Driver copping out

CiB

Spied this in Saturday's Telegraph Motoring section.

Spin cycle

I had an accident on January 31. I have now been told by the police that I am going to be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. The statement from the police says the accident occurred on a different road to the one on which it actually took place. As the accident also involved a pushbike, should the adult cyclist have been breathalysed, as I was? Incidentally, mine was negative. I have been told that if I plead guilty it will only cost me £43 and three points. If I plead not guilty then I will have to travel 100 miles and may have to pay witnesses that may be called. I wouldn’t mind doing this if I thought I could get away with being found not guilty. Could it go in my favour if I stated the truth, that the cyclist wore no helmet or fluorescent coat or markings?

W.R., Wem


He made me smile, bleating on about how the road name was wrong (so the case is flawed presumably), that the cyclist wasn't bagged, and that as the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet the driver should get off with it, and his final little plea to see if there's some way he 'could get away with being found not guilty'.

Thought I'd share it anyway.

always_tyred

I wonder if this could be used in evidence against him? I didn't see him because.... oh, damn, did I say I didn't see him? Can I take that back?.....

lost_in_thought

Driver: 'He wasn't wearing any hi-viz'
Prosecution: 'How did you know?'
Driver: 'I saw him'
Prosecution: ......... :roll:

CiB

It's the helmet bit - if he'd been wearing one I wouldn't have hit him m'lud.

Mike400

Bloody weasel.

He hit a cyclist. He obviously wasn't paying attention to the road. Now, had he hit another car, then case closed, he loses, insurance paid out and end of story.

But as he hit a cyclist he obviously feels the incident isn't as "serious" and that somehow as a car driver he has more of a right to be there than us lot.....

I think everyone learning to drive should spend at least a day in traffic on a bicycle as part of their training. And im not joking - cycling has made me a far more observant driver IMO

Its frigging scary out there sometimes, I have lost count of the amount of idiots that have near squashed me

rolf_f

lost_in_thought wrote:

Driver: 'He wasn't wearing any hi-viz'
Prosecution: 'How did you know?'
Driver: 'I saw him'
Prosecution: ......... :roll:

To be fair, he could have seen the lack of high vis smeared across the road afterwards presuming he stopped.

I like the way he talks about 'getting away with being found not guilty'; that does seem an admission of guilt. Still, he must be mad - £43 fine and 3 points is no worse than getting caught be a gatso. Considering he effectively admits guilt he's hardly likely to get a better deal in the courts.

lost_in_thought

Rolf F wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Driver: 'He wasn't wearing any hi-viz'
Prosecution: 'How did you know?'
Driver: 'I saw him'
Prosecution: ......... :roll:

To be fair, he could have seen the lack of high vis smeared across the road afterwards presuming he stopped.

Yes, you're right... I was being silly... it's a joke that regularly used to be made when I worked on airfields :oops:

lost_in_thought

In somewhat associated news, see this from sky

prawny

lost_in_thought wrote:

In somewhat associated news, see this from sky

They're not supposed to have their sirens on in the early hours though are they? That's just a shame

AllTheGear

While this driver sounds like he knows he's guilty, there are some seriously bad cyclists on the road as well as drivers. I had to brake to avoid a cyclist the other day - I do wonder if it's going to be automatically my fault if I hit one, even if it's the cyclist breaking the rules of the road that causes the collision?

Edit: This is in reference to the original post, I hadn't read the sky story at the time.

Stuey01

AllTheGear wrote:

While this driver sounds like he knows he's guilty, there are some seriously bad cyclists on the road as well as drivers. I had to brake to avoid a cyclist the other day - I do wonder if it's going to be automatically my fault if I hit one, even if it's the cyclist breaking the rules of the road that causes the collision?

You had to brake?! well knock me down with a feather, the very thought of it...

NGale

prawny wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

In somewhat associated news, see this from sky

They're not supposed to have their sirens on in the early hours though are they? That's just a shame

I am a little concerned that he as cycling across a pedestrian crossing mind.

sirens after 11pm arn't accepted practice, but it dosen't mean they can't use them, sometimes it is necessary

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

In somewhat associated news, see this from sky

Oh God, that's awful.

It says the Police have appealed for witnesses, but I thought police cars had their cameras rolling at all times too. Is that right?

AllTheGear

Stuey01 wrote:

AllTheGear wrote:

While this driver sounds like he knows he's guilty, there are some seriously bad cyclists on the road as well as drivers. I had to brake to avoid a cyclist the other day - I do wonder if it's going to be automatically my fault if I hit one, even if it's the cyclist breaking the rules of the road that causes the collision?

You had to brake?! well knock me down with a feather, the very thought of it...

And your point? The highway code applies to all road users, not just car drivers. I obey the signs, road markings etc. when I'm cycling, unfortunately not all cyclists do.

