Shoot Clarkson Campaign

The Chingford Skinhead

spen666 wrote:

I unlike you and the press officer at Reading CC have actually seen and read all the evidence in the Reading case you refer to. The decision of the ~CPS was indeed correct in law. Changing the whole of the constitution to accomodate your scheme would not turn an unwinnable case into a winnable case. It would simple prolong the case at huge expense and court, CPs, defence, police and the defendants time to achieve the same result.

Come on then Spen. A driver of a van hit two cyclists from behind in broad daylight while driving up a hill. He claims he didn't see them. I, and most of the people who have heard of the story, think the only way not to have seen them was if the driver was not driving with due care and attention. So, what do you know that nobody else does?

The Chingford Skinhead

spen666 wrote:

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

There was clear evidence in the Maynard case but the CPS decided there was not enough to secure a likely conviction. It sets a threshold that cases that it assesses have to reach before they will take them forward to court. The argument being put forward by the Reading CC appears to be that it should not be for the CPS to decide if the threshold has been met in cases of death or serious injury but for a jury to hear the evidence and decide for itself. Appears reasonable to me. Yes it will add expense but an increase in convictions for dangerous driving would reduce the number of people driving dangerously. The court costs would easily be met by savings from fire, police, ambulance, NHS, insurance etc from a reduction in road accidents.

Also, it would be perfectly possible to remove a licence from someone while a case of dangerous driving was under investigation. Driving is not a right - it is a privilege. When air pilots, train drivers and a lot of professional drivers are suspected of dangerous behaviour they are suspended while the matter is investigated. Lots of people in jobs get suspended while cases against them are investigated. That is perfectly sensible if they are accused of something serious - and dangerous driving is serious.

Firstly if EVERY allegation has to be brought before the court for the court to decide even if the case is crap, the delay in getting cases heard will be astronomical. It is already over 12 months to get a trial date at Snaresbrook Crown Court

I clearly said serious or fatal injury. If drivers believed the police would investigate matters seriously then you’d find the number of incidents would go down.

spen666 wrote:

Secondly- who is going to fund all these extra cases? You? The person making the accusation? Now consider that the majoprity of these additional cases will fail ( that is why the CPS don't take them on), who is going to pay the defendants costs when he is acquitted? You've just increased the rate of income tax by another 10p in the £. You have no idea re costs if you think your proposal will do anything than increase the costs of beringing every case to trial.

I clearly explained how it would be funded. Road accidents aren’t cost free you know. The incident itself will often involve police, ambulance, occasionally fire crews, doctors, nurses, physios / or just undertakers. Then there is the cost to the individual and the employer of time off work In the case of fatal injury there is the coroner. Improving the behaviour of drivers reduces accidents, which reduces all of these costs.

spen666 wrote:

Thirdly- your proposal is simply a charter for people with grudges to make false accusations. Even if cleared people will have lost their jobs, livelihoods homes etc waiting for cases to be investigated and come to trial. Completely innocent people- who have done nothing at all- perhaps have not even used their car on the day the accuser alleges.

Spen, the same can surely be said to any allegation relating to a crime not directly witnessed by a police officer. Are you saying all allegations of stealing, rape, murder etc should be ignored just in case the “victim” or a “witness” is being vindictive? I thought the harsh penalties for perverting the course of justice was meant to be a deterrent.

spen666 wrote:

Fourthly -Never mind the vindictive person, what about the witness who makes a mistake- gets one character wrong in reg plate and someone who was elsewhere in the country at the time of the incident loses their licence pending a trial. It has to happen that way as its only the court who can decide if the allegation is true according to you.

