Near Miss of the Day 122: Driver undertakes while turning right

zero_trooper wrote:

Fifth Gear, I think that you need to carefully re-read the original article and my posts. 

"This is completely contrary to the policy of TVP and Hants who ignore the law and CPS guidelines and merely offer advice."

This incident occurred in Reading and was dealt with by TVP - Thames Valley Police - and not by WMP - West Midlands Police.

The resolution was that the driver attended a Driver Awareness Course, which is certainly not 'merely offer advice'.

Am I missing something? Apart from possibly a sense of humour?

P.S. the link you posted was an excellent story. However, [complete red herring alert] the 'close pass' spokesman PC Hodson is from the Central Motorway Police Group. Cyclists aren't allowed on motorways.....what's that about?

The point I made was that TVP do not take any action other than offering words of advice for close passes, contrary to WMP. In this case there was a collision and TVP dealt with it differently. They dealt with the collision with the same seriousness that WMP deal with close passes.

Fifth Gear wrote:

The point I made was that TVP do not take any action other than offering words of advice for close passes, contrary to WMP. In this case there was a collision and TVP dealt with it differently. They dealt with the collision with the same seriousness that WMP deal with close passes.

That's alot clearer thanks. 

double post

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Hants didn't bother taking any action when a driver pulled out in front of me, resulting in me flying over the bonnet and into another lane of traffic that wouldn't have seen me hurtling through the air. I wasn't seriously injured, but next time I'll insist on an ambulance and police because the driver just pretended it never happened and i didn't exist after admitting at the scene that he saw me but pulled out anyway.

'I wasn't seriously injured' - so I take that you were injured in some way? And your bike damaged? When you reported it (even tho' it was the car driver's responsibility) what happened? There should have been an accident report made and investigated. Did you then get a letter explaining the outcome?

zero_trooper wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Hants didn't bother taking any action when a driver pulled out in front of me, resulting in me flying over the bonnet and into another lane of traffic that wouldn't have seen me hurtling through the air. I wasn't seriously injured, but next time I'll insist on an ambulance and police because the driver just pretended it never happened and i didn't exist after admitting at the scene that he saw me but pulled out anyway.

 

'I wasn't seriously injured' - so I take that you were injured in some way? And your bike damaged? When you reported it (even tho' it was the car driver's responsibility) what happened? There should have been an accident report made and investigated. Did you then get a letter explaining the outcome

I received nothing from the police, even after chasing them. I phoned it in and gave all the details, bloke on the phone didn't seem interested, that's the usual response I've received when reporting a crash.

I have a nice big patch of gravel-rash scar on my shoulder, a little scar on my wrist. I had some bruises and couldn't chew for a couple of days as I'd damaged the muscles on one side of my skull. Bike was scraped components, bent mech hanger, front wheel was a bit not straight, handlebars and shifters needing realigning.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Hants didn't bother taking any action when a driver pulled out in front of me, resulting in me flying over the bonnet and into another lane of traffic that wouldn't have seen me hurtling through the air. I wasn't seriously injured, but next time I'll insist on an ambulance and police because the driver just pretended it never happened and i didn't exist after admitting at the scene that he saw me but pulled out anyway.

My experiences with Hants Police have been worse than TVP for sure. They are absolutely appalling and determined to do nothing towards cycle safety. I reported a driver on one occasion and sent the link to the video. They replied back saying 'no action' despite not having viewed the video, not once. On another occasion they insisted I report the incident to TVP despite the fact it happened in Hants. TVP told me they had notified Hants and when I enquired  they claimed to know nothing about it. The only thing you can do is complain to professional standards and then take it to the IPCC.

zero_trooper wrote:

Firstly, terrible driving. There was so much going on at that junction, don't forget that two bikes were turning right; the driver should have eased off the accelerator and just let things pan out before proceeding. However, as I do have some working knowledge of the Criminal Justice System (retired police officer), if the driver had no previous motoring convictions then it would very difficult to take it to court. As the article states, any more motoring offences in the next three years, SHOULD mean automatic court action. I appreciate that there have been some good points raised about the potential outcome for the rider involved as regards injury, but the CJS rarely works like that. Not saying it's right, but that's how it tends to work. The offence has been investigated and there's been a positive result. Just not as positive as what some people wanted. I don't know what the cyclist/victim thought of that result, or if he was consulted at all.

