Royal Mail Driver Reporting

[meic]

A similar thing happens to me with double white lines every day. I much prefer those that blatantly break the law on the other side of the lines to those who try and get as little on the other side as possible.

Interestingly, it's not illegal to cross double white lines to overtake a bicycle travelling at 10Mph or less (Highway Code section 129).

Do you think I spend my day doing less than 10mph?

[meic]

On a purely pragmatic basis. I have probably a hundred more serious violations than this each day.
You need to be a bit selective about who you report, in fact you have to forget about over 99% of those that violate against you.
Only expend effort on the most serious cases and when you can provide the Police with enough good evidence to work with.
It isnt nice but thats life.

[larfingravy]

Absolutely amazed that people on this site are saying what the driver did was ok. He overtook the cyclist by driving the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge in bad weather.
Would it have been OK if he'd killed a child doing that stupid move?
Unbelievable.

That said I too don't like this filming from bikes and then sticking every infringement on the internet and looking to report every incident.
The police won't be interested in that and without any identification of the van, the PO will fob you off.

[james01]

Its very unlikely that he would have driven like this unless he had satisfied himself that he was dealing with an empty road. The driver probably thinks that he had found a course of action that would keep everyone around happy. I understand some of your reservations, but I feel you should let it go. He wasnt trying to be unpleasant to you.
As for his speed, well, if I decided it was physically safe to do something of the sort, and further decided to actually do it I would go about it in a fairly brisk manner simply so as to get back to normality before anyone else arrives to be confused

I wouldn't have driven like this, I'm too law-abiding and I respect keep-left signs. But assuming the driver was fully confident of an empty road & pavements he actually gave you a very safe passing distance. Many PO drivers are also deliver on bicycles, they certainly aren't the worst group of professional drivers (now that would be an interesting thread,where do I start the list.....taxis.?).

[kwackers]

Absolutely amazed that people on this site are saying what the driver did was ok. He overtook the cyclist by driving the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge in bad weather.
Would it have been OK if he'd killed a child doing that stupid move?
Unbelievable.

That said I too don't like this filming from bikes and then sticking every infringement on the internet and looking to report every incident.
The police won't be interested in that and without any identification of the van, the PO will fob you off.

I agree, I think it's outrageous. All he had to do was drive properly, he could have timed it all so that he would have been overtaking on the far side. The simple truth is he was going quickly and couldn't be buttocked slowing down.

But I'm all for videoing this sort of stuff, if nothing else it's ammunition to use against the car lobby who like to shout the odds about evil cyclists.

[Pete Owens]

Absolutely amazed that people on this site are saying what the driver did was ok. He overtook the cyclist by driving the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge in bad weather.

Presumably you would prefer him to to squeeze past the cyclist (like the other 99% of drivers).

Would it have been OK if he'd killed a child doing that stupid move?

But there WAS NO child on that side of (or indeed anywhere near) the carriageway , whereas there WAS a cyclist on the correct side. Presumably you think it is OK to kill children so long as you keep to the correct side of the road.

Now there is an issue with the excessive speed of the van - but I have no problem with his choice of road position.

As other have pointed out, this is entirely analogous to the situation with double white lines. I would much prefer drivers to illegally cross the white line to give me sufficient space than to squeeze past within the lane. The same applies on shared use paths. If you encounter a pedestrian walking on the cyclist side do you really think they would prefer you to clip them with your handlebars rather than ride on the other side of the path.

[Pete Owens]

Tbh, i would of done the same.

It's a win win situation.

no it isn't. Theres a pedestrian refuge in the middle of the road,

With the left side occupied by a cycle and the right side unoccupied.
An good argument for taking the RH lane.

a bus shelter to the right, a concealed footpath to the left

The shelter is beyond the pinch point and in clear view - thus the concealed entrance is the more serious hazard.
Another argument for taking the RH lane.

and visibilty is impaired by rain

Which is just as true whichever side of the island he took.

- its a very dangerous manouvre and very intimidating.

to who?

None of your arguments points to it being preferable to drive to the left of the island rather than the right.
Now it does look as if the van was going much too fast for the conditions (whether or not within the speed limit), but that is a separate issue.

[larfingravy]

Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. He drove like a t**t.

[thirdcrank]

Some eye-opening posts - particularly in the light of who has written them. I'm no fan of cyclists-squeezing islands (and the installation of a set in Leeds was the straw which broke the back of my Right to Ride camel. ) But, the suggestion that it's better to be on the wrong side of the road than squeezing the cyclist seems to miss the point completely and the speed of the vehicle is IMO an important element of the poor driving. For one thing, collisions tend to occur when somebody driving like that meets somebody coming the other way with a similar driving style - and before anybody quips that they'd simply pass each other on their wrong side of the road, one of them might well swerve to avoid the big bump and hit something a lot softer like the OP. One reason for such islands is to keep traffic on the correct side of the road. It's something I'd have no compunction about reporting for summons or prosecuting - but then I do tend to see some of these things in black-and-white.