Again, your argument can be applied to any crime where mistaken identity is a possibility. How does the legal system deal with it now? Why would it be any different for motoring offences.

spen666 wrote:

whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh that's right- because in one case where the barrack room lawyer with a bee in their bonnet about a case says the whole legal system must change and we mustt punish innocent people

As I said in my post quoted above, anyone operating dangerous machinery suspected of injuring or killing is generally suspended. Why is this different? Taking the wider legal point, aren’t a number of “innocent” people put on remand before a trail has found them “guilty” or “not guilty”. Are you saying people suspected of murder and rape should not be in jail until the case has come to court? We’re not talking about running a red light here, we’re talking about people seriously or fatally injured – it is just a case of a different weapon of choice.

spen666 wrote:

Try turning your proposal round- why not make it similar for cyclists when allegations however spurious are made against them by motorists or pedestrians? How about confiscating bikes and giving bail conditions to prevent people cycling pending trial of every allegation by motorists. You think your local cyclist hating motorist wont make allegations against you falsely if this was a law.

Why not if it is to be the case for motorists.

I’ve dealt with false allegations above – but as I’ve made clear from the start this is about serious or fatal injuries. If I rode my bike into someone in a way that killed them then by all means take it off me. The difference is, Spen, that about 2,700 people died and over 28,000 people were seriously injured last year by motorists. The corresponding numbers for cyclists is around 4 deaths and c250 serious injuries. Get the picture? See the difference?

spen666 wrote:

BTW- I suspect the lawyers in the CPS will know far more about the prospect of conviction in that case than Reading CC members.

If this case was so certain of conviction, then why did Reading CC or its members not commence a private prosecution - as is their right in law?

I suspect that a) the police investigation wasn’t particularly thorough – the main priority is to open the road not to preserve the crime scene; b) the lawyers at the CPS may not be the best in the world. I’ve served on a number of juries at Snaresbrook Crown Court and at least half of the cases would not have passed a basic common-sense test; and c) the lawyers (good and bad) at the CPS are swamped with work and targets. They will therefore focus on priority areas and (generally) those cases with where there is cast iron evidence. I suspect traffic incidents are not a high priority area. But as you clearly know all there is to know about the CPS and this particular case then please enlighten me.


Or, if you prefer, ignore all of the above and instead of telling us what the law can’t do to protect vulnerable road users, tell us what it can, why it doesn’t and what can be done to make sure that what can be done is done.

spen666

Chingford Skinhead- you appear to have shifted your position (again!)

I have never said any crime should not be inverstigated. I have said that not every allegation of a crime should be brought before a court. Cases should only be brought before a court if there is sufficient evidence to justify a realistic prospect of a conviction.

As for your comments re the Reading case - you are wrong on every count, but as you are making guesses in the dark about the conduct of the case without any knowledge of the facts, that is not suprising.

I am only telling you what the law can't do in response to the impractical suggestions put forward by you and others. If you suggest something that is not legally possible, then I amn going to say so ( assun=ming I have the relevant knowledge). Remember, I am not the one calling for the legal system to be changed or for new laws to be introduced.

I am happy that the law as it stands is by and large appropriate ( after the introduction of the offence of death by careless driving recently). The current safeguards for the alleged victims and alleged offenders are a fine balance and at present are correct.

The implementation of the system, ie the investigation of and the attitudes of the police towards investigating offences are what needs to be changed. This is not a change of law or a change of the legal system, it is a change of mindset.

The attitude that its only a near hit therefore we wont investigate it is what needs changing. Most KSI matters are subject to thorough investigations and have specialist lawyers working on them. They are fortunately rare. Drivers do not expect to be involved in KSI matters, so this is not where the issue lies.

If motorists thought thsat near hit offences and general inconsiderate road use would result in prosecutuions, then they would be more likely to think twice about their actions. This would have a dramatic affect on all of us and would produce far more effect n the number of KSI matters.

pinno

spen666 wrote:

The implementation of the system, ie the investigation of and the attitudes of the police towards investigating offences are what needs to be changed. This is not a change of law or a change of the legal system, it is a change of mindset

But that is exactly what I and others are saying. It seems to be very difficult to persuade the police that when a cyclist/horse rider/pedestrian is onvolved in a serious road accident they don't take it seriously enough.
What my suggestion is, is one where it is in the case of serious death or injusry to have a preliminary hearing just like many other legal cases so that the court can ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence for a case of, for example:
Driving without due care and attention through to manslaughter. Existing laws that seem to be rarely implemented.
The 'Fair Guarantee' as I have mentioned will make sure that the police follow up serious injury or death (I put that in bold again because you don't seem to be listening). In actual fact, the police will then be open to scrutiny themselves in a preliminary hearing to see if they can (excuse my french) be fuc4ing bothered to investigate matters properly, which does not seem to be happening at the moment.