Careless driving is a prosecutable offence. There is no requirement in law for a driver to have been reported for multiple offences before a prosecution can take place. West Midlands Police and other forces do prosecute drivers successfully for careless driving like close passes caught on cycle cameras but other forces like TVP and Hants don't, so it is a postcode lottery for cyclists in the justice stakes. The driving was obviously below the standard of a careful and competent driver so a prosecution was appropriate. The driving awareness course is better than nothing of course and may well have the desired effect but really that driver should be required to resit the driving test. 

Fifth Gear wrote:

 

Careless driving is a prosecutable offence. There is no requirement in law for a driver to have been reported for multiple offences before a prosecution can take place. West Midlands Police and other forces do prosecute drivers successfully for careless driving like close passes caught on cycle cameras but other forces like TVP and Hants don't, so it is a postcode lottery for cyclists in the justice stakes. The driving was obviously below the standard of a careful and competent driver so a prosecution was appropriate. The driving awareness course is better than nothing of course and may well have the desired effect but really that driver should be required to resit the driving test. 

All careless driving is prosecutable and no I didn't state that multiple previous offences  were required before prosecution;  infact the article implies this driver can take one driver improvement course and that's it, any further motoring offences would lead to prosecution. Which I believe is the general policy on speeding offences as well.

Are you saying that TVP and Hants have a policy of not prosecuting based on cycle camera evidence? If so, that's a really poor policy. Presumably they prosecute motorists based on other video evidence (I don't necessarily mean offences involving cyclists as victims). I think that you are saying that this is an obvious case of careless driving (it is) and that the driver should have been prosecuted.  A driver awareness course is near the bottom rung of the prosecution ladder. Verbal/written warnings below and Fixed Penalty Notices and courts above.

zero_trooper wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

 

Careless driving is a prosecutable offence. There is no requirement in law for a driver to have been reported for multiple offences before a prosecution can take place. West Midlands Police and other forces do prosecute drivers successfully for careless driving like close passes caught on cycle cameras but other forces like TVP and Hants don't, so it is a postcode lottery for cyclists in the justice stakes. The driving was obviously below the standard of a careful and competent driver so a prosecution was appropriate. The driving awareness course is better than nothing of course and may well have the desired effect but really that driver should be required to resit the driving test. 

All careless driving is prosecutable and no I didn't state that multiple previous offences  were required before prosecution;  infact the article implies this driver can take one driver improvement course and that's it, any further motoring offences would lead to prosecution. Which I believe is the general policy on speeding offences as well.

Are you saying that TVP and Hants have a policy of not prosecuting based on cycle camera evidence? If so, that's a really poor policy. Presumably they prosecute motorists based on other video evidence (I don't necessarily mean offences involving cyclists as victims). I think that you are saying that this is an obvious case of careless driving (it is) and that the driver should have been prosecuted.  A driver awareness course is near the bottom rung of the prosecution ladder. Verbal/written warnings below and Fixed Penalty Notices and courts above.

You said "if the driver had no previous motoring convictions then it would very difficult to take it to court." This is simply not correct. WMP and other forces do it without any problem. And if you never prosecute a driver for a first offence they will never have a previous conviction.

It is definitely the case that TVP and Hants have a policy of refusing to prosecute bad driving based on cycle camera evidence unless there is an injury. They may give words of advice or sometimes a written warning for a close pass. If there is a non-injury collision they then consider a driving awareness course. They don't admit it is their policy but it is. Any cyclist who has submitted camera footage to these forces will confirm this and there is no evidence to the contrary that I have ever seen.

