Cycling UK Forum

I'd be interested if anybody knows anything first-hand about the horrible collision which wrecked Dan Black's life.

I've looked at the SMIDSY link and at the further link to the local newspaper but there are bullet points I can't completely follow. Eg there is a link about police shortcomings in the pre-charging procedures but I can't find what these were. There is also criticism of the CPS decision that the case did not meet the public interst element of the guidelines. The public interest test is only applied once the CPS is satisfied there is enough evidence to ensure a conviction would be likely (which implies that the police must have got at least part of it right. It's suggested that the inadequacy of BS cycle lamps contributed to the public interest decision. At the same time it's suggested the police reported that his lights etc were OK. Has anybody and first-hand info?

I like to have my facts correctly assembled before I get into letter writing mode; although the SMIDSY paghe in that link is nicely formatted, the actual info seems to be confused - it certainly confuses me.

============================================================================
Just as a nod to the main subject of this thread, I see from the paper that it's Hammond's birthday today. I was amazed to see he's only 55. I should have thought he was a good ten - fifteen years older. What a blooming awful advert for sitting in a car instead of getting a bit of exercise and fresh air.

I suppose they could restrict them from driving over long times and distances.
Then when the roads get treacherous and need extra attention they could relax the rules.

ANTONISH wrote:I'm enjoying this thread particularly Thirdcrank's apposite and very amusing commentaries.
On occasion I've also watched these traffic police programmes. Even outrageous behaviour just seems to warrant a mild reprimand and a pat on the head from a smiley policeman. Perhaps police should be less tolerant as the French Police are?
My only moving traffic offence occurred when I didn't come to a complete halt at a stop sign (the road I was entering was empty both ways and there was clear visibility.) The white van behind me put on it's blue light and I pulled over thinking it was on the way to an emergency. I was soon disabused by the unsmiling police officer and his boot faced companion. I had to follow him to the police station and pay a 90euro fine. No complaints -them's the rules.
A similar fine was leavied on an acquaintance because he had a bungy cord hanging from a roof rack. I believe this is a regular occurence for errant French motorists.
SMIDSY could see you in very serious trouble.
But we don't want a war on motorists here do we?

What you get fined for stopping at a "stop" sign in France?
jonty

cjchambers wrote:. . . . well, that's what Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for transport thinks. He used those exact words on the BBC2 Jeremy Vine show this afternoon!

Discuss!

Of course the Government can't stop bad driving in the same way as it can't stop bad cycling but it can influence behaviour especially over the long-term. Just look at the success of anti-drink driving, non-smoking and household recycling.
jonty

Of course government CAN stop people driving badly.
It just needs the will to do so.
We have the technology to bring in "black box" driving data recorders with full video feeds for all motor vehicles within couple of years (with little cost to the government), and AUTOMATIC prosecution of all drivers found to contribute fault in any incident.
Such boxes could have the registration number coded into a transponder response, so would be easy to track, trace, or identify (including prosecuting anyone without one). They'd probably pay for themselves in about 2 years of insurance costs.
What he actually means is that he has no intention of doing so, and doesn't take the death and injury toll on our roads seriously.
Anyone with that attitude is unfit for government in any capacity, so astonishing Cameron was doing putting such an obvious fox in charge of the henhouse is completely beyond me.

For all the soundbites about "ending the war on the motorist", they don't even have a workable ceasefire in place yet, and if government is running from the battle, it leaves victims to get their own justice.
Of course, the legal system would claim that as being vigilantism, while turning their backs on the crime that it's dealing with - probalby more effectively than the police, CPS and Courts manage between them.

If motorists knew they had a realistic chance of being dragged out of their vehicles and beaten senseless if they knocked a pedestrian or cyclist over (or even threatened it), they wouldn't do it.

I bet the incidence of dooring goes down considerably in the south after a case recently - just like burglaries did in East Anglia after the Tony Martin case, despite the persecution of him.

As I started the thread I suppose I have to state an opinion . . .

He's technically right - the government can't stop bad driving, but they CAN and SHOULD have a damn good go at it!We already know his feelings about the "War on the motorist". As has been commented before on these forums, if we're looking for a war on the roads, the bodycount would indicate that 'the motorist' is still winning, as has always been the case.

The current focus of disbelief is that this year's drink driving campaign has been abandoned to save a few pennies. The statistics on the reduction in drink driving fatalities are quite impressive - in most circles, it's social unacceptable, and I suspect that's little to do with enforcement - people don't see the breathalyer as a money making tool like they do of the speed camera. If we want to go back to the 1960s with regard to drink driving, then we're going about it the right way.

If I understand correctly, the police are still doing whatever they do about Xmas drink/driving, but there won't be the TV ads. It will be interesting to see what happends to drink/driving rates.