Though I realise that the whole system of law in the UK has, like everything else gone overly bureaucratic, that should not give them an excuse for shortcuts.
I wish you would stop slagging people off, throwing punches and suggest exactly how you would change things.
In what way would a mandatory preliminary hearing in serious cases be changing the whole legal system, uh? because what we are asking for is for adequate and reasonable police time to be given to serious injusry especially the case of a van driver hitting 2 cyclists - think about it: how the fuc4 did he manage not to see them???
That bloke was going too fast, did'nt stop in time and alll he gets is a wrap on tthe knuckles. In my book (the politically correct can get lost at this point) that is manslaughter. In a pub brawl, mugging, even a game of rugby, if a serious injury occurs it is a criminal offence. Do these things in a vehicle and expect very light and not disuasive penalties. Whats the difference?[/b]

The Chingford Skinhead

spen666 wrote:

Chingford Skinhead- you appear to have shifted your position (again!)

I have never said any crime should not be inverstigated. I have said that not every allegation of a crime should be brought before a court. Cases should only be brought before a court if there is sufficient evidence to justify a realistic prospect of a conviction.

As for your comments re the Reading case - you are wrong on every count, but as you are making guesses in the dark about the conduct of the case without any knowledge of the facts, that is not suprising.

I am only telling you what the law can't do in response to the impractical suggestions put forward by you and others. If you suggest something that is not legally possible, then I amn going to say so ( assun=ming I have the relevant knowledge). Remember, I am not the one calling for the legal system to be changed or for new laws to be introduced.

I am happy that the law as it stands is by and large appropriate ( after the introduction of the offence of death by careless driving recently). The current safeguards for the alleged victims and alleged offenders are a fine balance and at present are correct.

The implementation of the system, ie the investigation of and the attitudes of the police towards investigating offences are what needs to be changed. This is not a change of law or a change of the legal system, it is a change of mindset.

The attitude that its only a near hit therefore we wont investigate it is what needs changing. Most KSI matters are subject to thorough investigations and have specialist lawyers working on them. They are fortunately rare. Drivers do not expect to be involved in KSI matters, so this is not where the issue lies.

If motorists thought thsat near hit offences and general inconsiderate road use would result in prosecutuions, then they would be more likely to think twice about their actions. This would have a dramatic affect on all of us and would produce far more effect n the number of KSI matters.

Spen, I am genuinely interested in your position to discuss how the safety of vulnerable road users can be better served by our police and legal systems. If you could reduce the sarcasm and superior tone that would be a great help.

You claim I’ve changed my position (again). I do not believe I have but please feel free to show me where I have.

On the Anthony Maynard case – you say I know nothing and that I’m wrong on every count. If, as you claim, you are in possession of all of the facts then you are in a position to abate the anger and distrust in the legal system that this case has generated and which you so proudly defend. I’ve asked you twice before to lay out the facts – I wonder why you won’t. If it saves you time you can miss out the bit about the accident happening in daylight and both riders being very competent – that much I know for sure.

I don’t agree with you that “the current safeguards for the alleged victims and alleged offenders are a fine balance and at present are correct”. If they were there would be far fewer KSI incidents and everyday examples of reckless behaviour on the roads.

However, we can agree that more needs to be done to ensure the police investigate KSI incidents on our roads. Posters on this thread have suggested changing the law or ensuring that the most serious cases are brought to court so that the quality of the police investigation is open to scrutiny and comment by courts. You don’t agree and have said why – fair enough, the point of a forum is to debate ideas. However, if you are only going to be critical of ideas without making any positive suggestions of your own then you shouldn’t be surprised if people think you are being unhelpful. You clearly work in the legal service so should have sufficient knowledge to make some positive suggestions…. ”please”

spen666

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Spen, I am genuinely interested in your position to discuss how the safety of vulnerable road users can be better served by our police and legal systems. If you could reduce the sarcasm and superior tone that would be a great help.