Perhaps you're referring to having to slow down for slower moving traffic? That's different as the vehicle in front has a right to be there. Driving in such away as to force others to take evasive action isn't acceptable though, even if you are on a bike.

lost_in_thought

Mike400 wrote:

Bloody weasel.

He hit a cyclist. He obviously wasn't paying attention to the road. Now, had he hit another car, then case closed, he loses, insurance paid out and end of story.

But as he hit a cyclist he obviously feels the incident isn't as "serious" and that somehow as a car driver he has more of a right to be there than us lot.....

+1.

I also think it's really bl**dy bad form (having now looked at the link) that a national newspaper not only happily publishes this but supports and assists this guy in his attempt to get out of it!

I'm all annoyed now... I'm tempted to get all Daily Mail and write them a letter.

Kind Regards,

Outraged of Kensington.

:x

Porgy

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mike400 wrote:

I'm tempted to get all Daily Mail and write them a letter.

Surely if you're gonna get all Daily Mail then that'll mean you support the driver.

always_tyred

The annoying thing about the answer in the paper was the assumption, insufficiently caveated (is that a word) with "if", that the cyclist was weaving over the road.

Driver who knocks down cyclist gets breathalized, mentions that cyclist didnt, conclusion => cyclist drunk and all over the road.

Grr.

CiB

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'm all annoyed now... I'm tempted to get all Daily Mail and write them a letter.

Kind Regards,

Outraged of Kensington.

:x

Before you do, I mailed HJ just to add 'the other view', and got a nice reply from him. HJ is both quick at responding to mails and generally v fair. I like him, but I like The Telegraph so where does that leave me?

Anyhoo - the thrust of his reply is that his original reply was chopped for reasons of space, that the driver in question felt that he was being unfairly prosecuted and being told "you're guilty so pay up and make it easier"; surely guilty or not the courts will decide, not some Plod or CPS jobsworth on a target giving RW the option of paying up even if - as may well be the case - he is in fact innocent of any wrong doing. Two sides. He let himself down in his original email, but why should that stop us having a good laugh at his expense.

There - I've set him up as fall guy, now come barging in to defend him.

el_presidente

If the summons has the wrong road on it, then I imagine he will get off scot-free as how can any other evidence be trusted? I once succesfully appealed a parking ticket which was dated 31 June.

Eau Rouge

AllTheGear wrote:

I do wonder if it's going to be automatically my fault if I hit one, even if it's the cyclist breaking the rules of the road that causes the collision?

Alas no, it would be great if it was the case the way it is in the Netherlands. The Dutch courts take the pragamtic view that cyclists are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the driver of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that cyclists will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, becausse at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Of course, in the UK the presumptionis that driving a car is no different than watching TV and if bad things happen the assumption is that ther person moving a tonne and a half of metal about the place at enough speed to kill with the attitude of doing this being no more dangerous than watching TV should only be blamed if they can be shown to have been doing it dangerously. The act of driving itself is not seen as "dangerous"

lost_in_thought

ChrisInBicester wrote:

<snip>

There - I've set him up as fall guy, now come barging in to defend him.

Fair play - in that case their editor's selective use of the reply has let them down... I still think it comes across in a bad light...

At the risk of fulfilling my 'get all Daily Mail' threat, it's the implication that HJ/the Telegraph is in agreement with the concept that a collision with a cyclist is something to 'get away with' even if the driver's at fault that I resent... lumps it in with fixed penalty notices or similar less serious driving faux pas.

Mind you, saying that, the '3 points and £43' penalty if he pleads guilty means it's a less serious offence than a speeding ticket - I'm sure I had to pay a £60 fine for the one I got last year...

AllTheGear

lost_in_thought wrote:

.. a speeding ticket - I'm sure I had to pay a £60 fine for the one I got last year...

Serves you right - you need to keep that CK7 under 60 when you're out on country lanes, just like everyone else.

cee

I read the reply from the paperman (HJ???) as a question, rather than an implication that the cyclist was erratic....but I guess we all read things differently.

Either way...getting a solicitor is a good idea for this chap.

I agree with lost_in_thought though that a fixed penalty should not be the way to deal with this if the driver is found guilty....

Underscore

Eau Rouge wrote:

The Dutch courts take the pragamtic view that cyclists are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the driver of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that cyclists will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, becausse at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Let me change a couple of words:

The [...] courts take the pragmatic view that pedestrians are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the rider of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that pedestrians will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, because at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Given the things I've seen written by some (though not necessarily Eau Rouge, I hasten to add) about peds, I wonder whether there is a case a double standards going on here...

My feeling is that all road users should be held accountable for their actions. Taking AllTheGear's assertion that he had to take some form of evasive action due to the erratic behaviour of a cyclist at face value, we can say two things:
1) The cyclist was cycling badly
2) AllTheGear was driving appropriately for the conditions as he was able to take the evasive action necessary to avoid a collision.