A hit-and-run driver who left a cyclist to die was today in Germany convicted of attempted murder and given 9 years (read it here if your German is up to it). So even in car-mad Germany, the mood may be changing against this sort of driver behavior.
Would the authorities react the same in this country? I doubt it. What leaves me totally depressed is the frequency with which the authorities here pin blame on the victim. Even in the case referred to previously by snibgo, the wheelchair user who was run over is blamed for lack of visibility. For heaven's sake, do disabled people need to wear hi-viz now?

This thread links in with the driver education thread

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=41135

I am convinced that driver education is the key, many drivers deal with a situation by pretending it's not there because they do not know how to deal with it.

MDC wrote:This thread links in with the driver education thread

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=41135

I am convinced that driver education is the key, many drivers deal with a situation by pretending it's not there because they do not know how to deal with it.

Totally agree. But so many of our social problems could be addressed effectively by education. The right sort though, that's difficult when we're largely being 'educated' to be ever more efficient in wealth creation. Other aspects of learning don't get a look in. By the way, anyone seen any government education ad's on TV since the election?

MDC wrote:I am convinced that driver education is the key, many drivers deal with a situation by pretending it's not there because they do not know how to deal with it.

I can't agree that driver education is key. Bad drivers must surely know that if they drove more slowly, left bigger gaps etc. there would be less chance of hurting someone. They just don't choose to drive more carefully. They have been trained already, and passed a test, but then proceed to drive in a fashion which they know would result in a fail.
Of course, the general standard of driving, what you might call the "driving culture" must encourage bad attitudes.
As it happens, I was marked down in a driving test for not making progress, or whatever it's called. I emerged from side road and saw a stop line perhaps twenty yards ahead. I chose not to accelerate up to 30 mph, as I would have to begin braking as soon as I reahed that speed.

An awful lot of 'bad driving' is merely accumulated bad habits, enforced by nothing bad happening. Drivers are aware of the things they do wrong when they think about them. But most of the time they don't. Driving is easy when conditions are good, and quickly becomes boring.

Education and periodic re-testing would address that aspect. It won't address the bad driving of the minority who feel they have a right to do as they please on the roads, or have a prejudice against any group of vulnerable road users.

Mike Sales wrote:

MDC wrote:I am convinced that driver education is the key, many drivers deal with a situation by pretending it's not there because they do not know how to deal with it.

I can't agree that driver education is key. Bad drivers must surely know that if they drove more slowly, left bigger gaps etc. there would be less chance of hurting someone. They just don't choose to drive more carefully.

I don't really understand your logic here. Of course it is necessary to repeat facts and information to get through to those who think they know otherwise. That is the frustrating thing about 'educating' some people - it requires repeating and a few dullards still won't get it. But that does not lessen education's roll in being a corner stone in teaching people the right skills.

It's been said before, but it should start in school; and if it's taught, it needs to be emphasised more. These road skills are social skills, no less, required so that we can all get along in our communities. Bikeability should be compulsory as a part of this process.

CREPELLO wrote:I don't really understand your logic here. Of course it is necessary to repeat facts and information to get through to those who think they know otherwise. That is the frustrating thing about 'educating' some people - it requires repeating and a few dullards still won't get it. But that does not lessen education's role in being a corner stone in teaching people the right skills.

It's been said before, but it should start in school; and if it's taught, it needs to be emphasised more. These road skills are social skills, no less, required so that we can all get along in our communities. Bikeability should be compulsory as a part of this process.

I start from the proposition that many drivers don't drive carefully enough. I assume you agree with this.
My second proposition is that bad drivers could easily take more care if they wanted to. You may disagree. I suggest in evidence that drivers are already trained but very often drive at a lower standard. Also, it is pretty obvious to the most stupid that driving slower and leaving bigger gaps would be safer.
From these I deduce that knowledge of how to drive more safely is not a sufficient condition to produce safe driving. Its not the skill, its the will.

I don't share your optimism about education. If some people think "they know otherwise" I suspect you can try to educate them until you are hoarse, but they will still prefer to drive the way they want. I remember reading that training young drivers on skid pans led to more accidents through skidding.

A few years ago a car advert showed a young woman driving a young man. At the end of the trip he is shaken by the experience and comments that he did not know she was such a good driver! The attitude that good drving is fast driving, and can leave passengers frightened (let alone other road users) is deeply held and deeply wrong.

Are you familiar with the work of John Adams?

It seems to me we have got as far as we are likely to with improving driving through training the best techniques and as has already been suggested, that may in any case be counter-productive if it makes people over-confident.

It seems to me that any significant further improvenets can only come through considering attitudes. Ive no doubt that in a broad sense, people can be trained to have better attitudes, although there is always the question of to what extent they have a Jekyll / Hyde transformation when they are not trying to pass a test. Ultimately, if we were serious about stopping people driving badly, then weeding out the risk-takers and bullies seems to be the only way.