You claim I’ve changed my position (again). I do not believe I have but please feel free to show me where I have.

On the Anthony Maynard case – you say I know nothing and that I’m wrong on every count. If, as you claim, you are in possession of all of the facts then you are in a position to abate the anger and distrust in the legal system that this case has generated and which you so proudly defend. I’ve asked you twice before to lay out the facts – I wonder why you won’t. If it saves you time you can miss out the bit about the accident happening in daylight and both riders being very competent – that much I know for sure.

I am bound by my employment terms and also by the official secrets act.

I have seen the facts and evidence in such circumstances that if I divulge the contents of the case I will be committing potentially both a criminal offence and a gross breach of my employment terms and I'm not prepared to do that for you

I don’t agree with you that “the current safeguards for the alleged victims and alleged offenders are a fine balance and at present are correct”. If they were there would be far fewer KSI incidents and everyday examples of reckless behaviour on the roads.


However, we can agree that more needs to be done to ensure the police investigate KSI incidents on our roads. Posters on this thread have suggested changing the law or ensuring that the most serious cases are brought to court so that the quality of the police investigation is open to scrutiny and comment by courts. You don’t agree and have said why – fair enough, the point of a forum is to debate ideas. However, if you are only going to be critical of ideas without making any positive suggestions of your own then you shouldn’t be surprised if people think you are being unhelpful. You clearly work in the legal service so should have sufficient knowledge to make some positive suggestions…. ”please”

Can you read?

I have posted at length ways things can be improved- go back and read what I posted.

spen666

pinarello001 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The implementation of the system, ie the investigation of and the attitudes of the police towards investigating offences are what needs to be changed. This is not a change of law or a change of the legal system, it is a change of mindset

But that is exactly what I and others are saying. It seems to be very difficult to persuade the police that when a cyclist/horse rider/pedestrian is onvolved in a serious road accident they don't take it seriously enough.

No it is not- what you have ptroposed is to change the constitution of the United Kingdom by changing the legal system from an adversarial one to a system of investigative magistrates.

That is a completely diofferent thing from what I am suggesting.

If you cannot see that, then can I respectfully suggest yiou read a book on the legal system. Perhaps Professor Granville Williams "Learning the Law" would be a good start.

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about if you think changing the UK constitution is the same thing as changing the mindset of the police

You are talking about the complete opposite of what I am suggesting

What my suggestion is, is one where it is in the case of serious death or injusry to have a preliminary hearing just like many other legal cases so that the court can ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence for a case of, for example:
Driving without due care and attention through to manslaughter. Existing laws that seem to be rarely implemented.
The 'Fair Guarantee' as I have mentioned will make sure that the police follow up serious injury or death (I put that in bold again because you don't seem to be listening). In actual fact, the police will then be open to scrutiny themselves in a preliminary hearing to see if they can (excuse my french) be fuc4ing bothered to investigate matters properly, which does not seem to be happening at the moment.

Ahh yes - you are now saying you want to change the constitution again.
I refer you to the points I have raised numerous times before that cover this point

Though I realise that the whole system of law in the UK has, like everything else gone overly bureaucratic, that should not give them an excuse for shortcuts.
I wish you would stop slagging people off, throwing punches and suggest exactly how you would change things.

I'm not the one suggesting the system should be changed- so why should I be telling you how to change the legal system. I am content with the legal system.

Can you not understand that those who are happy with the current system won't be making suggestions to change the system?

In what way would a mandatory preliminary hearing in serious cases be changing the whole legal system, uh?

Erm learn the difference between an adversarial legal system and a system of investigative magistrates.

Your clearly do not understand anything about the constitution if you ask such a question.

Your proposal is not a simple change- it is a fundamental constitutional change and will NEVER happen.

