20 cm from Death - Outcome

magnatom

For those that can remember my oil tanker incident earlier this year....

I have finally got an outcome from the 20cm from death incident. See my video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fqACT1jNV0

I will be pursuing this matter vigorously

d87heaven

Unbelivable. Whats your plan of action now?

Zachariah

Difficult one. Realistically, what do you expect to result from your continued pursuit of the matter?

The Rookie

Arguably it wasn't 'dangerous' which requires a reckless element to the drivers behaviour (very hard to prove), but certainly was without due care and attention (statutory alternative charge), how with your testimony and video they think there is insufficient to proceed is beyond me.

Simon

magnatom

I plan to first find out why they felt there was insufficient evidence. Once I know this I can then, if appropriate, formally complain. I am considering going to the press as well.

Why go to the press? I want to be sure that cases such as these are taken seriously in the future. It really does appear to be the case that to get any sort of legal protection on the roads, you need to have been injured or killed. This is not acceptable.

The Rookie

When some Police areas are doing people for DWDCA for a car parking 'ding' it does seem outragious that no action is planned in this case.

2 quick Q's
1/ Do you know for certain they have ID'd the driver, without a positive (and acceptable to the court) driver ID no action can be taken against them. Unfourtunatley in Scotland there still exists an all too easy to exploit legal loophole for this.
2/ If the driver has been ID'd is he UK based or a foreigner who may have 'done a runner'?

Simon

magnatom

The driver has been interviewed. In fact the PC who was interviewing me kept telling me how nice a bloke the driver was, and how difficult it can be to see cyclists..... :x

jeremyrundle

Zachariah wrote:

Difficult one. Realistically, what do you expect to result from your continued pursuit of the matter?

1. You have the reg number, have you found out the coompany to complain to.

2. Have you googled the registration number.

3. Have you insisted that under the freedom of info act that the details of the company involved are given to you by the police

4. Go to the company director, with the vid or board of directors or chairman NOT customer services.

5. Have you sent it to your local TV station, newspaper, MP.

Outcome, take it to the very end, ignore people like this who would have perhaps said, "oh he died did he, sad, was it his fault he was going too fast as a cyclist".

GO ALL THE WAY.

jeremyrundle

magnatom wrote:

I plan to first find out why they felt there was insufficient evidence. Once I know this I can then, if appropriate, formally complain. I am considering going to the press as well.

Why go to the press? I want to be sure that cases such as these are taken seriously in the future. It really does appear to be the case that to get any sort of legal protection on the roads, you need to have been injured or killed. This is not acceptable.

You can appeal the police decision if you wish, so do it.

Berk Bonebonce

Some offences where there is a margin for 'interperetation' have to be witnessed by a Police Officer to give them 'weight'.

spen666

jeremyrundle wrote:

Zachariah wrote:

Difficult one. Realistically, what do you expect to result from your continued pursuit of the matter?

1. You have the reg number, have you found out the coompany to complain to.

2. Have you googled the registration number.

3. Have you insisted that under the freedom of info act that the details of the company involved are given to you by the police

I'm not sure the police have to disclose this under FOI legislation

4. Go to the company director, with the vid or board of directors or chairman NOT customer services.

5. Have you sent it to your local TV station, newspaper, MP.

Outcome, take it to the very end, ignore people like this who would have perhaps said, "oh he died did he, sad, was it his fault he was going too fast as a cyclist".

GO ALL THE WAY.

If this is not dangerous, but only careless driving, then it may be out of time - time limit for summary only offences in Eng is 6 months. I am not sure what it is in Scotland, if there is a similar rule. Also, I do not know date of incident

The Rookie

spen666 wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

3. Have you insisted that under the freedom of info act that the details of the company involved are given to you by the police

I'm not sure the police have to disclose this under FOI legislation

If this is not dangerous, but only careless driving, then it may be out of time - time limit for summary only offences in Eng is 6 months. I am not sure what it is in Scotland, if there is a similar rule. Also, I do not know date of incident

I'm sure that the FOI doesn't apply to that information, all evidence in criminal cases is excempted.

