Dangerous Warburtons HGV Driver

[millimole]

When I passed, I left lots of space ahead of me between me and the cyclist so the vehicle behind me could see it too, signalled when it was safe to move out, moved right out into the right lane, then signalled left and moved back well beyond the cyclist- all that (I hope) warned the traffic behind me there was a reason to look out and set the example of giving the cyclist space. Which the traffic behind me did, I was pleased to see.

on.

This is why I (nearly*) always signal to overtake a cyclist - even on my motorcycle, and even on a clear wide road. It indicates to following traffic that 'there is something there' in the hope that the inattentive driver might at least think twice. It also - I hope - reinforces the position that cyclists are to be properly overtaken, not simply passed.
(*The only time I wouldn't indicate would be if it might be mis-construed as signalling a right turn)


You can easlily remove the Tapatalk spam using settings on YOUR phone

[Bonefishblues]

When I passed, I left lots of space ahead of me between me and the cyclist so the vehicle behind me could see it too, signalled when it was safe to move out, moved right out into the right lane, then signalled left and moved back well beyond the cyclist- all that (I hope) warned the traffic behind me there was a reason to look out and set the example of giving the cyclist space. Which the traffic behind me did, I was pleased to see.

on.

This is why I (nearly*) always signal to overtake a cyclist - even on my motorcycle, and even on a clear wide road. It indicates to following traffic that 'there is something there' in the hope that the inattentive driver might at least think twice. It also - I hope - reinforces the position that cyclists are to be properly overtaken, not simply passed.
(*The only time I wouldn't indicate would be if it might be mis-construed as signalling a right turn)


You can easlily remove the Tapatalk spam using settings on YOUR phone

If there's a line of traffic behind me I prefer to make a rather exaggerated overtake right across to the rhs of the road. My rationale is that most/many motorists seem to sit nose to tail and I think it's helpful for the whole line of traffic to think "eh, summat's going on ahead" - even the doziest and least attentive.

That way (at least in my mind) I've done something to help to avoid the "late swerve" which I've sometimes seen, where the dozy motorist is confronted with a cyclist in front of them as the car ahead swerves around him or her.

[[XAP]Bob]

I couldn't exaggerate my overtake of a cyclist. If there is a cyclist there then it's their lane - I will use the other lane when safe.

[thirdcrank]

The police are still waiting to identify the driver.

They said that Warburtons had responded to their request for driver details and they were trying to contact the driver. They said that it was quite common for a number of leasing companies, driver agencies etc to be involved - and so they had to follow a chain in order to get to the actual driver. They wouldn't tell me how many intermediaries were involved or even if there were any.

The police also said, that if they hadn't contacted the driver within 6 months, then they'd have to drop the case anyway.

--Jatinder

I've thought about this again and I wonder if you are just being fobbed off. The initial request would normally be to the registered keeper and their details are with the DVLA. When they are sent the notice requiring the driver's details, their options are ultimately two: nominate a driver or reply that they are unable to do so. If they cannot nominate, then consideration should be given to a prosecution for their failure. If they nominate a driver, then that person gets a notice in their turn. The longer the chain, the less likely the driver is to be traced but if that happens because of some complicated leasing arrangement, then it's arguable that the registered keeper is not the real keeper. I can't see that they have the option to say we have so many vehicles we don't know what's going on. I'm not up-to-date and police procedures will vary locally, but I suspect that the follow-up here will be being conducted by a clerical unit sending out hundreds of these notices with little concern about individual outcomes and that's where ending up running out of time might occur.

If this is taken as far as possible and the driver cannot be identified, then that's the way it goes but if it just drags on and they run out of time, I'd suggest you consider complaining to the IPCC. It's not something I'd normally say was worth bothering with, but in a case like this, it might buck up some ideas.

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

Surrey police have told me that the driver of the Wrburton's lorry had to pay £200 and attend a driver awareness course. I can see some sense in that, but I do believe he should have been charged with careless/dangerous driving and prosecuted as it was such an obviously stupid place to attempt to overtake.

My other case in the City of London (https://youtu.be/Vye7Y-y50G0), where a black van overtook me extremely closely has finished. The CPS charged the "driver" with failing to provide the identity of the "driver", he was fined £475 and given 6 points on his licence.

--Jatinder

[reohn2]

We'll done for persisting,at least that's two morons who'll think twice next time

[thirdcrank]

Thanks for updating this.

Bearing in mind your Warburton's report was one of several to the police, I'd suggest that you should be pleased that the system has run its course. Outcomes like sentencing guidelines and all the rest are decided by others and you are stuck with them. Police officers complain that the courts let them down, but it's the same thing. It's not like a compo case where the result can have an effect on you personally in terms of the payout.

By coincidence I was thinking of you recently in connection with NIP's. On this thread or another you mentioned that the police had told you that no NIP was needed after an "incident." It didn't occur to me at the time to mention that "incident" has become the politically correct replacement for "accident." In many cases the words will be interchangeable and there's no definition of "accident" in s2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which creates this exception to the need for an NIP.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/2

It's certainly not restricted to the circumstances in which an accident must be reported under s170 Road Traffic Act, 1988
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... f-accident

One of the police powers to require a preliminary breathalyser test is after an "accident." (s6(5)(a) RTA 1988) This has been given a wide interpretation by the higher courts so that even kerbing a car may be an "accident."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/6

The CPS advice to prosecutors points out that the service of NIP's is the basis of a lot of technical defences. I'd say that unless there's been a crash of some sort, serving an NIP is a good precaution. All for the price of a first class stamp.

[[XAP]Bob]

One of the police powers to require a preliminary breathalyser test is after an "accident." (s6(5)(a) RTA 1988) This has been given a wide interpretation by the higher courts so that even kerbing a car may be an "accident."

And since it's unlikely to be deliberate then that seems reasonable...

[thirdcrank]

Putting it in its simplest terms I'm not confident anybody at the various stages of dealing with a complaint of bad driving will adopt a broad definition of "accident" if the lack of an NIP becomes an issue. Bear in mind that case law says that the driver must be aware of the accident or the exception does not apply. It might be argued that being chased and berated by a cyclist makes a driver aware but that's the purpose of the NIP. I'm saying that whatever the Supreme Court might decide given the chance, the file might not get as far even as the CPS.

[Flinders]

I thought 'accident' had been changed to 'incident' because 'accident' suggests nobody was to blame, when in fact in most RTCs at least one person will be to blame. I think we should stop calling road incidents 'accidents' because that suggests they are random events for which nobody is 'responsible'.

[Flinders]

This is why I (nearly*) always signal to overtake a cyclist - even on my motorcycle, and even on a clear wide road. It indicates to following traffic that 'there is something there' in the hope that the inattentive driver might at least think twice. It also - I hope - reinforces the position that cyclists are to be properly overtaken, not simply passed.
(*The only time I wouldn't indicate would be if it might be mis-construed as signalling a right turn)


.

I always signal, even at mini roundabouts, where few people do, and even when nobody is there to see. It ought to be automatic. MSM.

[thirdcrank]

I thought 'accident' had been changed to 'incident' because 'accident' suggests nobody was to blame, when in fact in most RTCs at least one person will be to blame. I think we should stop calling road incidents 'accidents' because that suggests they are random events for which nobody is 'responsible'.

The legislation has the word "accident." That's not changed.

2 Requirement of warning etc: supplementary.
(1) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed. (My emphasis)
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/2