If you don't understand the sytem, it is impossible to expalin it to you in less than several thousand pages. That is not being facetious, but is the reality. Constitutional law is a huge topic and not one that can be adequately covered on here

because what we are asking for is for adequate and reasonable police time to be given to serious injusry especially the case of a van driver hitting 2 cyclists - think about it: how the fuc4 did he manage not to see them???
That bloke was going too fast, did'nt stop in time and alll he gets is a wrap on tthe knuckles. In my book (the politically correct can get lost at this point) that is manslaughter. In a pub brawl, mugging, even a game of rugby, if a serious injury occurs it is a criminal offence. Do these things in a vehicle and expect very light and not disuasive penalties. Whats the difference?[/b]

As I have said before you are ranting on about a case where you have not seen the evidence and on that basis of ignorance you expect to change 1000 years of constitutional law to suit facts you do not know about

Go back to inciting people to shoot tv celebrities instead

The Chingford Skinhead

spen666 wrote:

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Spen, I am genuinely interested in your position to discuss how the safety of vulnerable road users can be better served by our police and legal systems. If you could reduce the sarcasm and superior tone that would be a great help.

You claim I’ve changed my position (again). I do not believe I have but please feel free to show me where I have.

On the Anthony Maynard case – you say I know nothing and that I’m wrong on every count. If, as you claim, you are in possession of all of the facts then you are in a position to abate the anger and distrust in the legal system that this case has generated and which you so proudly defend. I’ve asked you twice before to lay out the facts – I wonder why you won’t. If it saves you time you can miss out the bit about the accident happening in daylight and both riders being very competent – that much I know for sure.

I am bound by my employment terms and also by the official secrets act.

I have seen the facts and evidence in such circumstances that if I divulge the contents of the case I will be committing potentially both a criminal offence and a gross breach of my employment terms and I'm not prepared to do that for you

I don’t agree with you that “the current safeguards for the alleged victims and alleged offenders are a fine balance and at present are correct”. If they were there would be far fewer KSI incidents and everyday examples of reckless behaviour on the roads.


However, we can agree that more needs to be done to ensure the police investigate KSI incidents on our roads. Posters on this thread have suggested changing the law or ensuring that the most serious cases are brought to court so that the quality of the police investigation is open to scrutiny and comment by courts. You don’t agree and have said why – fair enough, the point of a forum is to debate ideas. However, if you are only going to be critical of ideas without making any positive suggestions of your own then you shouldn’t be surprised if people think you are being unhelpful. You clearly work in the legal service so should have sufficient knowledge to make some positive suggestions…. ”please”

Can you read?

I have posted at length ways things can be improved- go back and read what I posted.

In reverse order:

Can I read? Yes, believe it or not you’re not the only professional on here. Did YOU read what I said in the post above "If you could reduce the sarcasm and superior tone that would be a great help". Unfortunately your manner sets people against you. I have to wade through so much of your high-handed pompous twaddle to get to the point that I may have missed anything constructive that you wrote. I appreciate your tone is consistent with that of a legal professional talking to a non-legal professional but that same tone is why so many of the population think the legal profession is stuffed full of ar5es.

On the Maynard case – you could of course have replied several posts ago that you’re a cps lawyer. It would have explained your support for the status quo but I think readers would have understood why you could not comment further. It would certainly have left a better impression of you. “I know best but I won’t tell you why because it is a secret” is never a very convincing argument. Perhaps if the legal profession was a little more open about its decision making…

As I said, I was genuinely interested in your input. Your response means I simply can’t be ar5ed with you anymore

pinno

"Bound by the official secrets act"

Does that mean that you cannot give us your opinion on the process of law?
I smell a rat. If you were boung by the official secrets act, you cannot breach confidentiality - the official sectrets act wouild not prevent you from expressing an opinion about judicail process.
If you do work for the CPS, you have too much time on your hands and I want some income tax back.