The time limit is 6 months in Scotland as well (although the exact details are slightly different) but as long as the driver has been cited and served with the citation then that is satisfied.

As for visibility, that is true, but he pulled out without looking, the bike was easy to see if he looked properly!

Simon

morxy

Saw the video. Pretty terrifying. I don't think you're exaggerating when you say you could've been killed or seriously injured. Thankfully your braking was sharp!

I don't want to live in a society where this kind of behaviour is accepted. Often it takes collective action to change things and rectify injustices. Is there anything we can do like adding our names to a collective letter of complaint? Can we bring this case to the attention of any sympathetic lawyers out there, MPs?

Excuse my naivety. Maybe I'm grabbing at air. I've had similar "heart in mouth" moments like this myself, though less severe, and the notion such incidents are euphemistically waived as SMIDSY leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 6 months ago it was magnatom. Tomorrow it could be one of us.

mercurykev

It would be interesting to find out what the tanker driver's defence was. Did they claim that they didn't even see you? Were they aware that they almost hit you?

I'm interested because a very similar thing happened to me on a roundabout - not with such a big scary tanker though - and I'm certain that the driver was completely unaware that I was even on the roundabout and that they almost ran into me. I don't even think that they knew the incident happened.

AndyManc

magnatom wrote:

The driver has been interviewed. In fact the PC who was interviewing me kept telling me how nice a bloke the driver was, and how difficult it can be to see cyclists..... :x

There lies the problem, the outcome would have been different if there was a cyclist involved in the decision to prosecute, certainly if there was a reasonably high ranking officer.


.

sandy hill

Horrific.

As to get registration details and linking it to an owner: you can download a V888 from DVLA website and forwarded with a cheque for £2.50 the information should be forthcoming.

rf6

Cyclist hard to see? I think given the visibility, the low level of traffic and the position of the cyclist, a careful and considerate driver should have easily seen the cyclist.

I think this driver needs to go to court, he's in charge of a large and possibly dangerous load. His standard of driving should be high.

I'm glad you're gonna take this further, keep on at the PF.

Good luck!

pshore

rf6 wrote:

I think this driver needs to go to court, he's in charge of a large and possibly dangerous load. His standard of driving should be high.

I agree. Magnatom, you were very close to being killed and at the very least this driver needs to, under oath, tell us what he was doing or not doing to ensure everybody's safety.

Even if he is not prosecuted, we may learn something about how this incident came about and if anybody could do something different to prevent this.

Please keep up the energy on this one Magnatom. It is important.

Buckled_Rims

What's the law on a private prosecution?

spen666

pshore wrote:

rf6 wrote:

I think this driver needs to go to court, he's in charge of a large and possibly dangerous load. His standard of driving should be high.

I agree. Magnatom, you were very close to being killed and at the very least this driver needs to, under oath, tell us what he was doing or not doing to ensure everybody's safety.

Even if he is not prosecuted, we may learn something about how this incident came about and if anybody could do something different to prevent this.

Please keep up the energy on this one Magnatom. It is important.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying

Even if he is prosecutred, you may well not get any answer to question 1 - if he pleads guilty- he will not give evidence on oath.

Even if he pleads not guilty , he may choose not to give evidence on oath

If he is not prosecuted, then there is no chance of him giving evidence under oath.

spen666

Buckled_Rims wrote:

What's the law on a private prosecution?

Its Scottish Law, so I don't know the details there if private prosecutions are allowed or the rules for them if they are

pshore

spen666 wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying

Even if he is prosecutred, you may well not get any answer to question 1 - if he pleads guilty- he will not give evidence on oath.

Even if he pleads not guilty , he may choose not to give evidence on oath

Well, I am no legal eagle but if there is a chance of the driver telling us his story I think it is worth a shot.