A driver awareness course cannot be on the bottom rung of the prosecution ladder because it is not a prosecution although it does cost the driver money and may be effective.

Courts are notorious for handing out very weak sentences to drivers but that is another story.

Fifth Gear wrote:

You said "if the driver had no previous motoring convictions then it would very difficult to take it to court." This is simply not correct. WMP and other forces do it without any problem. And if you never prosecute a driver for a first offence they will never have a previous conviction.

It is definitely the case that TVP and Hants have a policy of refusing to prosecute bad driving based on cycle camera evidence unless there is an injury. They may give words of advice or sometimes a written warning for a close pass. If there is a non-injury collision they then consider a driving awareness course. They don't admit it is their policy but it is. Any cyclist who has submitted camera footage to these forces will confirm this and there is no evidence to the contrary that I have ever seen.

A driver awareness course cannot be on the bottom rung of the prosecution ladder because it is not a prosecution although it does cost the driver money and may be effective.

Courts are notorious for handing out very weak sentences to drivers but that is another story.

You said "if the driver had no previous motoring convictions then it would very difficult to take it to court." This is simply not correct. WMP and other forces do it without any problem. And if you never prosecute a driver for a first offence they will never have a previous conviction.

Depends on your definition of 'motoring convictions' - in this case here the driver now has a 'driver awareness course' on their driving record for the next three years. It's not a criminal conviction (which would be recorded for life), or points on a licence (3yrs?).

Maybe the problem is 'prosecution'? Perhaps 'resolution' would be a better word, as most people seem to associate prosecution with going to court and that doesn't really happen very often in the big scheme of things. Are you saying that WMP and other forces are prosecuting drivers to court, when they have no prior motoring convictions. What for? Close passes i.e. careless/dangerous driving?

It is definitely the case that TVP and Hants have a policy of refusing to prosecute bad driving based on cycle camera evidence unless there is an injury. They may give words of advice or sometimes a written warning for a close pass. If there is a non-injury collision they then consider a driving awareness course. They don't admit it is their policy but it is. Any cyclist who has submitted camera footage to these forces will confirm this and there is no evidence to the contrary that I have ever seen.

So the incident above was in Reading, which comes under TVP. If they have a policy on cycle camera evidence which ranges from 'words of advice or sometimes a written warning' to '(for) a non-injury collision they then consider a driving awareness course' then this incident is at the top of their policy range and the driver has been appropriately dealt with. In their opinion. Not a prosecution, but a resolution. Presumably for an injury collision they would consider prosecution to court.

A driver awareness course cannot be on the bottom rung of the prosecution ladder because it is not a prosecution although it does cost the driver money and may be effective.

Now come on Fifth Gear, you are misquoting me again. What I said was was that 'a driver awareness course is near the bottom rung of the prosecution ladder. Verbal/written warnings below and Fixed Penalty Notices and courts above.' Perhaps substituting 'prosecution' for 'resolution' would make it more palatable.

Courts are notorious for handing out very weak sentences to drivers but that is another story.

Back of the net with that observation. Another story, or another battle?

zero_trooper wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Maybe the problem is 'prosecution'? Perhaps 'resolution' would be a better word, as most people seem to associate prosecution with going to court and that doesn't really happen very often in the big scheme of things. Are you saying that WMP and other forces are prosecuting drivers to court, when they have no prior motoring convictions. What for? Close passes i.e. careless/dangerous driving?

I knew WMP had stated they were prosecuting drivers for close passes caught on cycle cameras. In this article it shows this includes the offer of a driver awareness course:

"But in addition to running regular operations the force has also prosecuted more than 300 offenders using helmet- and dash-cam footage provided by members of the public.

PC Mark Hodson from the Central Motorway Police Group (CMPG) said: “Most offenders watch the footage, accept their driving was below par, and elect for a driver improvement course or an offer of three licence points and £100."

