Cycling UK Forum

Bit of an update, if only to prove how inconsistent and ineffective the police are.

The officer who responded to my email said he would be visiting the tractor driver. Instead he sent a CSO. She phoned me to say as much and said that she was "satisfied the driver was fully cognisant" (or similar words) and was also satisfied that his eyesight was sound. I asked her how she assessed this and she said that she did not and could not. So why did she said she was satisfied with the state of his sight???

The officer in charge emailed me to say that he was satisfied that the drivers eye sight was fine. Also, he considered that no law had been broken.

I replied that at the very least "driving without due care and attention" could be applied to the drivers action. I also had to request AGAIN that the drivers sight be assessed. I really set my expectations low, so I was only expecting the officer to do the usual reading the numberplate from set distance test.

The officer replied that they could, afterall, consider charging him with the above offence, but warned me that without witnesses etc, the CPS could very likely throw the charges out. I'm afraid I agreed with this assessment and let the prospect of charges go.

I still had to get back in contact to chase up what outcome was had to a casual eye test. Surprisingly, the case officer has written a report to the DVLA, to have them decide whether the driver should have a full eye test. This is good, IF the DVLA do actually decide to do this, but the officer said there was no guarantee that the DVLA would do this.

My experience overall, has been very inconsistent, unprofessional even, with the need to keep pushing for a responsible outcome. I set my expectations low. They have hardly been met.

As an aside, is a young CSO really qualified to advise an errant driver on road skills, such as road craft. The Police officer said she was. I'm not convinced. Are they 'avin a laugh?

Sounds like they are doing the minimum to appease you, in fact they are making more work by not doing what you've requested up front. As for the PCSO it might be a little uncharitable to suggest she doesn't understand the niceties of said tractor pulling out on bicycle, after all it is a basic failure on the part of the driver.

Having said that though, the PC said they were going to attend but then sent a PCSO, I feel the general consensus is that PCSOs don't have the same weight of authority so probably doesn't have the same impact as a normal PC going round. The fact that they couldn't or wouldn't actually check the persons eyesight with a simple test makes it doubly frustrating!

I wouldn't expect the DVLA to intervene on the basis that it was a 'near miss', as the law stands you don't have to be submitted to an eye test until you are 70!

Tonyf33 wrote:Sounds like they are doing the minimum to appease you, in fact they are making more work by not doing what you've requested up front. As for the PCSO it might be a little uncharitable to suggest she doesn't understand the niceties of said tractor pulling out on bicycle, after all it is a basic failure on the part of the driver.

Having said that though, the PC said they were going to attend but then sent a PCSO, I feel the general consensus is that PCSOs don't have the same weight of authority so probably doesn't have the same impact as a normal PC going round. The fact that they couldn't or wouldn't actually check the persons eyesight with a simple test makes it doubly frustrating!

I wouldn't expect the DVLA to intervene on the basis that it was a 'near miss', as the law stands you don't have to be submitted to an eye test until you are 70!

Since when is it down to the DVLA to decide on whether a driver requires an eye test, I wonder? Is this another example of the Police trying to fob me off?

Regarding the PCSO, I was really questioning whether she was qualified to give full and proper driving advice to anyone; or even a regular PC for that matter. Unless they have fully covered Road Craft in training, how can they advise beyond the obvious and common sense?

You have to inform the DVLA of medical conditions that might effect your driving. (poor eyesight isn't always 'fixed' by glasses)
So maybe they aren't fobbing you off by reporting it.

Tonyf33 wrote:as the law stands you don't have to be submitted to an eye test until you are 70!

But the tractor driver was 77 apparently, so presumably has had an eye test at least once, and therefore has been tested to a higher standard than the general population under 70...

Well, it's happened again. Cycling along the main high street in town tonight at 9PM. This time I was going straight on and I spied a car coming out of the local private school car park....and it just kept rolling out onto the road and into my path. It was dark, but not raining; I was in primary position, but there was a car parked at the side of the road. This is what obscured the drivers view of me, a little bit!

Anyway, she missed me by a couple of feet I'd say and then I swiftly curled round to her stationary car to remonstrate. She let down the window and I politely suggested that she had not see me. She agreed and apologised, two or three times (just like the tractor driver, funnily enough. Or not). A few words later I decided I could only suggest that she keep her eyes peeled, for the sake of the next cyclist she crossed.