If he pleads guilty then maybe he has no defence but it will act as a deterrent to others if convicted. If he pleads not guilty and says nothing, then lack of evidence can be as compelling as evidence in my opinion.

spen666 wrote:

If he is not prosecuted, then there is no chance of him giving evidence under oath.

This is the worst outcome. We learn nothing.


I know you are just telling us the real world reality of the current legal system. For years the victims of road deaths have been shouting how unfair it is that when one road user is KSI'd the perpetrator gets away virtually unpunished.

At some point attitudes to road law WIILL change. It just needs political will to change the law and high profile cases help with that change.

Because road deaths happen one at a time they go quite unnoticed compared to an airline crash. Perhaps we need to organise some protests like the students. Not just cyclists, but all those who think road law is unjust.

jeremyrundle

rf6 wrote:

Cyclist hard to see? I think given the visibility, the low level of traffic and the position of the cyclist, a careful and considerate driver should have easily seen the cyclist.

I think this driver needs to go to court, he's in charge of a large and possibly dangerous load. His standard of driving should be high.

I'm glad you're gonna take this further, keep on at the PF.

Good luck!

It was a roundabout, as thye highway code says (regardless of bright day and no cars or pitch black and just one cyclist):-

185
When reaching the roundabout you should

•give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights
•check whether road markings allow you to enter the roundabout without giving way. If so, proceed, but still look to the right before joining
•watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all
•look forward before moving off to make sure traffic in front has moved off



http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070338

spen666

pshore wrote:

.... Perhaps we need to organise some protests like the students. Not just cyclists, but all those who think road law is unjust.

Not like students please -that will only make things worse for us all

We do need as cyclists, to come together, the CTC, BC, and all local cycling groups to change attitudes towards cyclists on the road.

The rabid and non objective anti motorist attitudes expressed by some on here and on other cycling messageboards will not help progress this matter.

Sadly as cyclists we can't agree on anything it seems. Somewant more segregated facilities, some want the opposite

We need to get a wholesale change in attitudes towards cyclists. In the same way that attitudes have been changed in the last 30-40 years towards the acceptability of drink driving, the acceptability of racist attitudes etc.

It is now widely accepted that it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of race/creed/colour/disability/sex etc - indeed it is an aggravating feature to commit a criminal offence fuelled by discrimination on grounds of race etc. We need to make it like this for cycling.

We can only do this step by step and by taking general public with us, not by antagonising and abusing them or by making unreasonable demands. Remember Rome was not built in a day

pshore

spen666 wrote:

pshore wrote:

.... Perhaps we need to organise some protests like the students. Not just cyclists, but all those who think road law is unjust.

Not like students please -that will only make things worse for us all

Peaceful or not the students got our attention. Unfortunately, the law abiding ones have failed to capitalise on that because they have not presented a better solution.

I think what cyclists want in terms of facilities is not the way to solve this problem. There can't be a cycle facility everywhere. And it is not just cyclists who have a problem with current road attitude. It is pedestrians, young and old too, those in wheel chairs, mobility scooters etc, parents walking to school. If you are not in a car it is hard to get around and is/feels dangerous.

But, as you say, it is largely about attitudes and they can be changed. One day I hope that angry drivers bullying their way past schools, cyclists etc will be a thing of the past. Fair and just laws will help.

What I am not sure of is what group is best to lead these disparate groups of people forward.

It felt like there might be some momentum behind the recent 'strict liability' debates but they have petered out.

spen666

pshore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

pshore wrote:

.... Perhaps we need to organise some protests like the students. Not just cyclists, but all those who think road law is unjust.

Not like students please -that will only make things worse for us all

Peaceful or not the students got our attention. Unfortunately, the law abiding ones have failed to capitalise on that because they have not presented a better solution.

......
It felt like there might be some momentum behind the recent 'strict liability' debates but they have petered out.

you have got more chance of getting the government to give every cyclisy=t gold plated bikes than getting strict liability introduced.