You can't spell, you don't listen, your grammar is terrible, your spelling is worse and I honestly do not think that you really want to reduce the number of serious injuries and fatalities to cyclists and other road users - you have failed on numerous requests to offer an opinion of some worth. You are alone in the opinion that you think that the status quo is fine as it is.

Spen 666: DO NOT POST ANOTHER COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT - IT IS NOT WELCOME.

I passionatly believe we need to change things because too many cyclists are being intimidated, killed and seriously injured with little or no recourse. Whether or not I have the right solution is open to debate.

spen666

pinarello001 wrote:

"Bound by the official secrets act"

Does that mean that you cannot give us your opinion on the process of law?
I smell a rat. If you were boung by the official secrets act, you cannot breach confidentiality - the official sectrets act wouild not prevent you from expressing an opinion about judicail process.
If you do work for the CPS, you have too much time on your hands and I want some income tax back.

no I do not work for the CPS and never have done so!

Bound by the official secrets act means I cannot release specific details of that case.

I have and do regularly express my opinion about the judicial system.

Try reading this thread for a starter

You can't spell, you don't listen, your grammar is terrible, your spelling is worse and I honestly do not think that you really want to reduce the number of serious injuries and fatalities to cyclists and other road users

Are you really a clown.

since when does spelling and grammar got anything to do with road safety issues?

If I improve my spelling will that reduce the number of KSIs?


Can you explain how that will happen? Will my putting full stops in the correct place stop vehicles turning left across the path of cyclists or stop cyclists RLJing?


See you don't need to change the constitution of the Uk, just improve its grammar and English and road safety will be improved

- you have failed on numerous requests to offer an opinion of some worth. You are alone in the opinion that you think that the status quo is fine as it is.

I'm alone with millions of others who can see that what you are proposing is both illegal, expensive, time consuming and adds no benefits whatever to the issues

Spen 666: DO NOT POST ANOTHER COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT - IT IS NOT WELCOME.

Since when are you the moderator on here?

When you are making suggestions to shoot people- I hardly think your opinion counts for much

I passionatly believe we need to change things because too many cyclists are being intimidated, killed and seriously injured with little or no recourse. Whether or not I have the right solution is open to debate.

apparently not open to debate if anyone disagrees with you though as you purport to ban them from posting on this thread


Trot along now and get back to your campaign to shoot more people

lance legstrong

Hi,

Having spent my driving life avoiding bikist's with a monumental chip on their shoulder. (by the way it was Fort William not Oban, but anywhere is good enough eh!)

Can i please, with the best of intent ask if you could possibly look over your shoulder before you change direction. In motorcycling it's called a "lifesaver" for good reason.

Today i came up behind a cyclist on a single track road, going for glory downhill (it's always downhill) having followed him for a while i made him aware of my presence with a gentle toot on the horn (no mirrors, no eye contact was he even aware i was there)this was greeted by the one fingered salute. Fantastic he knew i was alive.

At the next junction the "have you got a problem" discussion ensued, and the "if i was a car you woudn't have blown your horn cos i was doing 33mph - pointing to sat nav device- )

I personally don't want to hurt anyone, eye contact is a hugh part of driving and in my humble opinion if cyclists would look over their shoulder at least now and then the driver would know you are aware we are there then we don't need to second guess what is about to happen and avoid the usual greetings.

pinno

I do not endorse cyclists who act like idiots nor am I responsible for them.
I would like to get his point of view.
Don't toot your horn at us for no apparent reason - did you give him enough space? Did the toot on the horn suggest to the cyclist that you wanted him out of the way, because if that was me, thats how I would have interpreted it?
I always acknowledge curteous drivers especially when on little narrow roads.

The geographical mistake is hardly worth mentioning when a life was lost.

Are you raising a serious issue?
Have you anything to say as regards to the law?
Do you cycle often?
Is this really the forum for a comment about the (apparent) misconduct of a cyclist to whom I am not responsible for?

cedargreen

lance legstrong wrote:

Hi,

Having spent my driving life avoiding bikist's with a monumental chip on their shoulder. (by the way it was Fort William not Oban, but anywhere is good enough eh!)

