queue of traffic then they have the option to pull over & let the traffic pass.

 

I believe that it is also in the Highjway Code that slower moving vehicles (does that include pushbikes ?) should pull over where & when safe to allow a queue of tailing traffic to pass.

 

But they never do. The packs of weekend leisure cyclists are the worst offenders, not least because their higher speed - 20 mph on a 40 mph road - makes passing them as difficult as passing a tractor. At least with a slow moving tractor one can be reasonably confident that they will turn off at the next farm entrance.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

It would seem that unless you are on a dual carriageway/motorway/sumptuously wide road you ain't never gonna pass a horse/cyclist/pedestrian, and as I presume the authorities won't pursue the obstructing offender for not pulling over with the same vigour they pursue the motorist then its yet another underhand way to clobber the motorist.

 

Mike.