Cycling UK Forum

Diane

I wholly agree with the comments of Reohn2; your original comments were racist and then you followed up by being sexist - and I assume your generalisation about males was an assumption that was not necessarily true as you know little about me. I hope you do not think I’m having a go at you, I’m not, I just dislike the behaviour exhibited in your original posting.

I support the need to have a clearer picture on what causes fatalities and am sure your suggestion of CTC involvement is laudable, but I have some reservations about your suggestions as to the way forward to determine the ‘real cause of accidents‘ involving cyclists. Firstly, I believe the police should be the first to establish causes where a serious accident has occurred and there may be prosecutions - they have access to the required skills and expertise. They will also have the power to interview, and, sadly, in some cases the cyclist will not be able to give evidence. The story of Edie Atkins is truly tragic, but what more could be achieved that the police have not already achieved? If the police are not following up incidents then the CTC should lobby to ensure this is the case and cyclists are not treated any differently to others. Regards your committee, why pre-choose? Why not put the suggestion to the CTC who could then request volunteers? After all, you might get someone like Thirdcrank volunteering who could probably bring much to the party bearing in mind his former occupation. I think it is somewhat premature to be forming a committee on the basis you have suggested; I might also point out that when the CTC seek to do something along these lines there is outcry! I fully understand you motives and you have my heartfelt sympathy for enduring loss of relatives or friends in tragic circumstances, but I’m remain to be convinced the way forward is by forming a committee

Finally, regards press reporting. Like Thirdcrank, I am very familiar with the media, and they will report whatever they believe will sell, as media is all about generating income. Even the BBC rely on viewing figures to justify their existence. I also believe you do an injustice to those involved in media; there are some who are honourable, and they don’t just tell their story and forget about it. Another example of a sweeping statement that does not appear to be true.

The Police are supposed to be neutral administrators of the law.
So if we take private speed readings we will be seen as being opponents of the people we accuse. Therefor any evidence we provide is probably not trustworthy.
The same thing goes for CTC enquiries into cycle crashes. How would we feel about AA investigations into cycle collisions which decided the cyclists were to blame.
Justice is unlikely to be recieved because the burden of proof is to difficult to acheive. If this was not so we could run around accusing every motorist and always getting our way.
Note that when the law makers know themselves to be right they create a new law to lock people up without even a crime being committed.

I do believe that there is a general belief that we all have a right to get behind the wheel of a car and this scares the hell out of me!
Due to my present problems I am not permitted to drive but will be once the medics say I am fit and well again, no need for a test or lessons mentioned. I do intend to get in a car with an instructor once the all clear is given I just have to find the brave soul.

So if we take private speed readings we will be seen as being opponents of the people we accuse. Therefor any evidence we provide is probably not trustworthy.

This is why I would expect the equipment to be tested and calibrated by a police supervised centre.

Yes we would be opponents of the behaviour of the people clocked otherwise why do it?

Also many of us are opponents of car use in general and could manufacture evidence of speeding to get them of the road.
This is unlikely but similar things have happened often enough to make convictions on such evidence unsafe. Criminal prosecutions demand a high level of proof.

meic

One of the worst aspects of our so-called adversarial legal system is that ordinary people who become witnesses, even when they are independent in the everyday use of the word, feel as though they are being treated as liars, especially if they are called by the prosecution, rather than the defence.

There are reasons for this, the most obvious being that such a witness tends to have huge credibility, so the defence must undermine them by any means possible.

Unfortunately, the result is that only a very small proportion of the people with evidence are prepared to 'get involved.' Of those, even fewer would do so again, once they have been messed about by the different parts of the legal system.

Until quite recently, lawyers assumed that a witness who either failed to show up at court or who went back on a statement was either dishonest or had been over-egged by the police. The extent of witness intimidation is now more widely appreciated, I think

Is a witness who goes looking for an offence independant. When the words rape or peidophile are used there is a public clamour to make sure someone is punished for such a horrible crime and in this enthusiasm a lot of innocent people have suffered.
Personally I would love to stand on a corner, a straight or anywhere with a speedcamera and record every speeding motorist and phoning driver for prosecution. I would do it as an unpaid volunteer. I am just trying to think of the reasons why a government with an endemic crime is not willing to utilise an army of eager volunteers whilst making statements about wishing to encourage the voluntary sector.

