Deliberate dangerous driving.

[ChrisP100]

This probably seems like a moan... because it is.

On my leaving work on Friday I was approaching the traffic lights to turn right onto the main road. The car behind me held back as I approached the red light. There is a dual use (pedestrian/cycle) path adjacent to the main road, which I have complained to the council about because it is totally unfit for purpose (way too narrow). I no longer use the cycle path as I've had more issues on the path than I have on the road.

Anyhow, I'd taken up a central position at the junction in preparation to turn right and as the light changed the car behind tried to squeeze me out in an attempt to undertake me on the turn. I had to hold my line as the road had recently been resurfaced and the edge was loose gravel. As I straightened up the driver squeezed past at very close quarters and sped off, showering me with gravel. I then got the universal w@nker sign out of the window. and then he pointed to the path before disappearing out out sight at a rate of knots. It was 100% deliberate.

I held him up for no more than 3 or 4 seconds, and the road was clear ahead of me so I really don't know what his problem was apart from being a dangerous driver.

[fastpedaller]

The driver clearly suffers from the MGIF syndrome (Must get in front)

[awavey]

stuff like that feels more than just MGIF though, because its not just about getting past you as quickly as possible at all costs, it came with the bonus extras of a deliberate close pass & hand signals, meaning the driver thinks you have to be taught a lesson about not using a cycle facilities and doesnt even accept you were allowed to ride as you did.

[ChrisP100]

The driver clearly suffers from the MGIF syndrome (Must get in front)

The road ahead of me was clear for 200yds in both directions. I think he was more angry that he had to wait an extra 4 seconds because I wasn't using the path that the Council had gracefully provided for me. He probably also thought his road fund licence entitled him to some kind of free pass.

stuff like that feels more than just MGIF though, because its not just about getting past you as quickly as possible at all costs, it came with the bonus extras of a deliberate close pass & hand signals, meaning the driver thinks you have to be taught a lesson about not using a cycle facilities and doesnt even accept you were allowed to ride as you did.

Most drivers seem to think that it is mandatory for cyclists to use a path where provided. The particular path in question is a dual-use cycle/pedestrian path that is barely wide enough for 2 pedestrians side-by-side. You regularly encounter runners on the path often wearing headphones with zero situational awareness if you approach from behind them and dangerously unpredictable when passing. Also very difficult to pass safely even if facing each other, especially now the grass has been left to grow long. The path is not lit either, so winter can be problematic with pedestrians not wearing reflective/hi-viz clothing.

My greatest bugbear is that it's too close to the carriageway. I've had more dangerous close passes riding on the path than I have the road. Worst one was a double-decker bus which overtook me at around 60mph having veered over the limits of the carriageway line to make room for an oncoming van. I was on the path which is approximately 1.2m from the edge of the road, and close to the outer edge as I was avoiding debris (a broken strap from an HGV). I recon the bus was less than a meter from my handlebar end. Had I not been concentrating I could have easily been unbalanced and blown into the ditch adjacent to the hawthorn hedge that runs the length of the path, or worse overbalanced and ended up under the bus. I've also had numerous near misses with van mirrors.

I feel MUCH safer riding on the road, and if the driver in question had wasn't such a selfish @$$hole they may actually realise why I'm on the road as opposed to the crappy path. Their problem is that everything outside of their tin bubble is just an annoyance to them, and just there to stop them doing what they want.

And yes, I also drive a car.

[rotavator]

I reckon some people see cyclists as irritating scum (or choose your own expletives) who do not deserve to be on the road, cycle path or quite possibly alive. To illustrate my point, along the promenade at Rhos on Sea there is that rare beast, a dedicated cycle path for a few hundred yards, between the road and a wide footpath. Unfortuneately the cycle path is roughly patched tarmac so you have to cycle really slowly unless you have fat tyres and/or suspension. One day I was cycling along the road and a white van driver slowed down and hurled some abuse basically telling me to use the cycle path. So a few days later on the same route I used the cycle path and I had to stop while a family got out of the way and the irate father asked me "Well why don't you use the road?" You cannot win basically.

