Front door cam captures moment driver rear-ended cyclist; Which makes more sense? City cyclists stream past SUV; King G; Celebrity Cycling Champion Chart; Fixie feline; Bike tattoos; ‘Allez Opi-Omi’ debate; BikeisBest ad; New kit + more on the live blog

111 thoughts on “Front door cam captures moment driver rear-ended cyclist; Which makes more sense? City cyclists stream past SUV; King G; Celebrity Cycling Champion Chart; Fixie feline; Bike tattoos; ‘Allez Opi-Omi’ debate; BikeisBest ad; New kit + more on the live blog”

1. Surely that clip is a

   Surely that clip is a distorted comparison though…the SUV (and other motorised traffic) is correctly stationary at the traffic lights.  Yes, bikes in the city are the way forward for a majority of city journeys but a better clip showing the benefits would probably be a line of traffic stuck in a overcrowding jam whilst a parallel cycle lane has bikes streaming by?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • You know that overcrowding

     You know that overcrowding jam will have been caused by the cycle lane and those cars wouldn’t be sitting there if all those cyclists were somewhere else, like,hmmmm, in a car.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’d like a nightmare vision

     I’d like a nightmare vision of the poor SUV bullied off the road into a parallel motor vehicle lane while cyclists stream everywhere else, filling the road and forcing the vehicle to wait, unable to proceed for its own safety, for several minutes. Bonus version would have the driver then getting out and pushing the “crossing” button and rolling the SUV across a special motorist crossing.

     If cycle adverts were brought to you by the teams that do car adverts.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • chrisonatrike wrote:

       I’d like a nightmare vision of the poor SUV bullied off the road into a parallel motor vehicle lane while cyclists stream everywhere else, filling the road and forcing the vehicle to wait, unable to proceed for its own safety, for several minutes. Bonus version would have the driver then getting out and pushing the “crossing” button and rolling the SUV across a special motorist crossing.

       If cycle adverts were brought to you by the teams that do car adverts.

       — chrisonatrike

       Try some of the recent footage from Paris. (OK – maybe not the pushing the SUV over the crossing bit, but otherwise…)

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • mdavidford wrote:

         I’d like a nightmare vision of the poor SUV bullied off the road into a parallel motor vehicle lane while cyclists stream everywhere else, filling the road and forcing the vehicle to wait, unable to proceed for its own safety, for several minutes. Bonus version would have the driver then getting out and pushing the “crossing” button and rolling the SUV across a special motorist crossing.

         If cycle adverts were brought to you by the teams that do car adverts.

         — mdavidford

         Try some of the recent footage from Paris. (OK – maybe not the pushing the SUV over the crossing bit, but otherwise…)

         — chrisonatrike

         According to the #FailingNYTimes it’s anarchy there:

         https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/world/europe/paris-bicyles-france.html

         Although the accompanying video didn’t look like the apocalypse.  Close reading reveals that their count of the death toll is 1 pedestrian (electric scooter) and “several cyclists including a 2 year old” (cars) – and that the issues are chaotic and not-yet-adequate infrastructure (particularly crossings), the fact that Parisians in general are still adapting to the change and the business model of “zero hours” delivery companies.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • chrisonatrike wrote:

       I’d like a nightmare vision of the poor SUV bullied off the road into a parallel motor vehicle lane while cyclists stream everywhere else, filling the road and forcing the vehicle to wait, unable to proceed for its own safety, for several minutes. Bonus version would have the driver then getting out and pushing the “crossing” button and rolling the SUV across a special motorist crossing.

       If cycle adverts were brought to you by the teams that do car adverts.

       — chrisonatrike

       Don’t forget how the poor driver of the SUV might be forced to break the speed limit…

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • bobbinogs wrote:

     Surely that clip is a distorted comparison though…the SUV (and other motorised traffic) is correctly stationary at the traffic lights.  Yes, bikes in the city are the way forward for a majority of city journeys but a better clip showing the benefits would probably be a line of traffic stuck in a overcrowding jam whilst a parallel cycle lane has bikes streaming by?

     — bobbinogs

     Yes, I agree.  You also can’t see bikes going in the same direction as the motor traffic – and they’d be stopped at the lights just out of shot.

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. You would need a crane on a

   You would need a crane on a day trip if you took your own pre-fab building with you for somewhere to make your lunch and dinner in these Covid times.  Also would keep you dry if it rained

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • If you want to take a crane

     If you want to take a crane on a daytrip, though, you use an ultralight aircraft.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Migration

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. Sir,

   Sir,

   I listened with interest to your podcast yesterday, especially that on the subject of cyclists jumping red lights. I was pleased to hear the Road.cc experts agree that (outlier events excepted) it is wrong and gives cyclists collectively a bad name when others engage in this behaviour.

   I was therefore shocked and saddened when my mother shared this Daily Mail article on London cyclists doing just that – mindlessly jumping red lights in the dozens with no thought for other road users. Not only is the behaviour dangerous  in itself, it gives every single cyclist a bad name when the apparent vast majority cannot obey simple traffic laws. It also led to Manchester-based expert traffic lawyer Nick Freeman again reiterating his demands for a registration scheme for cyclists – and to be honest it’s difficult to argue against his logic when confronted with the astonishing scenes of lawlessness in Tower Hamlets.

   It’s imperative that we call out other cyclists who flout traffic laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds. As I don’t see this kind of behaviour around the area I live, I call on any London based cyclist reading this message to join me in this campaign.

   Kind regards, Nigel.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I got close passed by a car

     I got close passed by a car yesterday. I call on all drivers to call out this kind of behaviour. It gives every single driver a bad name. It’s imperative that we call out drivers who flout traffic laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds.