Meic

I am just trying to think of the reasons why a government with an endemic crime is not willing to utilise an army of eager volunteers whilst making statements about wishing to encourage the voluntary sector.

As T/C has about the Specials,but i personally I think there is a more cynical reason for not wanting catch these people and that is there is no votes in it.It is obvious the public wish to carry on using their mobile phones whilst driving otherwise there wouldn't be so many doing it,similarly with speeding etc.
I've posted on here a couple of times about my free newspaper's "this week in court" page where people are caught driving without Tax,insurance,licence,MOT,the average fine is £250 plus points on a licence that they don't have,these people are not concerned in the least as the punishment doesn't fit the crime.I've therefore come to the conclusion that there is no will to stop people commiting some forms of crime,motoring offences are one of these forms.
The reasons are political,the police are under manned and magistrates hands are tied.
It seems to me first we must catch the offenders ie more police,then make the punishment such that they won't want to do it again ie hefty fine,points on the licence and a very targeted rehabilitation course held on a Saturday and to be paid for by the offender.
If these offenders can't afford to pay fines or costs of courses they could work their passage by comunity services.
But, and its a big but,there has to be a political will to do these things.

There seems to be in this country an attitude of "I'll do as I please"by a growing minority of the public,some label this as freedom,it is nothing of the sort,unfortunately its catching on,fast.
This society is sinking into mayhem and until we have a police force big enough to deal with the problem operaring zero tolerence attitude to crime,backed up by a punishment/rehabilitation
system that makes the criminal think twice before he/she does it again we are stuck with what we've got.
The only way IMO for this to happen is if we have a government that is serious about stopping crime,and that can only happen if the public are serious about stopping crime,up until now the public are only interested in how much it costs ie how much tax they don't have to pay.
At some point there will be to many straws on the camels back,then either the public will wake up and realise there is a premium to be payed or mayhem will prevail.

We have the situation where there have been a number of fatal accidents caused by these men, crashing into private cars on motorways, shoving them into ditches, and killing the occupants. Killing cyclists.

What were the cylists doing on the motorway? Or where the drivers cyclists, having a lapse?

Si wrote:Question is, of course, does one need to be able to read English to drive safely?

Well, in Leeds it helps if you can read English if you are a horse



(Ona more serious note, this road has lamp posts and would normally be subject to a 30 mph limit. Although it looks rural, it is built-up behind the camera position. Leeds City Council highwaymen prefer to keep the limit at 60 mph and build this sort of thing instead. ESOL courses for horses - as opposed to horses for courses - are probably next on the agenda. )

Perhaps reading this may shead some light:-http://www.newstatesman.com/200704230020

Returning to the subject of foregn lorry drivers, a Times article headed 'Half of foreign lorries tested on Britain's roads found to be dangerous.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1701531.ece

I was told by an intelligent lady driver last Saturday, that she was driving her car and caravan to Worcester for a line dancing weekend.

A lorry came out of a side road, hit her broadside on, damaged her car and caravan. She called the police.

A Policewoman came to the scene of the accident, and said that they were not allowed to take any action, unless someone was injured, and it was between the car owner and the lorry insurance. Obviously, she is going to lose a lot of money, as her property will be assessed on the scrap value, and that is what she will get - as happened to me.

The lorry driver said that she was the second one he had hit that day.

And you people argue that these men should not be subject to restrictions on their behaviour, to protect other road users ! What a laugh !

DB

I fear your friend has been the subject of poor police service as well as being on the receiving end of a collision.

It is true that the police have greatly reduced their involvement in road accident investigation and reporting, and even if they do report, the CPS has pretty strict rules on what they will prosecute, but, one of the circumstances that the police will investigate is when there is a specific allegation of an offence - presumably here it was failing to give way.

In fact, police involvement or otherwise does not affect your friend's right to compensation from the other driver. The police investigate, with a view to prosecution of offences. The outcome is punishment if the person is convicted. Compensation for loss is a civil matter, decided by negotiation between insurance companies and a civil hearing in the rare cases when negotiation is unsuccessful. As insurance companies are keen to minimise payouts, the sums for written-off cars tend to be much less than their value to the owner. This is nothing to do with the police or indeed rogue lorry drivers.

(Incidentally, I think your continued comments about men doing this, that or the other do you no credit.)