[fastpedaller]

Ahh Rhos on Sea ...... lovely place IMHO. Totally off topic...... We were there many years ago and my Wife was 'using the conveniences' when a massive wave came off the sea, under the door and scared her witless

[VanDriver]

I held him up for no more than 3 or 4 seconds, and the road was clear ahead of me so I really don't know what his problem was

My theory is that in the minds of these people, their cars represent status/money, and they don't have the reasoning to understand that a cyclist would choose to cycle despite having the option to drive. So, in this class-conscious society, angry simpletons become angrier when they are prevented from feeling the benefit (accelerating and so-on) of their status. Having to wait for a cyclist - they believe cyclists are cyclists because they lack money - denies them the advantage they believe they've bought.

And/or, regarding the powerful vehicle they control, they could knock the cyclist off the road easily but aren't allowed to, which they find very frustrating.

[Darkman]

My theory is that in the minds of these people, their cars represent status/money

This is true. And it's important to remember that in most cases, this so-called "status symbol" isn't even owned by them - it'll either be on lease, or finance.

Let the silly buggers crack on and kill themselves if that's what they want to do, as long as they don't involve me or other innocents. Their attitude will be their undoing, sooner or later.

[ChrisP100]

A bit of good news ref bad drivers:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslond ... d=msedgntp

All I can say is the driver must have been really bad if the police prosecuted them base on the camera footage.

[Jdsk]

For future searches... that was Northumbria Police.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

One thing that emerges from that link is a point I've made before about identification of the driver. In this case, the suspect made the crass error of naming somebody with a strong alibi - they were on remand in custody - which formed the basis of the perverting justice charge, but it seems the footage included a view of his mug, and that was good enough to identify him for court purposes.

|Another thing here is that the cameraman is an independent witness which isn't always the case.

[fastpedaller]

One thing that emerges from that link is a point I've made before about identification of the driver. In this case, the suspect made the crass error of naming somebody with a strong alibi - they were on remand in custody - which formed the basis of the perverting justice charge, but it seems the footage included a view of his mug, and that was good enough to identify him for court purposes.

|Another thing here is that the cameraman is an independent witness which isn't always the case.

Would the police have progressed the case if the image wasn't clear enough (thus unable to identify the driver)? IMHO if there is a video recording of the car being driven dangerously, and if the registered keeper cannot identify the driver and the car hasn't been stolen, then the registered keeper is liable - there should be no wriggle-room.

[Jdsk]

IMHO if there is a video recording of the car being driven dangerously, and if the registered keeper cannot identify the driver and the car hasn't been stolen, then the registered keeper is liable - there should be no wriggle-room.

I think that there is a gap here... but it's partly because we try and use criminal law where other approaches would be better.

In this example what would "liable " mean?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Would the police have progressed the case if the image wasn't clear enough (thus unable to identify the driver)? IMHO if there is a video recording of the car being driven dangerously, and if the registered keeper cannot identify the driver and the car hasn't been stolen, then the registered keeper is liable - there should be no wriggle-room.

Obviously, I don't know the particulars of this case, but as I've tried to explain so often before, somebody can only be prosecuted on the evidence and evidence of identity is crucial. This has become increasingly publicised with enforcement cameras. I fancy social media spread the wheezes that people try to avoid identification. This is also the reason so many drivers decide to try to flee from the police.

A lot of the posts suggesting the police are too stupid to deal with camera evidence stem from misunderstanding of the rules of evidence.

The power of the police to require info about the identity of the driver is in s 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In the midst of all the twiddly bits, the defence is here:

172 (4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/172

That offence is triable summarily only with a max fine of level three on the standard scale. Disqualification depending on circumstances and 6 points endorsement

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

A level 3 fine = maximum of £1,000

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ex ... mum-fines/

[fastpedaller]

Maybe I'm naive, but I know who drives my car (unless it was stolen of course) - why would anyone not know who was driving their car?
In the case of a hire car (whenever I've hired one) I have to give full details, and would expect to have to produce details if anyone else had driven it whilst I was the hirer,