      

     A man from our town, who was born under the Aquarius star sign, was recently convicted of fraud. I call on all people with an Aquarius star sign to call out this kind of behaviour. It gives every singe Aquarius a bad name. It’s imperative that we call out all Aquarius  who flout laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Did you get close passed by

       Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

       That’s the point – everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The worry is that the police are turning a blind eye to this red light jumping and normalising this behaviour, rather like their inaction against the middle class Marxists of Insulate Britain… and when law and order fails, vigilantism prevails.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • No – the lesson from that is

         No – the lesson from that is that there are some areas of life where collective responsibility is deemed acceptable, and some where there isn’t. For some reason, cyclists are collectively repsonsible for the behaviour of complete strangers who happen to be on a bike. For some reason, drivers are not responsible for the behaviour of complete strangers who also happen to be driving a car. And for some reason, I am not responsible for the crimes fo people who might happen to have the same star sign.

          

         If you think that cyclists are such a great danger that they warrant collective repsonsibility, but drivers aren’t, then I have a massive file fo Department for Transport accident statistics for you.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Except drivers who break the

         Except drivers who break the law are not the exception.  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-april-to-june-2021/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-april-to-june-2021 

         “In April to June 2021, 51% of cars in free-flowing conditions exceeded the speed limit on motorways. On National Speed Limit (NSL) single carriageways with a car speed limit of 60mph, 11% of cars exceeded the speed limit, while on 30 mph roads, 53% of cars exceeded the speed limit.”

         The severity of the issue in that Mail article is summed up by the headline.  The rule breaking by these cyclists “irritates” drivers.  Not endangers them, or actually affect them in any way other than “irritates” them.  If the article was framed from the perspective of the pedestrians, I’d have much more sympathy for it.

         I am not, in any way, justifying red light jumping.  I am just baffled why once again you come on to a cycling website apparently for no reason other than to pick an argument with cyclists.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Steve K wrote:

           I am just baffled why once again you come on to a cycling website apparently for no reason other than to pick an argument with cyclists.

           — Steve K

           I’m a cyclist who obeys the law. If I see a red light, I stop. I’m not picking an argument with other cyclists, I’m picking an argument with cyclists who think it’s fair game to cycle straight through red lights. It gives all cyclists a bad name and makes riding a bike more dangerous as it makes a proportion of the general population see cyclists as a law-breaking nuisance who aren’t deserving of respect.

           Your sentence is revealing in itself that you believe I’m “picking an argument with cyclists” by stating these facts, as it suggests that you tacitly agree that red light jumping is normalised and completely acceptable.

         • Do you drive?  Are you going

           Do you drive?  Are you going on to motoring websites asking for all motorists to call out any motorists who break the speed limit?

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           I’m a cyclist who obeys the law. If I see a red light, I stop. I’m not picking an argument with other cyclists, I’m picking an argument with cyclists who think it’s fair game to cycle straight through red lights.

           — Nigel Garrage

           That’s a lie. You’ve seen one video of 16 cyclists on the Daily Mail (specifically chosen by them because it was the worst one they could find) and you have stated that this one video represents the vast majority of cyclists, an assertion for which you have no evidence whatsoever. 

           So again, you’re lying. In truth you are picking an argument with other cyclists, not just cyclists who think it ok to cycle through red lights. You are doing it with weasel words – a classic trolling technique to allow you to knowingly make inflammatory statements while having enough deniability to allow you to continue to claim the moral high ground. You are doing that because you are a rude and anti-social individual who enjoys trying to make complete strangers feel bad.

           What’s that about?

         • Wingguy wrote:

           That’s a lie. You’ve seen one video of 16 cyclists on the Daily Mail (specifically chosen by them because it was the worst one they could find) and you have stated that this one video represents the vast majority of cyclists, an assertion for which you have no evidence whatsoever. 

           So again, you’re lying. In truth you are picking an argument with other cyclists, not just cyclists who think it ok to cycle through red lights. You are doing it with weasel words – a classic trolling technique to allow you to knowingly make inflammatory statements while having enough deniability to allow you to continue to claim the moral high ground. You are doing that because you are a rude and anti-social individual who enjoys trying to make complete strangers feel bad.

           What’s that about?

           — Wingguy

           It’s classic attention seeking behaviour. They have difficulty getting the attention they seek in real life (probably because they’re a bit of an arsehole) and so post rubbish here to at least get some response even if it’s negative – to them it feels like a rewarding discussion.

         • You forgot your pic

            

           You forgot your pic

           

            

         • hirsute wrote:

           You forgot your pic

           — hirsute

           Thanks – I knew I’d left it somewhere

         • I cycle and drive. I stop at

           I cycle and drive. I stop at red lights, whether on bike or in car. Yesterday, I saw a driver go through two set of red lights (there’s a oedestrian crossing at a roundabout, with lights of the crossing, immediately followed by lighs for the roundabout). He actually sped up to go through them. Does that mean that he gives me a bad name as a driver? This isn’t a rare occurrence either. At almost every set of lights I come to, I’ll see drivers speed up to get through on amber, even though they should be slowing to stop.

         • Beatnik69 wrote:

           I cycle and drive. I stop at red lights, whether on bike or in car. Yesterday, I saw a driver go through two set of red lights (there’s a oedestrian crossing at a roundabout, with lights of the crossing, immediately followed by lighs for the roundabout). He actually sped up to go through them. Does that mean that he gives me a bad name as a driver? This isn’t a rare occurrence either. At almost every set of lights I come to, I’ll see drivers speed up to get through on amber, even though they should be slowing to stop.

           — Beatnik69

           Red light jumping is at epidemic proportions… amongst car drivers

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_aDmDAbpA8

         • Out of my bedrom window I can

           Out of my bedrom window I can see a junction with traffic lights and you only have to watch a few sequence of the lights before you see a motor vehicle going through on red. In fact once one goes through a whole string of them will follow.

           Same goes for the local light controlled crossings, you literally have to force your way across the road at times as many drivers will not stop on the red light unless absolutely necessary

           Red light jumping is normalised and completely acceptable for motor vehicles around here in my experience but of course the Daily Mail readers have no interest in these facts.

           I see far more motor vehicles running a red light than I do cyclists when I am out and about – FACT.

         • OK, my challenge to you then

           OK, my challenge to you then is to take a video, post it on YouTube or similar and share it here of similar behaviour by drivers to those cyclists.

           The simple fact is that you won’t see it – you might see people running amber or just-red lights (which is unfortunately normalised amongst motorists), but you wouldn’t see countless hordes of them nonchalantly floating through the junction as though traffic lights don’t exist.