I for one would lead the campaign against strict liability being introduced, It does nothing to improve road safety and is unfair on other road users.

A rebuttable presumption of liability like they have elsewhere is a different matter and is something I support fully.


Re the students - yes they got our attention and they have put the backs up of many people who may have been sympathetic towards them. They have raised the profile of the issue, but done it by turning people against them.

We do not want more people to be anti cycling

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

pshore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

pshore wrote:

.... Perhaps we need to organise some protests like the students. Not just cyclists, but all those who think road law is unjust.

Not like students please -that will only make things worse for us all

Peaceful or not the students got our attention. Unfortunately, the law abiding ones have failed to capitalise on that because they have not presented a better solution.

......
It felt like there might be some momentum behind the recent 'strict liability' debates but they have petered out.

you have got more chance of getting the government to give every cyclisy=t gold plated bikes than getting strict liability introduced.

I for one would lead the campaign against strict liability being introduced, It does nothing to improve road safety and is unfair on other road users.

A rebuttable presumption of liability like they have elsewhere is a different matter and is something I support fully.


Re the students - yes they got our attention and they have put the backs up of many people who may have been sympathetic towards them. They have raised the profile of the issue, but done it by turning people against them.

We do not want more people to be anti cycling

+1.

I don't think he who suggested strict liability really understands just what this means in a legal context.

dilemna

pshore wrote:

spen666 wrote:

pshore wrote:

.... Perhaps we need to organise some protests like the students. Not just cyclists, but all those who think road law is unjust.

Not like students please -that will only make things worse for us all

Peaceful or not the students got our attention. Unfortunately, the law abiding ones have failed to capitalise on that because they have not presented a better solution.

I think what cyclists want in terms of facilities is not the way to solve this problem. There can't be a cycle facility everywhere. And it is not just cyclists who have a problem with current road attitude. It is pedestrians, young and old too, those in wheel chairs, mobility scooters etc, parents walking to school. If you are not in a car it is hard to get around and is/feels dangerous.

But, as you say, it is largely about attitudes and they can be changed. One day I hope that angry drivers bullying their way past schools, cyclists etc will be a thing of the past. Fair and just laws will help.

What I am not sure of is what group is best to lead these disparate groups of people forward.

It felt like there might be some momentum behind the recent 'strict liability' debates but they have petered out.

You can't seriously be suggesting stict liability???? Do you understand the concept in a legal context?

dilemna

magnatom wrote:

For those that can remember my oil tanker incident earlier this year....

I have finally got an outcome from the 20cm from death incident. See my video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fqACT1jNV0

I will be pursuing this matter vigorously

I suspect you could be forgiven for thinking the Procurator Fiscal is taking the petrol with their decision to do nothing. I smell a rat or lazy official who hasn't done their job properly. Complain.

The Rookie

spen666 wrote:

A rebuttable presumption of liability like they have elsewhere is a different matter and is something I support fully.

Which I agree with, however it is now somewhat off topic as there is no liability in the instant case as no collision occured thankfully.

Simon

pshore

dilemna wrote:

spen666 wrote:

A rebuttable presumption of liability like they have elsewhere is a different matter and is something I support fully.

+1.

I don't think he who suggested strict liability really understands just what this means in a legal context.

I think we are in agreement here. If I look at the legal definition of strict liability it is not some thing I can claim to understand. What I am referring to is perhaps laid out in more user friendly way here: http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1525 and I think agrees with 'presumption of liability'.

I was not intending to get into a highly detailed legal argument here, just discuss the principals of what is wrong with the current legal system and what could be done better.

As I see it, the ideas we have on the table for improving the state of affairs are:

1. don't cycle
2. segregated cycle facilities
3. headcams - no conviction unless KSI'd.
4. coroporate responsibility (probably imposed through legal costs)
5. presumption of liability


What else have we got ? What would prevent the kind of incident that Magnatom was involved in ?