Do we really need to get all holier-than-thou just because he had the temerity to be driving a car at the time?

_

always_tyred

Underscore wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

The Dutch courts take the pragamtic view that cyclists are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the driver of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that cyclists will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, becausse at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Let me change a couple of words:

The [...] courts take the pragmatic view that pedestrians are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the rider of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that pedestrians will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, because at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Given the things I've seen written by some (though not necessarily Eau Rouge, I hasten to add) about peds, I wonder whether there is a case a double standards going on here...

My feeling is that all road users should be held accountable for their actions. Taking AllTheGear's assertion that he had to take some form of evasive action due to the erratic behaviour of a cyclist at face value, we can say two things:
1) The cyclist was cycling badly
2) AllTheGear was driving appropriately for the conditions as he was able to take the evasive action necessary to avoid a collision.

Do we really need to get all holier-than-thou just because he had the temerity to be driving a car at the time?

_

Depends what sort of car. I mean, what if was a BMW? Surely we couldn't forgive a BMW driver?

AllTheGear

I drive a SEAT :P

The incident was no biggie but it does happen all the time round here. (No not just to me!)

rolf_f

Underscore wrote:

The [...] courts take the pragmatic view that pedestrians are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the rider of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that pedestrians will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, because at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Given the things I've seen written by some (though not necessarily Eau Rouge, I hasten to add) about peds, I wonder whether there is a case a double standards going on here...
........

Do we really need to get all holier-than-thou just because he had the temerity to be driving a car at the time?

_

Not sure about the double standards. In this case, we are talking about car and bike sharing roadspace. With pedestrians it is usually their erratic transition into the road from the footpath that is the problem. I don't think we'd have much sympathy for a cyclist getting knocked off their bike if he had driven straight off a footpath, into the road and into the path of an oncoming car. Neither would we be supportive of a cyclist on a footpath knocking a pedestrian down.

Ideally, it would be sensible to assume that every pedestrian might step into the road but I suspect that would result in not enough concentration in what the cars are doing.

Possibly the problem is that a lot of pedestrians are neither drivers nor cyclists and have therefore never had any road safety training. Maybe time for compulsory Green Cross Code training for all!!

Eau Rouge

Underscore wrote:

[

The [...] courts take the pragmatic view that pedestrians are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the rider of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that pedestrians will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, because at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

I'd take issue with the idea that a tonne and a half, if not more, of motor vehicle travelling at 30mph, if not more, is only as inherently dangerous to pedestrians as a bicycle. In fact, the very idea that a car is only as inherently dangerous as a bike is pertty much a summary of whats wrong with the law in this country, now that I write it like that.

Yes, cyclists as road users should anticipate erratic pedestrians too, but that doesn't make them as dangerous to operate as cars.

bigmat

Underscore wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

The Dutch courts take the pragamtic view that cyclists are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the driver of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that cyclists will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, becausse at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Let me change a couple of words:

The [...] courts take the pragmatic view that pedestrians are known to behave erratically and not always obey the laws perfectly, so as the rider of a lethal piece of machinery you should be able to anticipate that pedestrians will do something stupid and take enough care around them that you don't hit them when they do something stupid, because at the end of the day, you are the one endangering lives by using a dangerous machine in public.

Given the things I've seen written by some (though not necessarily Eau Rouge, I hasten to add) about peds, I wonder whether there is a case a double standards going on here...

My feeling is that all road users should be held accountable for their actions. Taking AllTheGear's assertion that he had to take some form of evasive action due to the erratic behaviour of a cyclist at face value, we can say two things:
1) The cyclist was cycling badly
2) AllTheGear was driving appropriately for the conditions as he was able to take the evasive action necessary to avoid a collision.

Do we really need to get all holier-than-thou just because he had the temerity to be driving a car at the time?

_

+1 - we had this debate on another thread a few weeks ago. I don't think the Dutch have got this right at all, I mean saying that allowance has to be given for somebody doing something badly (in this case cycling) is fine so far as common sense is concerned, but as a rule of law?!

Porgy

MatHammond wrote:

I don't think the Dutch have got this right at all, I mean saying that allowance has to be given for somebody doing something badly (in this case cycling) is fine so far as common sense is concerned, but as a rule of law?!

Whether the Dutch have got it right or not is surely indicated in their cyclist casualty statistics. If it's much safer to ride a bike in the Netherlands then they've got it right.

AllTheGear

Porgy wrote:

...If it's much safer to ride a bike in the Netherlands then they've got it right.

Not if drivers are being convicted of an offence, from just being in the wrong place at the wrong time when I cyclist decided to throw themselves under the wheels?