           I do accept that in some areas of the world motorist behaviour does fit the description you’ve given by the way – so if you don’t live in the UK that might explain the difference.

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           The simple fact is that you won’t see it – you might see people running amber or just-red lights (which is unfortunately normalised amongst motorists), but you wouldn’t see countless hordes of them nonchalantly floating through the junction as though traffic lights don’t exist.

           — Nigel Garrage

           Or, to interpret correctly:

           The simple fact is that you won’t see it – you might see it, but you won’t see it.

           The fact is that the offence is failing to comply with traffic signals, and it is just as much a breach for a motorist to roll into the ASL on red as it is to continue through the junction (of which we have all seen motorised examples, of course).

           Of course, when a car does go through the junction on red, it does not ‘float’; it goes through with considerable [mass x velocity].  And there are countless videos on YouTube or similar of cars doing just that.  If you haven’t seen them, you clearly don’t waste your time in enough places other than here.  It’s just that people don’t pay attention to campaigns against that sort of thing, because cars are normal and everywhere, whereas cyclists are just ‘in my way’/’in my newspaper’; so it’s just an idiot who happens to be in a car, not a ‘lycra clad idiot like all cyclists’.

         • There is also a video out

           There is also a video out there which shows just that. It is at a junction near Marleybone station where one car goes through on Red and then multiple other ones just go through before a car about 6-7 back in the flow stops correctly. The lights then go green which shows they were working. 

         • And energy of 1/2 m v2

           And energy of 1/2 m v²

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           OK, my challenge to you then is to take a video, post it on YouTube or similar and share it here of similar behaviour by drivers to those cyclists.

           The simple fact is that you won’t see it – you might see people running amber or just-red lights (which is unfortunately normalised amongst motorists), but you wouldn’t see countless hordes of them nonchalantly floating through the junction as though traffic lights don’t exist.

           — Nigel Garrage

           So Nigel, are you claiming it is only RLJing that concerns you or do all types of illegal, careless and dangerous road use count?

           I ask because I’ve just finished a (planned) 4 hour motorway journey and when traffic was freely moving I don’t think there was a single second I couldn’t see at least one person driving poorly or illegally. Speeding, lane hogging, undertaking, forcing lane changes, lane changes without indication and (my personal favourite because it has such major consequences) rampant tailgating. Serious, continuous, high speed tailgating absolutely everywhere. For that reason alone I think there was more time that every single person I could see was driving badly than when a minority of people were. 

           And keep in mind those are just visible instances – I have no idea how many drivers were distracted by phones, setting GPSs, playing with MFDs or plain watching TV, just like I have no idea how many were driving with cars and tyres in an illegally poor condition. So when you say that bad drivers are the exception I just have to laugh. I don’t know what country you live in where that is the case but it is not the UK.

           I say a planned 4 hour journey, it ended up being a 5 1/2 hour journey due to the M6 being completely closed  (probably until late tonight) and tailed back for miles because of a car crash with serious injuries. Do you think that just randomly happened, or was it a direct consequence of the widespread bad driving I just talked about? Talking of consequences, aside from the human cost what is the economic cost of a major motorway shutdown? What is the impact on an HGV supply chain we know is currently stretched to breaking point? How does the human and financial cost of every single cyclist RLJ for an entire year stack up against this one single vehicle crash out of the many that happen every single day?

         • If you want to persist in
           If you want to persist in this Sisyphus method at least spare the rest of us from using quote.

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           I’m not picking an argument with other cyclists, I’m picking an argument with cyclists who think it’s fair game to cycle straight through red lights.

           — Nigel Garrage

           I think you’re in the wrong place then. I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights. Perhaps you should visit the forum at lawbreakingcyclists.cc to continue your trolling.

         • GrandTourer wrote:

           I think you’re in the wrong place then. I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights. Perhaps you should visit the forum at lawbreakingcyclists.cc to continue your trolling.

           — GrandTourer

           I think you haven’t been paying attention then. Plenty of people here not only condone jumping red lights but actively encourage it of others. But I’m glad the majority are with me.

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           Plenty of people here not only condone jumping red lights but actively encourage it of others.

           — Nigel Garrage

           Have you got any examples? I’ve seen comments suggesting that it is less dangerous to other road users than a car jumping a red light but that is a long way short of condoning, let alone encouraging, such behaviour.

            

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           I think you’re in the wrong place then. I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights. Perhaps you should visit the forum at lawbreakingcyclists.cc to continue your trolling.

           — Nigel Garrage

           I think you haven’t been paying attention then. Plenty of people here not only condone jumping red lights but actively encourage it of others. But I’m glad the majority are with me.

           — GrandTourer

           What about red lights, working on a sensor rather than a timer, which do not react to the presence of cyclists.

           should cyclists

           a) treat the red light as give way and proceed with caution

           b) wait for however long it takes for a responsible motorist to see them safely across the junction

           c) turn around and find another route?

         • wycombewheeler wrote:

           What about red lights, working on a sensor rather than a timer, which do not react to the presence of cyclists.

           should cyclists

           a) treat the red light as give way and proceed with caution

           b) wait for however long it takes for a responsible motorist to see them safely across the junction

           c) turn around and find another route?

           — wycombewheeler

           The modern standard for traffic lights is that they should respond to all vehicles, including cyclists. Find out how to report faulty signals to the local highways authority (sometimes this is delegated or outsourced to a separate traffic control organisation), and report it if you find yourself hung out to dry in a junction with sensor-based phases.  Do that repeatedly if the problem repeats.  Encourage others to do the same, and escalate via your local councillors.

           In the meantime,

           d) once you have established, through your knowledge of the phasing of those signals that they have failed to sense you, you might consider them not to be “working”.  In that case, you might choose to invoke the last sentence of rule 176 of the Highway Code.  However, while you might have a legal defence, the civil liability would remain with you to give way at least as much as you would with an unmarked junction, especially as you will be aware that other directions will have green signals.