Can i please, with the best of intent ask if you could possibly look over your shoulder before you change direction. In motorcycling it's called a "lifesaver" for good reason.

Today i came up behind a cyclist on a single track road, going for glory downhill (it's always downhill) having followed him for a while i made him aware of my presence with a gentle toot on the horn (no mirrors, no eye contact was he even aware i was there)this was greeted by the one fingered salute. Fantastic he knew i was alive.

At the next junction the "have you got a problem" discussion ensued, and the "if i was a car you woudn't have blown your horn cos i was doing 33mph - pointing to sat nav device- )

I personally don't want to hurt anyone, eye contact is a hugh part of driving and in my humble opinion if cyclists would look over their shoulder at least now and then the driver would know you are aware we are there then we don't need to second guess what is about to happen and avoid the usual greetings.

The road is a public highway, open to all users and that includes cyclists along with pedestrians, horse riders, tractors etc. On a single track country road you will at times be forced to slow down to accommodate other road users inluding motor vehicles. You seem to assume that other road users automatically have to give way so that you can continiue on your way without slowing. Do you also sound your horn at tractors, horses, other cars, pedestrians, flocks of sheep etc on single track roads?
If a car behind you was unable to overtake and sounded its horn, would you pull over to let it pass? Would you consider this a 'gentle toot'?

When riding on narrow roads, when I hear or see a car behind I usually pull in at a convenient place to let it pass, though motorists rarely acknowledge this. I don't have to pull in and if I was descending at 33mph I probably wouldn't.

When cycling on narrow country roads or busy city streets I am frequently held up by motor vehicles- should I expect them to get out of my way?

You criticise cyclists for not looking over their shoulder. Some cyclists do ride irresponsibly but cyclists are not responsible for the 3,000+ deaths on the roads each year. Cyclists could more justifiably criticise poor standards of driving- failing to look, use mirrors or indicate are widespread, not to mention driving while texting or phoning (practically compulsory in London). Maybe you should stick to motorways and leave minor country roads to those in less of a hurry.

sirmy

Don't shoot Clarkson - shoot the lawyers!

dilemna

As a practical point to the OP to help raise awareness of your concerns of the dangers facing cyclists, to try to get the law enforced, changed or the performance of the police improved with regard to investigating possible offences committed against cyclists then may I suggest contacting your MP who if receptive can be influential in the wider campaign such as meeting with local police chiefs and councils, addressing select committees, raising the matter in the House of Commons and writing to the relevant Ministers.

There are also ways you can protect yourself. Always carry a phone which I think most do, a camera ready at hand if your mobile is not enabled with one, a helmet cam or bike cam if you are so minded with sound recording and insurance to cover any claim by a third party against you. Also id so if you are knocked down then you can be quickly identified and some one of your choice informed. In all confrontations with motorists where ever possible remain calm and measured to keep control of the situation. There have been enough posts on this forum of altercations that have turned very ugly indeed.

Cycle assertively but don't be boorish or agressive. As cyclists we are easy targets in more ways than one unfortunately.

As regards the legal system wrt cyclists my 2ps worth would be to adopt the model they have in the Netherlands. But pigs will have to fly before this happens so I won't hold my breath. In the meantime I try to enjoy cycling as most of the time it is fun and drivers not too bad. As I think a poster above requested, regularly look behind which is what I do. It guarantees motorists pass you with a safe wide pass 99.9% of the time. Put a few wobbles in here and there for good measure. DO NOT LISTEN TO MUSIC BY WEARING HEADPHONES.

In the mean time here's another case where the CPS seem to be dragging their feet. I'm sure if senior police officers of the force spoke with senior CPS lawyers something could be sorted out to catch this individual before he does kill or seriously injure a cyclist(s).

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... l#comments

Btw I think Jeremy C is a moron but repeatedly advocating shooting him or inciting some to do so on a public forum when you are trying to test the waters for a serious campaign is perhaps not the smartest move. It really undermines your efforts and gives quite the wrong impression of cyclists.