There seems nothing that can be done to keep these idiots from lunging at the cyclist and at the quietest of times. There's no point in reporting this driver. Yes it was a near miss. If it had been two cars, then it could have been an ugly crunch. The problem is that when a cyclist is involved the consequences can be so much greater. And yet if no collision occurs, it's a shrug of the shoulders and an apology, if you're lucky!

JUST TO NOTE: in this instance, I could not have got eye contact with the driver, which was mentioned above.

Jerry
Bluntly,The police don't give a monkeys,they want a quiet life,its the very low standards of policing in UK IME.
Drivers don't give a monkeys because a) theres no deterent and b) they know the police aren't going to do much especially without wittneses.
Its the sad state of law enforcement in these septic isles.

Unfortunately the left turning car at a giveway with a cursory glance for something down the road travelling at 30mph is the most common nr miss I continually encounter.
As mentioned attempt to establish eye contact, if this is not possible (or if it is) always be ready to make some sort of avoidance maneouvre usually I accompany it with a shout of some sort along the lines of 'watch out'.
Whenever I approch a side turning I am always watching and listening for the appraoch of a car and this potential problem.

eileithyia wrote:Unfortunately the left turning car at a giveway with a cursory glance for something down the road travelling at 30mph is the most common nr miss I continually encounter.
As mentioned attempt to establish eye contact, if this is not possible (or if it is) always be ready to make some sort of avoidance maneouvre usually I accompany it with a shout of some sort along the lines of 'watch out'.
Whenever I approch a side turning I am always watching and listening for the approach of a car and this potential problem.

The car was turning right, by the way, therefore turning right into my path . As I said, I was already in primary and did move further over as the conflict became clear. Had I been an unconfident gutter cyclist, collision would almost certainly ensued.

Certainly having a powerful front light (Cyo) doesn't seem to help. I will just have to start wearing hi-viz, but perhaps even that won't really help that much.

Interestingly, both these near misses occured in very light traffic conditions. Perhaps the drivers concentrate less because they think the hazards appear less

reohn2 wrote:Jerry
Bluntly,The police don't give a monkeys,they want a quiet life,its the very low standards of policing in UK IME.
Drivers don't give a monkeys because a) theres no deterent and b) they know the police aren't going to do much especially without wittneses.
Its the sad state of law enforcement in these septic isles.

Yes, and fully backed up by Phillip Hammond, when he says that the government "can't prevent bad driving".

I questioned the THINK Campaign manager for teens & children as to the effectiveness of hi-vis and where the research was that proved such after the recent 'Tales of the Road' campaign http://www.direct.gov.uk/talesoftheroad
I got back the below. none of which shows any research into hi-visibility clothing. Hi-vis is just another load of rubbish & excuse for motor vehicle drivers to say they didn't see you 'as you weren't wearing hi-viz'! so I wouldn't bother.

"In response to your request for information on the research and evaluation findings used to develop and refine the campaign:

DfT commissioned research with Firefish (http://www.firefish.ltd.uk/) in 2007 found that children aged 6-11 need to understand the reasons for always using good road safety behaviour. It told us that children needed to see characters that they could identify with (i.e. children, not anthropomorphic animals) and that they needed to see a demonstration of the consequences of not observing the green cross code in ways that were meaningful to them (e.g. death is too abstract but missing a football game due to a broken leg is real). These were the collective learnings of both stages of the research, and the experiences and needs of children, teachers, and parents who participated in the research.

The resulting campaign - Tales of the Road - is in the form of modern day cautionary tales showing cartoon children demonstrating first the poor road safety behaviour with a consequence and then the correct behaviour. The key message is ‘you need to use good road safety behaviour or you could come to real harm’.

DfT research (Children’s Road Safety Advertising Tracking, conducted by Childwise http://www.childwise.co.uk/, May 2009) found that children aged 6-11 regard the Tales of the Road campaign as “serious, real and interesting”. Overall parents also find the campaign appropriate, easy to understand and interesting and half of parents think it will make a big difference.

In March this year the DfT also commissioned research with Brand Driver (http://www.branddriver.co.uk/) to test the appeal, usability and effectiveness of the entire Tales of the Road website among children aged 6-11. The evidence informed us that the Be Bright Be Seen game is working well to engage children on the topic of road safety and the specific message of “dressing bright on the roads”. Children also like the increase in difficulty level as the game progresses. We also gained insight into how children are learning to take responsibility for themselves by using the website – “I learnt certain places to cross” Girls 10-11, “If there are cars parked you shouldn’t cross the road there” Girls 8-9, “Not to cross the road on corners” Girls 8-9.