           The definition of ‘not working’ may be contentious.  Stuck on red:  the lamp is working, but the traffic management is not.  when reporting the fault, I’d be sure to express your intention to interpret subsequent failed/undetected phases as ‘not working’ for your understanding of rule 176.

           You might get some guff back from them about riding over the ‘sweet spot’ of where induction loop wires meet.  I’d reject that back to them: it is not you job on a bike to weave around trying to find where their system works.  If it doesn’t work they should fix it: that might be a retune of the loop system; it may be some works to replace components… neither is your problem.

         • I suppose with 6 posts you
           I suppose with 6 posts you haven’t read very much on here then.
           Even the mod John Stevenson is happy to ignore red lights for road and rail.

         • hirsute wrote:

           I suppose with 6 posts you haven’t read very much on here then. Even the mod John Stevenson is happy to ignore red lights for road and rail.

           — hirsute

           Risking prolonging an unprofitable argument since there are some topics that some people just wanna vent (or provoke) on. However typically motorists and cyclists jump red lights in different ways and for different reasons which means different “risk” profiles. There’s also a handy “road offence equivalent converter” (US version) for cars and bikes.

         • Different argument though.
           Different argument though. The premise was “. I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights.”
           Which is not true.
           Let’s be consistent even if it is uncomfortable sometimes.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Different argument though. The premise was “. I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights.”
           Which is not true.
           Let’s be consistent even if it is uncomfortable sometimes.

           — hirsute

           Which part of my statement was not true? I even asked for examples because clearly I haven’t been here long enough to see those views.

         • I already gave the example of
           I already gave the example of John Stevenson.
           There is no search facility of much use and you can’t view people’s posts as in other forums so I can’t give you chapter and verse.
           The gist of it was it is ok to ignore red lights at level crossings if it only takes 3 seconds to get across by bike.

         • To be fair, even if we could

           To be fair, even if we could find all the examples, I think it would still only amount to a few commenters, and not the ‘plenty of people’ that Nigel claimed. So he’s still wrongerer than GrandTourer.

         • I have no idea what Nigel
           I have no idea what Nigel writes so I am only responding to the claim of ‘not a single…’.

         • Exactly the point I was going

           Exactly the point I was going to make. It’s a classic msm distraction technique. Drivers need to take more responsibility for both Road Safety and Climate Change.

         • IanMK wrote:

           Exactly the point I was going to make. It’s a classic msm distraction technique. Drivers need to take more responsibility for both Road Safety and Climate Change.

           — IanMK

           Climate change? Are you one of those middle class Marxists I’ve heard so much about?

       • Nigel Garrage wrote:

         Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

         That’s the point – everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The worry is that the police are turning a blind eye to this red light jumping and normalising this behaviour, rather like their inaction against the middle class Marxists of Insulate Britain… and when law and order fails, vigilantism prevails.

         — Nigel Garrage

         7/10. Lose points for passive voice (try using “I saw 16 cyclists in a row jump a red light – and one nearly killed me”). Good use of tabloid “everyone knows…” and high moral tone and bonus points for the red scare.

         I’ll just leave this couple (rules, responsibility) here again. I’m only replying because I don’t want all those other commentators on forums giving me a bad name. As an individualist I’ll do that for myself thankyou.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel Garrage wrote:

         Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

         That’s the point – everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The worry is that the police are turning a blind eye to this red light jumping and normalising this behaviour, rather like their inaction against the middle class Marxists of Insulate Britain… and when law and order fails, vigilantism prevails.

         — Nigel Garrage

         If you think it’s only a minority of drivers that break the rules, think again. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit, yet over half of drivers do in pretty much all situations (and as many as 89% do in 20mph areas). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/speeds-statistics

         I think that’s a far better case of illegal and dangerous behaviour being normalised by society. 

         According to this article, over 2.6 million drivers had points on their licence in 2019 https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6809881/Find-drivers-postcode-penalty-points-licence.html – that’s about one in twenty licence holders (and there are plenty of licence holders who rarely or never drive). And that’s just the number of drivers who have been caught and prosecuted for bad driving, within the past few years. Given how unlikely you are to get caught, let alone actually prosecuted rather than given a warning or awareness course, it’s a huge underestimate of how prevalent bad driving is. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel Garrage wrote:

         Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

         — Nigel Garrage

         Relatively common in my experience. Maybe only one or two among them would be close enough to warrant a NMoTD or submitting footage to the police, but even the average driver tends to pass closer than necessary or advisable. If anything, it’s the driver who gives sufficient room that is the exception.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Stop hiding behing mummy’s

     Stop hiding behing mummy’s skirts like that Nigel, if you read the Daily Mail at least own up to it.

     The behaviour in that video is extremely poor and not something I would do myself, ever, However, I don’t see any cyclist there putting anyone in danger, unlike the 50% of motorists who ignore 30mph limits and the  82% who ignore 20mph limits. I presume you will be running a parallel campaign to call out other drivers “who flout traffic laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds” and are responsible for the vast majority of fatalities and serious injuries on the road, even if they are driving “humanity’s greatest invention.”

     “Again reiterating” is a tautology, by the way.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Rendel Harris wrote:

       The behaviour in that video is extremely poor and not something I would do myself, ever, However, I don’t see any cyclist there putting anyone in danger, unlike the 50% of motorists who ignore 30mph limits and the  82% who ignore 20mph limits.

       — Rendel Harris

       People (myself included) do complain about these things. If you have a young child, for example, you’d know that one of the most frequently complained about things is parking and driving around school premises, blocking drives, pavements, driving too fast or inappropriately and ignorant behaviour generally.

       So this condemnation isn’t limited to cyclists, but this is a cycling website so I’m hardly going to start discussing bugbears about driving… and I must say there is a real victim mentality that permeates this comments section. We aren’t persecuted any more than others in society.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel Garrage wrote:

          

         So this condemnation isn’t limited to cyclists,

         — Nigel Garrage

         I am not responsible for what other cyclists do … there is no collective responsibility here. 

         We aren’t persecuted any more than others in society.

         Even allowing for that statement to be 100% correct, which I am not convinced of, cyclists are objectively less protected by the law, and those who enforce it, than drivers. 