So they don't need to go to court as drivers normally accept a fixed penalty and points or a course. If the driver refuses then they are taken to court. This is completely contrary to the policy of TVP and Hants who ignore the law and CPS guidelines and merely offer advice.

West Midlands Police has seen reports of close-passes halve since the scheme was introduced so it appears that the "prosecution" policy works. Certainly most camera cyclists give up reporting to TVP and Hants because it is usually a waste of their time. Meanwhile the close passes continue unabated.

The problem with words of advice from TVP is that most officers are motorists who see things almost entirely from the motorists' perspective so their words of advice can actually be counter-productive for the cyclist as the officer will often agree with the anti-cyclist excuses provided by the motorist. These close pass drivers should be dealt with according to WMP best practice.

https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/news/3155/heavy-fine-trucker-who-com...

brooksby wrote:

Anecdata alert.

I've not been hit (not so's you'd notice), but had similar terrible undertaking.

 

Here (Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol - 'the Triangle', facing the entrance into Berkeley Square):

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4562604,-2.606052,3a,75y,196.26h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3s9pr5U42asTiWW3klBAA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3s9pr5U42asTiWW3klBAA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D190.3035%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The main road curves around to the right, as you can see, or you can go straight ahead and into a square. What you can't see is the road ahead going round is two lanes, although the road at the traffic lights in the foreground is a single lane.

I usually approach these lights wanting to go across to the left lane once round the bend, to go down Jacobs Wells Road. I've had cars overtake me and try to move me over once round the bend (ie. you're only a bike, you can move over closer to the kerb now), and I've had cars undertake me (honestly have no idea where they thought I was going to go), and I've had cars trying to help me get my speed up with a helpful nudge.

If you wait at the lights in the centre/primary you get cars accelerating and seeing how quickly they can run up onto your rear rack.  

If you wait toward the left they assume that you want to go up straight ahead into the square, and overtake you with no room.

If you wait toward the right they assume you want to go tight around and stay in the right hand land once around the bend, so they undertake you.

Apparently, "wait and see what the two wheeled vehicle in front of you does" is not an option.

Discuss  

I've riden that junction many times, and totally confirm everything you say, and it's a nightmare for pedestrians too.  If ever there was a road screaming out for safety treatment, this is it, especially considering the number of local pedestrians and cyclists, what with all the University students.

It's even worse if you go right to go up Whiteladies Road.

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Anecdata alert.

I've not been hit (not so's you'd notice), but had similar terrible undertaking.

 

Here (Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol - 'the Triangle', facing the entrance into Berkeley Square):

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4562604,-2.606052,3a,75y,196.26h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3s9pr5U42asTiWW3klBAA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3s9pr5U42asTiWW3klBAA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D190.3035%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The main road curves around to the right, as you can see, or you can go straight ahead and into a square. What you can't see is the road ahead going round is two lanes, although the road at the traffic lights in the foreground is a single lane.

I usually approach these lights wanting to go across to the left lane once round the bend, to go down Jacobs Wells Road. I've had cars overtake me and try to move me over once round the bend (ie. you're only a bike, you can move over closer to the kerb now), and I've had cars undertake me (honestly have no idea where they thought I was going to go), and I've had cars trying to help me get my speed up with a helpful nudge.

If you wait at the lights in the centre/primary you get cars accelerating and seeing how quickly they can run up onto your rear rack.  

If you wait toward the left they assume that you want to go up straight ahead into the square, and overtake you with no room.

If you wait toward the right they assume you want to go tight around and stay in the right hand land once around the bend, so they undertake you.

Apparently, "wait and see what the two wheeled vehicle in front of you does" is not an option.

Discuss  

I've riden that junction many times, and totally confirm everything you say, and it's a nightmare for pedestrians too.  If ever there was a road screaming out for safety treatment, this is it, especially considering the number of local pedestrians and cyclists, what with all the University students.

It's even worse if you go right to go up Whiteladies Road.

I think the other point of the Triangle did improve a bit when they put new traffic lights in, to pause traffic coming up Jacobs Wells Road onto the Triangle.  Slightly less room for conflict there, although you still "have to have your wits about you" (TM) when you're going round there on a bike.

(Incidentally, the one and only time I've had a collision when driving a car was on that junction, the next point on the Triangle, before they put the traffic lights in.  The driver of a lorry towing a trailer decided he was going to come out from Jacobs Wells Road onto the Triangle and oncoming traffic be damned: I saw this, waited, and misjudged (as did he) how far across his trailer would come - his trailer tore my car's front bumper off, wrecked the front wing too.  Despite that, he only stopped because my passenger leapt out and ran and stopped him.  He denied having hit my car at all, until I pointed out the green paint deposited on his trailer).

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Anecdata alert.

I've not been hit (not so's you'd notice), but had similar terrible undertaking.

 

Here (Queens Road, Clifton, Bristol - 'the Triangle', facing the entrance into Berkeley Square):

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4562604,-2.606052,3a,75y,196.26h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3s9pr5U42asTiWW3klBAA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3s9pr5U42asTiWW3klBAA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D190.3035%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The main road curves around to the right, as you can see, or you can go straight ahead and into a square. What you can't see is the road ahead going round is two lanes, although the road at the traffic lights in the foreground is a single lane.

I usually approach these lights wanting to go across to the left lane once round the bend, to go down Jacobs Wells Road. I've had cars overtake me and try to move me over once round the bend (ie. you're only a bike, you can move over closer to the kerb now), and I've had cars undertake me (honestly have no idea where they thought I was going to go), and I've had cars trying to help me get my speed up with a helpful nudge.

If you wait at the lights in the centre/primary you get cars accelerating and seeing how quickly they can run up onto your rear rack.  

If you wait toward the left they assume that you want to go up straight ahead into the square, and overtake you with no room.

If you wait toward the right they assume you want to go tight around and stay in the right hand land once around the bend, so they undertake you.

Apparently, "wait and see what the two wheeled vehicle in front of you does" is not an option.

Discuss  

I've riden that junction many times, and totally confirm everything you say, and it's a nightmare for pedestrians too.  If ever there was a road screaming out for safety treatment, this is it, especially considering the number of local pedestrians and cyclists, what with all the University students.

It's even worse if you go right to go up Whiteladies Road.

My commute takes me up Park Street then round the Triangle to Whiteladies Road and I agree with all that's been said.  After many under and overtakes I've decided the best course of action is just to ride primary all the way round the Triangle to Whiteladies Road. I've been knocked off where the turning to Whiteladies Road and the big keep clear signs are (where it meets Queens Road). The queuing traffic was stopping and a car coming from Clifton T boned me, driving straight into the side of me. I'm even more cautious there now, but traffic from Clifton often assumes that my slowing to  check that they aren't going to drive into me is me slowing to let them out!

jaysa wrote:

Christ!! Beyond words ...

I'm not sure what's worse - the disrespect and ignorance of the driver or the inappropriate and inadequate response of the police.

We need a change in the law and a move from the default car-based assessment of incidents.

"There was no injury and the only damage was to the [vehicle]" may cut it for incidents between cars but absolutely not for two wheelers and vulnerable road users.

Let's try that again substituting other users and see if it reads acceptably:

"There was no injury and the only damage was to the horse"

"There was no injury and the only damage was to the child walking along"

"There was no injury and the only damage was to the elderly female pedestrian"

A useful thought experiment for the police(wo)man here is to think if they would have acted differently if the rider had been their 8 year old child.

I am absolutely fuming at the way the law, its enforcement and driving lessons and tests do not protect cyclists adequately in this country.

 

those are all false analogies. It doesn't advance the argument if you use fallacies.