[downfader]

I had an indident a few weeks back involving a Parcelforce van and a traffic island where the driver actually squeezed through and clipped my elbow as he took an immediate right turn after the island. I reported this to PF and got an apology and a dedication that the driver would be spoken to.

However in this clip I can personally see that the driver, although he's broken the ol'statutes, he has done so quite safely. I would be inclined to leave this and not worry. Thats my personal view, obviously, and the decision is on the OP.

[james01]

Its very unlikely that he would have driven like this unless he had satisfied himself that he was dealing with an empty road. The driver probably thinks that he had found a course of action that would keep everyone around happy. I understand some of your reservations, but I feel you should let it go. He wasnt trying to be unpleasant to you.
As for his speed, well, if I decided it was physically safe to do something of the sort, and further decided to actually do it I would go about it in a fairly brisk manner simply so as to get back to normality before anyone else arrives to be confused

I wouldn't have driven like this, I'm too law-abiding and I respect keep-left signs. But assuming the driver was fully confident of an empty road & pavements he actually gave you a very safe passing distance. Many PO drivers are also deliver on bicycles, they certainly aren't the worst group of professional drivers (now that would be an interesting thread,where do I start the list.....taxis.?).

Just to clarify my previous post, I felt that there could be an argument for saying that this illegal manoeuvre was a safe way of passing the cyclist if the alternative was squeezing past on the same side as the cyclist. However I certainly don't support an anarchic disregard for traffic laws, the van driver should clearly have slowed down and waited for the cyclist to pass though the refuge area.

[Tom Richardson]

- its a very dangerous manouvre and very intimidating.

to who?

None of your arguments points to it being preferable to drive to the left of the island rather than the right.
Now it does look as if the van was going much too fast for the conditions (whether or not within the speed limit), but that is a separate issue.

It's intimidating to me and to the people who live on the housing estate to the left who's children use that crossing to get to the bus to and from school each day, to the pensioners who find it difficult to cross the road while keeping a look out for traffic coming from both directions including the wrong one, to people who find people contravening road rules while driving in a manner that precludes them from properly assessing the situation.

Its dangerous to anyone not expecting that van to be driving the wrong way through the restiction at high speed.

There seems to be common acceptance by drivers that if they can't see the risk then there isn't one. No doubt if a child ran across to the central reservation from behind the bus stop to meet their friend walking up the concealed path on the left it would be the child's fault for getting in the way when the van hit them. This circumstance isn't evident on the picture but theres no way to be sure that it isn't going to happen - or a whole host of other dangerous possibilities. I would have sympathy if the driver had slowed to assess the situation and take the risks into account but they're just banging along and hoping for the best. Its shocking to find that people support that behaviour.

[meic]

The van driver did the overtake in exactly the way that I would like to be overtaken, the problem was that there was a pedestrian refuge on that road.
If there was no pedestrian refuge, it would have been fine.

Why is that pedestrian refuge there?
I am not asking for it to justify its prescence but for people to think what purpose it was put there to serve.
Did his act really defeat its purpose?

The only way I can see that to be so, is if it is there to restrict his speed.
If the issue is his speeding then I think we all know it is a lot harder to find a driver NOT speeding than one who is speeding.

What would the legal penalty be for his deed? Does it carry a licence endorsement?

It is my belief that this incident did not increase the risk to anybodies safety beyond the inherent risks of the way he was driving the van previously.

As an example, for years a minor road crossed a major road with no traffic lights fitted.
For years I looked up and down that road and crossed it when clear.
One day traffic lights were fitted at which point did it become dangerous for me to look up and down the road and cross it when clear?
It certainly became illegal though. Three points on your licence even if you could see the road was clear for a mile either way.

The traffic light was installed because many people would not or could not wait for a clear road. This is recognised in less developed foreign countries by a relaxing of the traffic light system when traffic levels are low.

I am not defending Mr Postman but every day I am subjected to dozens of incidents which drastically increase the danger to me and other road users. After we get some action on the big boys we can come for the small timers like this.
Speaking as a cyclist his prescence on the road does not scare or concern me.
So I would not be willing to make efforts to see him punished even if it was possible.
Equally I would not make efforts to defend him but may ask for a very lenient sentence.

[Mick F]

Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. He drove like a t**t.

He drove like a what??
A tart?
Was he dressed in fishnets and a basque?

I think "idiot" was what you meant.

[meic]

All of what Tom says is perfectly true of all traffic on the road and the speed is very important.
I just dispute that he was any more dangerous. People could run out from any side of the road into traffic on either side of the road. If the refuge wasnt there he would be expected to use the other side of the road as an overtake.
For all we know, that same van driver slowed down to 20mph half a mile later because there were some kids on his side of the road.

There are big provisos in my comments, they are about empty roads (including pedestrians).
It is commonplace to see motorists drive past zebra crossings at 20mph above the speed limit while pedestrians wait to cross, inches from them.