         I consider the four drivers who changed lane to go past me (I was in my car) ans proceed through a red light this very morning to be considerably more of a threat to other road users than cyclist doing the same thing … whether 1, 6 or 16 of them. 

         Priorities. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel Garrage wrote:

         So this condemnation isn’t limited to cyclists, but this is a cycling website so I’m hardly going to start discussing bugbears about driving… and I must say there is a real victim mentality that permeates this comments section. We aren’t persecuted any more than others in society.

         — Nigel Garrage

         You are lying and weaselling. You absoutely cannot be seriously claiming that the reason you are not complaining about drivers is simply because this is a cycling website when you JUST SAID that the vast majority of cyclists are bad cyclists and the vast majority of drivers are good drivers.

         “That’s the point – everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule.”

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Just ignore. There is no
           Just ignore. There is no value in engaging other than to the poster himself. Look at it this way: he’s not going to convince anyone on here of his ridiculous arguments. He may do so on other forums but here people understand that he’s a serial offender in talking nonsense. You won’t get him to admit he’s wrong and he will shift goalposts to suit himself. Leave him to it and move on.

       • Nigel Garrage wrote:

         So this condemnation isn’t limited to cyclists, but this is a cycling website so I’m hardly going to start discussing bugbears about driving… and I must say there is a real victim mentality that permeates this comments section. We aren’t persecuted any more than others in society.

         — Nigel Garrage

         Context Nigel.

         From my perspective as a ‘lyrca clad lout’, ‘bradley wiggins wannabe’ who ‘treats  his local roads as I’m cycling in the tour de france’ I would say I’m quite villified. It’s anecdotal of course, but I’ve been knocked off my bike twice, get shouted at by drivers reguarly and hardly a ride goes by where I don’t get close passed. Stasticially of course there is that little matter of the 16,000 cycling casualties in the UK per year, but.. meh. I guess I should be thankful we’re not the Peoples Front of Judea, no one likes those splitters.. or Nazis, people hate Nazis although to be fair neither of them seem to get as much press recently as cyclsits do.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • So do you reckon his mum sent

       So do you reckon his mum sent him this because he has been claiming he is being bullied and she is trying to help him out? Or because she hates all cyclists and was using it to smear her son with the same brush? Seems a weird link to send to her son otherwise. 

       Shame no one could find that link for when the 10 or so cars all lemming though the red lights on the Regents Park loop. I did some quick searches and couldn’t find it either. I suppose I could have shown my video from the other day where a Mercedes driver came from behind the van that was stopping for the red. The car sailed down the left turn only lane, weaved back in front of the van, around me who was turning right, in front of the car behind me who was also turning right and carried on straight just beating the cars who were now on green. Just because it was a mercedes doesn’t mean I think….ah, I think my argument falls down there.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Nigel Garrage wrote:

     Sir,

     I listened with interest to your podcast yesterday, especially that on the subject of cyclists jumping red lights. I was pleased to hear the Road.cc experts agree that (outlier events excepted) it is wrong and gives cyclists collectively a bad name when others engage in this behaviour.

     I was therefore shocked and saddened when my mother shared this Daily Mail article on London cyclists doing just that – mindlessly jumping red lights in the dozens with no thought for other road users. Not only is the behaviour dangerous  in itself, it gives every single cyclist a bad name when the apparent vast majority cannot obey simple traffic laws. It also led to Manchester-based expert traffic lawyer Nick Freeman again reiterating his demands for a registration scheme for cyclists – and to be honest it’s difficult to argue against his logic when confronted with the astonishing scenes of lawlessness in Tower Hamlets.

     It’s imperative that we call out other cyclists who flout traffic laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds. As I don’t see this kind of behaviour around the area I live, I call on any London based cyclist reading this message to join me in this campaign.

     Kind regards, Nigel.

     — Nigel Garrage

     Bingo,

     Collective responsibility for cyclists

     Nick Freeman promoted again.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • wycombewheeler wrote:

       Bingo,

       Collective responsibility for cyclists

       Nick Freeman promoted again.

       — wycombewheeler

       Not quite – it’s inexplicably missing any mention of being polite and courteous.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • But Nigel got the response he

       But Nigel got the response he wanted. Best ignored.

       I am tired of the made up stories. Nice slant on the traditional….. ‘I have friend who’ by pretending his Mother was involved.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Sniffer wrote:

         But Nigel got the response he wanted. Best ignored.

         — Sniffer

         You’re right, of course.  Apologies.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • No need to apologise. There

           No need to apologise. There is always a temptation to point out the gaping holes in his argument.

         • Sniffer wrote:

           No need to apologise. There is always a temptation to point out the gaping holes in his argument.

           — Sniffer

           But pointless as he is only putting them up to get a response, which is why I don’t respond; if only everyone did the same.

       • Sniffer wrote:

         But Nigel got the response he wanted. Best ignored.

         I am tired of the made up stories. Nice slant on the traditional….. ‘I have friend who’ by pretending his Mother was involved.

         — Sniffer

         Well none of my friends (yeah I know, I don’t have any) read the Daily Mail, but my mum does, quite religiously. Hence why she shared it with me.

         Btw you should go to bed. You seem to be tired all the time.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • I see way more pedestrians

     I see way more pedestrians cross against the lights than bikes (I’m in Australia). I think the angst against bikes comes from that must get in front mentality that so many car drivers have against all other road users and it just grinds them so bad that another vehicle is getting an advantage over them

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Nigel,

     Nigel,

     We can all agree that failing to comply with traffic signals that have had to be implemented to control motor vehicles is both illegal and allows others to draw false stereotypes of a particular user group as a whole.

     Whether it is additionally dangerous depends on the circumstances. We do know that it is not representative of cycling as a whole, and that rule-breaking is repeatedly demonstrated to be equivalent or greater in motor vehicle user groups.

     As far as Mancunian ticket chasers are concerned, the best thing is to avoid referring to their antics, which are invariably targeted at raising their profile to an elite that wants to avoid prosecution for… dangerous, illegal behaviour in 2-tonne motor vehicles.  It is not hard to argue with his logic, because it is based on an  illogical or fabricated nexus, including premises that these behaviours are representative, primary contributors to risks on the road, and that their solutions are in any way effective or reasonable.

     You may wish to call out, in the moment, individual actions by errant cyclists, just as you might call out the actions of errant motorists – always noting that it is usually better to avoid confrontation.  However, to mount a campaign would distract from the real dangers of errant motorists (whose general failure to drive considerately has led to the traffic signals in the first place).

     All in all, the best campaign you could mount is to stop reading – and encourage others to stop reading – the “news”paper whose article you linked. It is a hateful rag with a long history of delight in coalescing its readership around itself by othering identifiable minority groups.  The article in question is held up as an implicitly representative example of law-breaking.  It isn’t.

     Kind regards, Sir.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Somehow, a ‘like’ just seems

       Somehow, a ‘like’ just seems thoroughly inadequate.

       

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Fundamental Attribution Error

     Fundamental Attribution Error.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • There’s a good general hit

       There’s a good general hit list of error which disposes of most of the forum chat. Doesn’t seem to have anything about squirrels though?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • chrisonatrike wrote:

         There’s a good general hit list of error which disposes of most of the forum chat. Doesn’t seem to have anything about squirrels though?

         — chrisonatrike

         Appeal to nature?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Got it in a nutshell!
            

           Got it in a nutshell!

            

   • Nigel Garrage wrote:

     I was therefore shocked and saddened when my mother shared this Daily Mail article.

     — Nigel Garrage

     It’s very seldom I agree with anything you say, but I too would have been shocked, saddened and frankly round at my mother’s house to remonstrate about that kind of behaviour.

     Mum, by all means share from Majesty magazine, or encourage me to get an over 50s plan from Parky, but don’t ever, ever, share from that rag.

     She won’t of course, as she doesn’t read the papers online and wouldn’t touch that soft porn hypocrisy site with a digital bargepole.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. I missed this one from a

   I missed this one from a couple of days ago:

   https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/13/council-mocked-for-ridiculously-short-cycle-lane-insists-its-not-a-cycle-lane-15412486/

   was it discussed already?

   It seems to be another one of those junctions where the Roundabout is ignored.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • IanMK wrote:

     I missed this one from a couple of days ago:

     https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/13/council-mocked-for-ridiculously-short-cycle-lane-insists-its-not-a-cycle-lane-15412486/

     was it discussed already?

     It seems to be another one of those junctions where the Roundabout is ignored.

     — IanMK

     The picture caption annoys me.  No, the cyclist is not “confused by the markings” – they are riding sensibly, taking primary position to avoid a dangerous overtake on a roundabout.  A dangerous maneouvre that the cycle lane could encourage.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I suspect that the cycle lane

       I suspect that the cycle lane was put in place to attempt to slow cars down rather than for cyclists to actually use. If you look that head on photo of the red car, based on tyre marks it look like a lot of cars do not go to the left of the roundabout suggesting they are taking it at speed.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • “…many wondering whether

     “…many wondering whether they had been saddled with Britain’s – and possibly the world’s – smallest cycle lane.”

     Er, no – sadly, not even close.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I might join it turning left

     I might join it turning left but I would never join at the beginning.

     Another suicide strip.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • “Nottinghamshire County

     “Nottinghamshire County Council insisting that the Stapleford instalment is ‘not a cycle lane but new road markings’.”

     I agree. Anything just marked with paint and/or coloured tarmac is NOT a cycle lane or cycling infrastructure, it’s just road markings.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I posted this in reply to the

     I posted this in reply to the article:

     “Nottinghamshire County Council insisting that the Stapleford instalment is ‘not a cycle lane but new road markings’.”

      

     The council are correct – anything marked with paint or coloured tarmac but not physically separate from cars is NOT a bike lane or cycling infrastructure, it’s just road markings.

      

     At best these road markings achieve nothing, at worst they make the roads more dangerous.

     In this case, as the third pic shows they make the road MORE dangerous. Drivers rarely stop behind the give way lines, so encouraging cyclists to cycle close to them is a bad idea. At a junction cyclists should move out into the middle of a lane (taking “primary position”), these road markings discourage cyclists from doing so and and cyclist not in the dangerous lane with annoy drivers who think there’s a cycle lane that they should be in.

      

     ” advisory lanes increased injury odds by 34%. Junctions were found to increase injury odds threefold”

     They’ve taken an already dangerous junction and made it MORE dangerous.

     Threefold, plus 34% means that junction is now 4 times more dangerous than the road leading up to it.

      

     https://findingspress.org/article/18226-cycling-injury-risk-in-london-impacts-of-road-characteristics-and-infrastructure

     Log In or Register to post comments

5. Re. the rear-ender – looks to

   Re. the rear-ender – looks to me like a case of not looking further than 3 foot down the road – the driver has thought “Great – I’m through the pinch point, so I can overtake this bike that’s held me up for all of 0.034s”, then spotted the oncoming car, panicked, and tried to swing back in to avoid it. I’m not sure it’s clear that it’s them hooting – could be the oncoming driver going “What the hell are you trying to do??”.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • The road pinch points was not

     The road pinch points was not the issue, incident occurred after the pinch point. It actually looks like Gethins friend actually looks behind and remonstrates about how close the driver is(def a WTF shouted) and then the toot / hit happens. Why was that not careless driving charges?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

       The road pinch points was not the issue, incident occurred after the pinch point. It actually looks like Gethins friend actually looks behind and remonstrates about how close the driver is(def a WTF shouted) and then the toot / hit happens. Why was that not careless driving charges?

       — AlsoSomniloquism

       I’d be going for a dangerous driving charge.  I would argue that deliberately driving your car into the back of a vulnerable road user meets the threshold of driving far below the standard expected of a competent driver and presented clear danger of injury to the cyclist.

       That said, pinch-points and give-way chicanes etc are generally detrimental to safety, and increase noise and emissions.  

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • So, I dont really agree with

       So, I dont really agree with Gethin over the road design, but he is very reluctant to ride on the roads at all and will go out of his way to use “cycling infrastructure” whereas i’m entitled to use the roads, and will not be intimidated off them.

       but thats by the by

       Yes, the intention of the driver is to pass through the pinch point I then turn, and paraphrasing ‘ WTF, you’re going to run into me’

       the police were informed by him that there was an ‘altercation’ prior to the crash, which to me implys intent. so i cant see how they let him off

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Have you claimed off the

         Have you claimed off the drivers insurance for damages. 

         If you can I would take it further then with the Police complaint. After all you have a front facing camera on which would have recorded any previous altercation, but even if there was, as you say it then becomes assault, not a minor driving offence. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Matthew Boswell wrote:

         the police were informed by him that there was an ‘altercation’ prior to the crash, which to me implys intent. so i cant see how they let him off

         — Matthew Boswell

         should not be considered as mitigation. The only possible defence against assault would be didn’t see, which given the position of the bike in front of the car suggests a level of attention reaching dangerous rather than careless.

         The fact the driver has admitted he knew the cyclist was ahead, proves the impact was deliberate and strong action needs to be taken. If I whack someone with a cricket bat following an altercation, will the police let me off because someone said bad words to me?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Does it read that I think it
           Does it read that I think it is mitigating?

           I completely agree

           By “implies intent” what I’m saying is he has looked at the situation, fully aware of my presence (no SMIDSY here) and the fact I’m unhappy with his prior actions. Then deliberately run into me, using his vehicle as a weapon.

         • Matthew Boswell wrote:

           Does it read that I think it is mitigating? I completely agree By “implies intent” what I’m saying is he has looked at the situation, fully aware of my presence (no SMIDSY here) and the fact I’m unhappy with his prior actions. Then deliberately run into me, using his vehicle as a weapon.

           — Matthew Boswell

           No, you were quite clear, but given the lack of prosecution, it seems the police  may have felt the cyclists is culpablke for provoking.

     • I wasn’t suggesting that it

       I wasn’t suggesting that it was a pass through the pinch point – rather that they weren’t able to pass through the pinch point, so then snatched at the first opportunity to do so as soon as it widened up again without looking to see if there was space to do so. I find stupid close and/or into oncoming traffic passes are particularly common on those stretches immediately following pinch points, presumably because they’ve enhanced the driver’s perception of being ‘held up’.

       We now have from the horse’s mouth, though, that apparently we were both wrong, and it was through the pinch point. To which the only reasonable response seems to be the same as his – WTF?!?

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Here’s what happened:

     Here’s what happened:

     • There was an impatient driver behind the cyclist who was probably following closely. Possibly had been following for quite a while before the video was edited, hard to tell – could be solved by posting a longer clip from the cyclist’s video camera.
     • Cyclist shouted the gendered abuse “fuck off twat”.
     • Car driver got angry and knocked him off his bike.

     Driver is guilty, but that, in a nutshell, is why I don’t shout gendered insults as I cycle along.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Nigel Garrage wrote:

       • There was an impatient driver behind the cyclist who was probably following closely. Possibly had been following for quite a while before the video was edited, hard to tell

       — Nigel Garrage

       Hard to tell, and irrelevant. It’s not a reason to ram somebody off their bike. Nor is it a valid response to any kind of comment, whether or not they could hear.  The driver was not simply impatient.  Impatience might lead to a sigh of frustration, a tut, if you will. This was blatent aggression and a failure to separate emotion from the one job that driver had at that time.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • GMBasix wrote:

         Hard to tell, and irrelevant. It’s not a reason to ram somebody off their bike. Nor is it a valid response to any kind of comment, whether or not they could hear.  The driver was not simply impatient.  Impatience might lead to a sigh of frustration, a tut, if you will. This was blatent aggression and a failure to separate emotion from the one job that driver had at that time.

         — GMBasix

         Spot on, but even when I cyclist is literally rammed by a car, Nigel has to find a way to find fault with the cyclist.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • However his take does answer

         However his take does answer some things about our Boo.
         I mean you can quite clearly hear the cyclist go “What the Fuck” as driver is literally brushing his back wheel. (easy to sync up the times between the two to show that was almost the frame he entered the other video at) but as our Boo definitely gets the insult thrown at him lots of times in his life, that is what he heard. It was probably how his mum ended the message to him where she linked the DM video of digusting cyclists. 
         I would point out the Van in both videos pretty much disputes the “following for quite awhile narrative” but we all know Nige only sees what he wants to see. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • The cyclist quite clearly

       The cyclist quite clearly shouted “what the fuck?” New low in lying victim blaming even for an expert such as yourself.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • NO!

       NO!

       The guy who hit me wasnt even close to the flatbed, let alone being held up by me. its a 20mph zone, had it not been for the roaring headwind. i’d have been comfotabley doing above that (checked strava, was doing ~18).

       I actually said “what the fuck” as I couldn’t comprehend someone thinking of making such a ridiculous manoeuvre, i wasn’t actually abusing him.

       Even after the crash, (in my high piched squeally voice after the wind is knocked out of me ) it’s disbelief at what has happened more than anything else 

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Thanks for coming on here and

         Thanks for coming on here and posting, Matthew.  I hope you’re ok after this horrible incident.  And ignore Nigel’s sanctimonious rubbish.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Ignore Boo, he is called a

         Ignore Boo, he is called a twat so often by people in his life that he automatically hears it when trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. He was trying to “score points” on other posters on here using your misfortune. He should offer a grovelling apology to you but based on his reponses to other people who have proved him wrong I doubt you will get one. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel is the resident Wind Up

         Nigel (booboojmooj/tt danger/youareallcyberbullies) is the resident Wind Up Merchant and did promise to leave the site and never return. Although they did manage a 2 week ban.

         It is a waste of time taking any notice of their comments as his MO is to blame the cyclist regardless.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • As others have said, Nigel

         As others have said, Nigel comes on here to be wrong, usually by several orders of magnitude (although he doesn’t know what this actually means). It would have far more disturbing had he supported you.

         Thank you for your positive contributions and may you always have a tailwind. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Matthew Boswell wrote:

         NO!

         The guy who hit me wasnt even close to the flatbed, let alone being held up by me. its a 20mph zone, had it not been for the roaring headwind. i’d have been comfotabley doing above that (checked strava, was doing ~18).

         I actually said “what the fuck” as I couldn’t comprehend someone thinking of making such a ridiculous manoeuvre, i wasn’t actually abusing him.

         Even after the crash, (in my high piched squeally voice after the wind is knocked out of me ) it’s disbelief at what has happened more than anything else 

         — Matthew Boswell

         Hi and thanks for that explanation of what you said – apologies, I’m so used to that kind of thing being said by people on the “Near Miss of the Day” feature that I must simply have misheard – it’s quite easy to think that was said if you listen back to the recording.

         To be clear, I stated in my first post that I hold the driver culpable, and don’t consider you at fault for what happened. However, it’s useful to understand what can trigger angry drivers.

         Regarding the altercation you mentioned in a different post, do you have any extra footage you could upload? Would be good to get what happened in context. It seems odd that something could have happened like that if he was a long way behind the other vehicle.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Nigel Garrage wrote:

           To be clear, I stated in my first post that I hold the driver culpable, and don’t consider you at fault for what happened. However, it’s useful to understand what can trigger angry drivers.

           — Nigel Garrage

           On the contrary: It is actually quite useless to speculate about this or to think that a cyclist could have any influence over someone who behaves irrationally in this manner.

         • A point for neck-winding-in

           A point for neck-winding-in and (possibly) acknowledging one’s own biases. Your story’s still the same but then everyone holds on to their own. I couldn’t apologise for judging you – even if I wanted to because you’d been more empathetic – because I think that might offend you and you don’t seem to be on here for solidarity. But it is an internet forum…

     • Nigel Garrage wrote:

       Here’s what happened:

       • There was an impatient driver behind the cyclist who was probably following closely. Possibly had been following for quite a while before the video was edited, hard to tell – could be solved by posting a longer clip from the cyclist’s video camera.
       • Cyclist shouted the gendered abuse “fuck off twat”.
       • Car driver got angry and knocked him off his bike.

       Driver is guilty, but that, in a nutshell, is why I don’t shout gendered insults as I cycle along.

       — Nigel Garrage

       you think the respose would be any different to “fuck off moron” (a non gendered insult.)?

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • And all they got was a course

     And all they got was a course.

     No wonder I am losing my faith in the Police.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hirsute wrote:

       And all they got was a course.

       No wonder I am losing my faith in the Police.

       — hirsute

       Was it the police or CPS?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Police offer a course don’t

         Police offer a course don’t they instead of prosecution? Didn’t think the CPS do those but correct me if I’m wrong.

         It seems the Police saw this as the same as a close pass or minor speeding offence. Not an RTC where the driver decided to ram into the vehicle in front causing injury and damage. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Too many NFAs

         Too many NFAs for me

         I spoke to a cycle club/group bloke who said they had visted essex police and showed them a set of 9 photos of very similar close passes. The police job was then to pick out the single one that they took any action on.

         Despite their safer roads policy when it comes down to poor driving, they are not very interested.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • hirsute wrote:

       And all they got was a course.

       No wonder I am losing my faith in the Police.

       — hirsute

       Pretty brief course, I imagine.

       “Do not ram your car into other road users, m’kay? Now, consider yourself told off and go drive home.”

       Log In or Register to post comments

   •  

      

     He actually tries to pass through the pinch point, which is what my WTF is about. 

     Then his honk is in response to that, 

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I wonder, if in the heat of

       I wonder, if in the heat of the moment you twated the driver, that you too would have been similarly sent to a ‘Driver Awareness Course’.

       Log In or Register to post comments

6. How the fuck is that rear

   How the fuck is that rear ender not assault?!? 3 months in prison should sort that c**t out

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. There can be no excuse for

   There can be no excuse for the rear ending of any other road user when traffic is flowing normally. There isn’t an excuse for it even if the first road user suddenly stops or swerves to avoid an obstruction but it is perhaps more understandable in that situation. This accident is just terrible driving. If it had happened to me I would be incandescent. I might become a lot less confident in other road users abilities to use the road safely as well. I do really believe that most road users while like me they make mistakes, they are generally minor ones that don’t lead to accidents. While I grumble about close passes I rarely feel in danger because I believe most of us can control our machines pretty accurately and that like me nobody would deliberately drive into somebody or something if they could possibly help it. This incident is worryingly negligent, I cannot see how you can blame the road even in part. All the fault lies with the driver who demonstrated an incomprehensible level of incompetence.

    

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Not “negligent”. You’d likely

     Not “negligent”. You’d likely struggle to get a conviction without further evidence but more like assault than even “dangerous driving”.

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. Another sad death
   Another sad death
   https://www.facebook.com/EPColchester/posts/4868835516462387

   Speed limit is 40 around there.
   Another driverless car.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Very sad, another young life
     Very sad, another young life needlessly wasted.

     We need much more action against DUI particularly drugs, and a crackdown on illegal drugs generally which are blighting society. Incredibly many people want to to legalise even the most dangerous ones.

     The war on drugs hasn’t been lost, it has effectively been surrendered without a fight. Its time for that to change.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • “War on Some Drugs” * of

       “War on Some Drugs” * of course – unless you want to go further for religious reasons (you might be a Mormon for example). I agree that – as I posted previously – drugs are everywhere from the bottom to the top of society.

       I’m happy to join you in wanting more effective enforcement against anyone driving poorly on our roads. As you know alcohol / drug driving is one of the few “impairments” which are currently socially unacceptable. Other less “triggering” causes like tiredness and phone use have been experimentally shown to be comparably debilitating. I’m still not sure why these – along with excess speed, demonstrable lack of observation or driving knowing you’ve a medical impairment that affects your ability – don’t merit the same societal condemnation and indeed legal repercussions. It’s not simply a matter of ease of being able to prove things in court. We have all read stories of people driving off following collisions and simply waiting for their levels of intoxication to fall so proving even these cases may need other detective work.

       Perhaps you could shed some light on this? None of these seem the polite thing to do!

       * “We are losing the ‘War on Drugs,’ which means there’s a war going on and people on drugs are winning it.” – Bill Hicks

       Log In or Register to post comments