Cyclist hit and run

DUTR

IanP2015 wrote: »

It's not even close..

As an average I believe the number of motorcyclists killed each year is around 600 (Although I did hear this is falling).

I think in 2014 there was 113 cyclists killed.

And the guy (victim ) in the video could be next, as a cyclist, I'm wondering why he chose not to be in the nearside lane?
Being out in the lane that he was, hi viz jacket or not , he will become less conspicuos against the other road vehicles. Safety 1st, you cnnot depend on other people being safe for you.

RichardD1970

DUTR wrote: »

And the guy (victim ) in the video could be next, as a cyclist, I'm wondering why he chose not to be in the nearside lane?
Being out in the lane that he was, hi viz jacket or not , he will become less conspicuos against the other road vehicles. Safety 1st, you cnnot depend on other people being safe for you.

He was in the correct lane for the exit he wanted on the island.

If he had been in the nearside lane approaching the island than he would have had to cut up the cars going to the left.

When he exited the island he was in the nearside lane.

Joe_Horner

sacsquacco wrote: »

I ve been on jury service and I will tell you how I would react to anyone claiming a right to silence , or no comment, or for that matter refusing to say who he d passed the car onto..guilty as charged , and so would the other eleven.

Well, aren't we lucky that the decision on whether or not to charge isn't made by juries then :eek:

stator

AlanCarter wrote: »

As any defendant has a right to silence, how would a court decide which one was driving and which one is failing to name the driver? Bearing in mind unless the male names the female as having the car at the time of the collision she is not legally obliged to answer as to who the driver was.

The idea is just that when actually in a court room and sworn under oath you might get a proper answer. If they fail to give a proper answer you start putting stones on their chest.

hollie.weimeraner

It is also possible that someone else other than the named driver had been allowed to use the car, which opens up a whole new can of worms if the hirer had named someone that wasn't insured.

The hirer has simply failed to name the driver to take the least penalty available.

Cynical? Yes most definitely but unfortunately CPS hands were tied.

TonyMMM

It is sometimes amazing to see how outraged people become when they learn what the law actually is......

In this case , the points are correct, but the fine does seem well below the usual level for the offence- it would be interesting to know why that was.

The police work with the tools (the laws) that they are given - it is a fact, and has been for a long time that in a few cases, the keeper of a vehicle may decline to name the driver (usually themselves) and take the 6 points rather than provide the evidence of who was driving and allow the more serious offence to be prosecuted.

NBLondon

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'm on a lot of motoring forums and the general thought process is a cyclist with a camera = a cyclist looking for trouble. They think all cyclists wear them to either try and police the roads when the police aren't there or to antagonise motorists.

They just need to look at some of the stuff on YouTube that's linked here and then a few more of the related ones that link on from those to get a more reasoned picture.


I'd say (as a driver and not a cyclist since I was a student) that its a classic 80:20 situation. 80% have cameras because they have been cut-up, swiped, "not seen" etc. in the past and want evidence if it happens again. 20% are self-important berks who like posting self-righteous comments about other people's bad driving and are blinkered as to how much they might cause it by their own inconsiderate road use.


This could apply both to dashcam and helmet cam.


In this case - it certainly looks to me like the driver was not concentrating (phone? satnav? lighting a cigar?) and accelerated into the back of the bike - rather than a deliberate "I'll ram him for daring to be in my lane".

AndyBSG

NBLondon wrote: »

80% have cameras because they have been cut-up, swiped, "not seen" etc. in the past and want evidence if it happens again. 20% are self-important berks who like posting self-righteous comments about other people's bad driving and are blinkered as to how much they might cause it by their own inconsiderate road use.

TBH, I'd say it was actually less than 20%.

I've got both a dash cam in my car and an action cam for cycling.

I cycle 25 miles a day through central London and have been for over a year filming it every day. I'd say that at LEAST twice a week I get an 'incident' that I could upload to Youtube of things like Red Light jumpers, left hookers, people on phones, near misses, etc

Despite that i've only uploaded one clip to Youtube and that was less to generate outrage and more because it was funny that someone could be so stupid!

As I said to my wife, the camera is not there to generate youtube hits for me, it's there so that god forbid something does happen to me she has the evidence she needs to sue the bejesus out of whoever does it so her and our child are taken care of with me gone.

neilmcl

In contrast I drive every day, and whilst I have a healthy respect for all road users, I see every single a day at least one cyclist flouting the rules of the road and putting their lives at unnecessary risk.

I'm now firmly in the camp that motorised vehicles and cycles should not share the same road (at least in busy towns/cities) and more investment is required in infrastructure to separate them.

Mercdriver

neilmcl wrote: »

In contrast I drive every day, and whilst I have a healthy respect for all road users, I see every single a day at least one cyclist flouting the rules of the road and putting their lives at unnecessary risk.

I'm now firmly in the camp that motorised vehicles and cycles should not share the same road (at least in busy towns/cities) and more investment is required in infrastructure to separate them.

And motorised traffic never breaks the rules of course :rotfl: