A cyclist in London who had not realised that a left-hand filter traffic signal had turned green because he was unable to see it from his position behind the advanced stop line has posted a video to Twitter of the moment he was rammed from behind by a driver.
The incident, which highlights how poor junction design can put cyclists in danger, happened where Cedars Road meets the A3 at Clapham Common North Side, and while the cyclist was shaken up, luckily he was uninjured.
Video of the incident was posted to the social network by user Riviera Rider, who said that the driver, who leant on the vehicle’s horn before then driving into the rear wheel of the bike, “was enraged that I failed to notice the green left filter arrow whilst in the ASL.”
Explaining the background to the incident, he said he was “waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away and didn’t realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that’s why he [the driver] was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
He said that “very disappointingly,” the Metropolitan Police Service had decided that there was “insufficient evidence for prosecution,” although Met Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, in a reply to the tweet, asked Riviera Rider to send him a direct message so he could look into the issue.
Background: was waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away & didn’t realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that’s why he was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 27, 2022
While Riviera Rider said he was looking at the traffic light ahead of him, rather than the one to the left, the image below, from Google Street View, shows how the hoods on the latter make it difficult to see any of the three main signal lights when positioned immediately behind the advanced stop line – and near impossible to see the left-hand filter arrow.
And while the left filter arrow can be seen on the video from the bar-mounted camera, it’s likely that the higher position of the rider’s head means that in any event it may well have been obscured from his point of view.
One thing that the video also highlights is how essential early start bicycle-only traffic lights are for cyclists in junctions such as this, where drivers can only turn left or right, but cyclists are permitted to ride straight on, in this case to take the cycle path across Clapham Common.
Such lights, which are nowadays installed as standard on the segregated cycling infrastructure being rolled out across London, play a vital role in minimising conflict between cyclists and motorists – particularly at locations where there is no dedicated lane for someone on a bike who wants to go straight ahead, as Riviera Rider pointed out to one Twitter user replying to him.
There was no “right” lane for me: only left/right turn lanes. The design of the junction and positon of ASL for cyclists made it hard to see the green arrow. No thought was given at design stage to cyclists going straight on at this junction.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 28, 2022
The footage was captured by a forward-facing camera, and some suggested that in circumstances such as these, a rear-facing camera may have proved more valuable in terms of evidence – and Riviera Rider has now put one on his shopping list.
Background: was waiting in ASL in left lane (left/right lanes only, no ahead lane for cyclists going onto cycle track). Was looking at furthest light away & didn’t realise there was a left filter arrow. Cyclist told me that’s why he was beeping, but was rammed before could move.
— Riviera Rider (@RiderRiviera) December 27, 2022
73 thoughts on “London driver rams cyclist after traffic light filter turns green (+ video, includes swearing)”
Clear footage of someone
Clear footage of someone deliberately driving into someone else, perfectly aware of what they were doing, but the police decide there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute?
Institutionally anti-cyclist
But the footage does not show
But the footage does not show that.
All there is is the cyclist’s version. We can deduce stuff, but that isn’t going to be court standard. Hence the article refering to rear camera being useful.
Beyond reasonable doubt in my
Beyond reasonable doubt in my mind but there does seem to be a higher standard of evidence in the case of car driving offenses which is ignore unless someone died…. Then if they did maybe a suspended sentence….
hirsute wrote:
You’re not usually a driverist apologiser Hirsute. Not sure what video you’re looking at but the video I’m looking at doesn’t show ‘a cyclist’s version’. It shows a series of events where a cyclist is stopped at a red light and a car driver beeps at and then drives into said cyclist. It certainly appears deliberate to me. The car driver clearly knew the cyclist was there (hence the beeping). And the car driver was completely stopped before driving into the back of the cyclist. What about that seems any less than deliberate and perfectly aware to you?
Quote:
Correct.
a car driver, yes, THE car driver, I expect so but all he would have to state was it was another car.
Unfortunately the point Hirsute and the article itself is making is that the video doesn’t show any impact. Any movement of the bike/camera is from an impact, but could easily have been from a cyclist turning around to see the commotion etc. As Ren mentioned, the OP should have queried the cyclist behind him who would have seen all of it and could be a witness to the collision etc.
no the video doesnt show that
no the video doesnt show that, thats the problem, the video doesnt prove it was the car behind the cyclist that beeped at them, cars beep all the time in London, for a variety of reasons, prove it was that specific car & driver from that video alone in relation to that specific incident.
The video also doesnt prove the cyclists forward motion was definitively because that specific car was driven by that driver forward into the cyclist to do that, again prove that happened from that video alone, you cant.
Naturally we can all fill the gaps from the testimony of the cyclist and how we expected the situation came about, but if it went to court it would just be the cyclists word against the drivers, without any independant witnesses willing to offer any more evidence or cctv with a different view of the incident, the police cant do anything with that.
The camera faces forward; it
The camera faces forward; it does not show a collision between car and bike.
We may deduce or infer all we like but that isn’t admissible evidence. That is the point.
What the cyclist knows is not going to stand up as without clear footage or witness statements, it’s he said/ they said.
hirsute wrote:
Isnt that where interviewing the driver and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ comes into play rather than ‘we cant be fucking bothered’.
bikeman01 wrote:
Isnt that where interviewing the driver and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ comes into play rather than ‘we cant be fucking bothered’.— hirsute
Absolutely. It’s obviously far easier to expect all cyclists to have cameras facing in all directions recording at all times. I’m surprised by the ridiculous excuses offered up by people on here. Despite having video evidence, it’s still not enough for people. Those people should get a grip.
3 separate people have
3 separate people have explained the issue. If you think you are right then post a still from the video which shows the car hitting the cyclist.
Driver says “no”. Or rather
Driver says “no”. Or rather – driver says nothing.
Now what?
I’m not a policeman or lawyer so speculating, but:
a) Unless the driver is very odd or ill-advised and suddenly gave a full confession nothing would result from this. I imagine the police won’t deem it court-worthy. Nor will the CPS.
b) Even if that happened some more “evidence” is likely to be wanted, in case they change their tune.
c) All the above takes a lot of time and resources. I bet there’s a priority list somewhere, if only in the heads of the police. That will change according to the political / societal weather and the views of higher-ranking police! Recall the awful “nothing to see here” police response to the serial killings of four men in London in 2014 – 15 – not so long ago. I imagine road crime – especially with no “blood on the ground” – is probably at the very bottom of the pile.
I’d love it not to be this way but I suspect politicians and police are mostly just reflecting general societal views. So it also needs bottom-up change e.g. campaigns to change the social acceptance of this.
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn
Beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean, beyond any doubt
The prosecution would put forward the multiple pieces of evidence, including the cyclists witness statement, and out it to the defendant that the collision was a deliberate act
if the defendant says nothing, an adverse inference can and will be taken. For example, why did they screech off so fast and dangerously if they’d done nothing wrong?
so, the defendant would have to perjure themselves. And, trust me, people lying becomes really obvious.
younjustbhave to get it that far. And having other witnesses would definitely help.
Between ‘any doubt’ and ‘any
Between ‘any doubt’ and ‘any reasonable doubt’ is the play room where institutional discrimination happens
The driver will just deny
The driver will just deny anything and say the cyclist lost their balance.
This is not about what we can deduce but about what can be proved
hirsute wrote:
When you see a WET PAINT sign on a park bench, I bet you’re the sort of person that doesn’t just touch it, just to check. I bet you’d ignore the sign entirely and moan about getting paint all over your trousers.
After all, a WET PAINT sign doesn’t “prove” there’s any wet paint, does it?
For some reason I often find
For some reason I often find myself wondering how the police were ever able to get any kind of conviction whatsoever when we weren’t all wearing multiple cameras all the time.
Almost as if there might be other ways of doing it …
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Eschew the blasphemer!!!
😉
Is it just me or are we at a
Not quite sure why you’ve been especially triggered by this one?
Otherwise it seems to me like a “how it is” vs. “how it ought to be” impasse here?
Clearly some of the police are not rocking the motorists’ boat – or vehicle (wtjs step forward). Clearly we’ve got a giant pro-motorist bias in the police / the law. Very often it seems there’s a reluctance to put in the resources even when there is blood on the ground.
However – I think there are bigger battles than this particular hill. Yes – there’s an out-of-control driver out there. There are lots though, and I just don’t think this one would get anywhere even if the police did pull their finger out.
I certainly don’t think it should be the responsibility of the cyclist not only to wrap themselves in hi-vis, mitigate injuries caused by others with PPE but also bear the burden of doing the police’s work for them (cameras everywhere). Sadly the current reality is that without ALL of those there is less chance the law may help. Worse though – even doing all that is not sufficient. Plenty of apparently “open goals” that the police have shockingly missed.
You might just be lucky of course and have your report land on the desk of someone like Inspector Kevin Smith – or even better *be* the good Inspector. However even the Cycling Silk has failed to win some of these in court.
The issue I have with this,
The issue I have with this, is that this video supports the cyclist’s version of events – that they were hit, from behind, by a car driver whilst stationary for some time at a set of lights. And some on here are saying that the video evidence does not support that at all because it’s forward facing only. I wonder if the car driver had driven over the bike, and the bike went fully horizontal on the floor (but the car was still not yet in frame of the video) whether people would still make the same argument. Perhaps they would suggest that the bike magically became horizontal, perhaps because the gravity were magnified at that location and the cyclist could no longer keep such a heavy bike upright? Who knows.
Anyway, expecting cyclists to have video evidence in all directions to get anything done by the justice system hurts us all. It increases the minimum evidence required for a cyclist to even be heard by the police.
Or society used to do something similar about rapes. Telling women that they shouldn’t have walked home alone, and that there is nothing that can be done because there are no witnesses, as though a statement from the party that was raped is entirely irrelevant.
Crimes go entirely un-investigated because of this and I won’t stand by while people increase the standard of evidence required and offer up stupid reasons why VIDEO evidence taken DURING a crime is irrelevant.
Also, please don’t call people “triggered” for speaking up about a subject they are passionate about. It’s a bit like calling women “hysterical”. It’s patronising and attempts to undermine people by suggesting that their response is borne from an emotional reaction, and therefore carries less merit. My argument is not borne from an emotional response and would not be undermined even if it were, thank you very much.
Clearly we’ve got a giant pro
Clearly we’ve got a giant pro-motorist bias in the police / the law
I realise that people will just say ‘Ah, but that’s just Lancashire Constabulary…’, whereas I think if’s really Sheffield NW that’s really the outlier, and most forces are full of officers that would like have their own 5-litre 250 kW BMW at home as well as the one at work and are reluctant to engage in the ‘war on the motorist’ by noticing offences instead of properly looking the other way. This is VW AK59 CCA‘s DVLA entry when first detected in May 22 waiting outside Garstang High School with no MOT or VED. The police refused to do anything about the MOT despite the vehicle regularly being seen around Garstang and DVLA refused to do anything about the VED. DVLA continues to do nothing about the VED, despite it being on their own database that the vehicle initially failed and later passed MOT 2 months ago on 2.11.22. I concede that the vehicle has only evaded VED for 20 months, so probably comes up as ‘Good for Lancashire’ on DVLA systems (if they have any)
I can only assume you are
I can only assume you are determined not to understand what at least 3 other people have written about why the police did not take action.
No doubt you will poorly and inaccurately summarise this thread in future as some sort of proof about what people think.
hirsute wrote:
You’re an entitled and arrogant person aren’t you. Do you think that everyone that disagrees with you must be stupid and unable to understand your privileged and superior intellect?
I disagree with you and find it very disappointing that you’d agree that video evidence (albeit in only one direction, and not as you clearly prefer, a full 360 degree, 4k recording at all times) is insufficient for police action. I expect better of our police services. Clearly, you do not.
Take a look at yourself who
Take a look at yourself who has dismissed 3 other people’s views as ridiculous and told us to get a grip.
hirsute wrote:
Next time you or someone you know gets zero help from the police, I hope you’ll think better of your current opinions.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Dude, I don’t think anyone on here is saying the incentive for police inaction is the way it SHOULD be*. They are pointing out, correctly, that the law in word and in practice is so skewed towards motorists that a case would almost certainly not result in a successful prosecution. And is it almost certainly not result in a prosecution, the police will be far more interested in spending time on biased stop and search. Is that shit? Sure it is. Is that the way it is? Sure it is. Chill out, your boner is with the wrong people.
*apart from Mr 3 posts of poor quality, doing a passible impression of a PBU.
Easy to be wise after the
Easy to be wise after the event and certainly not easy to think straight in the immediate aftermath of such an unpleasant incident, but it would have been useful to ask the other cyclist or cyclists there if they would be prepared to be witnesses: there’s a section on the Met reporting form for the names of any witnesses, possibly the police would have been more willing to take action with them.
I’ll bet there was available
I’ll bet there was available CCTV covering that junction though I can’t imagine the police have any interest in retrieving it. Why on earth would there be any public interest in taking steps to remove a motorist with alleged anger management issues allegedly using their vehicle as a weapon. It’s only a scumbag cyclist after all, nothing to see here.
Standard driving around
Standard driving around Clapham Common
Scary experience, a hoon in a
Scary experience, a hoon in a hurry, and yet 🙁 another reason for a rear camera.
Perhaps someone else will come forward to witness now it has a little publicity.
My question about the junction, in addition to the question on what people on bikes are supposed to do, is what is the purpose of the green traffic light on the left hand pole if there is no straight ahead option on that side?
It wouldn’t have mattered if
It wouldn’t have mattered if he did have a rear camera – there was already enough evidence to show what had happened, and who did it, but the police were firmly ensconced in the ‘it’s his own fault for not rushing out of the way of the hard-working driver, as soon as he received the horn warning, he deserved all he got’ world. They would have simply invented another reason, no matter how ludicrous, why they ‘couldn’t do anything’. All they had to do was visit the registered driver and ask for his side of the story, but they couldn’t be bothered.
Met Police in another episode
Met Police in another episode of “Police, Camera, Inaction”.
It does highlight signal
It does highlight signal placement and the ASL, however it doesn’t look like it is rivieras first rodeo in that neck of the woods to know about the cycle path continuing on in the park. So I’m surprised he was unaware of the early allowed left-turn filtering for people in that lane.
It is a shame that Streetview doesn’t catch whether this cyclist/ driver combo waiting at the red lights had a similar issue with the early filter change or not. There must have been 20 seconds difference minimum between that picture and the next one showing all vehicles having green.
I know this junction well,
I know this junction well, use to live in the area and use the road as a commute route for years afterwards.
The left filter light often catches cyclists out who don’t realise it comes on six seconds ealier. The markings for the ASL are very worn and the ASL right lane is often blcoked by cars.
Interestingly there was a question to the London Assembly back in 2010 (when the left filter light was put in) about the safety for cyclists. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cycling-clapham
Not sure if anything was changed after this.
I wonder what would have
I wonder what would have happened if the cyclist had reported this as an assault? Is there anything preventing the police and courts treating it as such? If they had driven at a pedestrian would it be treated as trivially as this?
Iirc people have tried this
Iirc people have tried this and the police wait 14 days to tell you it’s actually a traffic offence but it’s too late now.
Yes, but why did the police
Yes, but why did the police not treat it as an assault?
I know this junction quite
I know this junction quite well and I’m certain there’s more than one traffic camera on it; maybe the police response shouldn’t read so much “this is insufficient evidence for prosecution” as “this is insufficient evidence for prosecution and we can’t be bothered to look for more.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
Indeed. It’s much easier for them to just dismiss it because there is no rear-facing camera. Somewhat depressingly even some usually cycle-friendly posters on here seem to agree with them. 🙁
It’s much easier for them to
It’s much easier for them to just dismiss it because there is no rear-facing camera
This is indeed an established favourite on the police dodge-list. A NIP was in force (hard to believe in Lancashire!) for over a year over an indisputable offence when a big BMW came down the wrong side of the road and completely over an unbroken white line leading to a right bend over a humped bridge with no visibility. He was obviously well over the 30 limit and my GPS speedo confirmed what was also obvious: I was going over 20 myself. He was so close, you can read the small BMW engraved at the bottom corner the rear passenger window on the video. Court date was all arranged when the Filth cancelled the whole prosecution a couple of weeks before (with the usual ‘it’s the CPS, squire’ dodge) because they’d suddenly realised there was no rear view camera- the disingenuous trick was an ‘enquiry’: do you have any rear-facing footage?, when they knew all the video and stills had gone to LC 18 months before. The point of all this is the completely new ‘law’ the police had invented: they had to have the rear view because they couldn’t be sure the BMW had crossed over an unbroken white line from L to R, and without that just being on the wrong side of the UWL wasn’t an offence. So, in Lancashire, you can travel a long way down the wrong side of the road, the wrong side of the UWL, and it’s not an offence unless you hit an oncoming vehicle.
If you only have one camera,
If you only have one camera, make sure it’s a rear facing camera; I have a go-pro mounted on the end of my rear rack, not only to capture incriminating vision, but the very obvious large camera pointing at following drivers has a salutary effect on most to pass with care..
It is six of one and half
It is six of one and half dozen of another though. In my accident, if the camera was on the rear, then the driver would have gotten away with his hit and run as it was only the front handlebars spinning and centering the camera on his reg that had him. I’ve also had drivers pull out at junctions and another decide to drive across a central reservation and drive the wrong way down the carriageway for 100m to beat the queue of traffic at the lights.
theres nothing obviously
theres nothing obviously camera shaped on Google view covering that side of the junction, there might be a traffic light camera on one side of the A3 lights but it wouldnt give you coverage of Cedars Rd.
This is the one I’m thinking
This is the one I’m thinking of, on top of the traffic lights facing straight down Cedars, though whether it’s wide angle enough to catch goings on in the ASL I don’t know. It may be focussed further down the road for bus lane transgressions.
looks like an ANPR camera, I
looks like an ANPR camera, I dont know what kind of quality/type of footage they serve up
Followup question on this
Followup question on this junction.
I see that there *is* a traffic light for cyclists coming on the cycle path *out* of Clapham Common onto the road, but as has been noted nothing the other way.
How does the sequencing work? Does eg the button on the cyle track stop all the other traffic?
https://tinyurl.com/claphambike
It works pretty much like a
It works pretty much like a pelican does for pedestrians at junctions, i.e. introduces an additional hold in the phasing allowing cyclists from the Common to turn left or right on the A3 or go straight across onto Cedars. From memory I think it may release left-turning traffic from Cedars at the same time, so if turning right from the Common one has to wait for it to clear, but I wouldn’t swear to it (I’m usually coming the other way).
So, one option for what was
So, one option for what was required 10 years ago could be a simlar setup for the cycle traffic doing what the cammer was doing, and simultaneously releasing left-turners from the A3 onto Cedars Road.
Or any one of half a dozen alternative setups.
But no one got round to it in 2010.
Thanks for the reply.
I’ve looked at the video &
I’ve looked at the video & conclude both parties have prior experience & it’s not really responsible to post this kind of video since it just encorages more of the same really. The driver knows he is doing nothing criminal – taking your foot of the brake at a green light, using the horn when there is a green light & there is someone being inattentive. He hit the bike – insurance issue. Cyclist swore at him, so OK to drive off. This is the reality of the situation.
In somewhere like switzerland (there are more fixed penalty fines), the cyclist would be getting fines for being inattentive, wrongly positioned.. the car driver probably nothing, since the collision is an insurance issue.
Its another topic if there should be more fixed penalty charges in the UK ( this is a better way to improve road ettiquette), but for criminality I don’t see any – just very poor courtesy by everyone.
bah, thats all. hope the road layout is adjusted.
simonlee wrote:
What on earth do you mean? How are those things linked? Someone posted a video on road.cc + their personal space. How’s that going make everyone worse? What it just might do is act as some kind of awareness-raising for the few who look here, or evidence to show this to others who think everything is fine as it is.
Driver thinks (and is right) they will get away with something – that’s not the same as “not criminal” is it though? Not a lawyer but there are several charges you might consider – if you were a police force determined to do something about this kind of incident. (Which would involve some proactive police work to get more evidence, so clearly isn’t the case here). Driving without due care and attention, driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. You could also consider assault (you don’t have to make contact), criminal damage (depending on state of bike) etc.
The law won’t hold the driver to it here but I believe the driver has deliberately driven in to a cyclist. What’s this talk of etiquette? The cyclist hasn’t endangered anyone. The driving is criminal. Yes, technically saying some nasty words in public can be so too but that’s not going to break a wheel or injure someone. This driver needs off the road until they learn to drive safely, not improving their “etiquette”.
That I don’t think in this case there is enough to get a conviction (being sadly realistic about how it’s likely to go in the court) doesn’t mean I think it’s all fine.
And the junction needs sorting out also.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This is the pivotal bit. Ask the driver to switch off their engine, request insurance details – like we all did in our own minds.
Swearing just gives a free pass. Now its only an insurance issue.
simonlee wrote:
Balderdash and indeed fiddlesticks. Do you believe that if somebody commits a criminal assault and the victim swears in reaction to it that gives the perpetrator a “free pass”? What is there in law that gives you this utterly bizarre belief?
Nigel land.
Nigel land.
Rendel Harris wrote:
driver would cite affray. therefore left the scene.
Then they would be wrong.
Then they would be wrong.
Are you just trolling for effect ?
simonlee wrote:
Any alleged affray took place after the incident, I am asking from whence you derive your bizarre belief that it’s permissible to release the brake and run into someone in front of you who is in your way because the traffic light has turned green.
simonlee wrote:
How is “affray” at all relevant? You do realise that you’re both factually and morally wrong.
From: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/3/enacted?view=extent
hawkinspeter wrote:
You answered the question already.
KC – you left the scene in a reckless manner, clearly your state of mind that evening was not conducive to driving. Dangerous driving on the kings highway could be accompanied with the most serious charge of assult. I could sentence you to thirty months for this (24+6).
Driver – looks to his lawyer, repeats what he was told to say… I consider myself to be of person of resonable firmness. After the minor accident which I already admittted to causing accidently, I had a fear for my personal safety so quickly left the scene.
KC – please mark all of the recordings after the swearies as inadmissible evidence.
(If not clear guys, really??) I am not personally defending this driver. I am trying to interpret(fabricate if you prefer) the reasons why the driver would be
acquitted in court. The police obviously know the identity & (including uncharged ) history of the driver, this incident would go on their record (even without caution it would), and the driver would receive a caution in any case.
simonlee wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that this is an excuse, or in some way a mitigating factor. It isn’t.
It’s an admission of guilt to an offence under section 170 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The only way it would be mitigating is if the driver reported the accident (which prevents an offence, in accordance with section 170 para 3).
If the driver did not report the accident, admitting to driving away, for whatever reason, is an admission of guilt. Nothing more, nothing less.
You’d make a terrible solicitor by the way. Don’t quit the day job.
I suggest you actually read
I suggest you actually read the rest of post you are replying to rather than throwing in legal words and terms you don’t understand.
Is your first name addison ?
simonlee wrote:
Judges do not generally rule evidence of an offence inadmissible on the grounds that the defence claims the defendant’s actions were justified, otherwise most trials would be pretty short. It would be for the jury or presiding magistrate to decide whether or not the defendant’s claim that they feared for their safety was justified; whilst it’s never possible to predict which way a jury would go, most reasonable observers would conclude that being sworn at by a chap who hasn’t even dismounted his bicycle when you’re sitting inside your vehicle with the windows up and (presumably) central locking on is not sufficient grounds for claiming that you had to flee in fear for your safety.
simonlee wrote:
Hmmmm, you’ve cut short my post and missed off the relevant part of “a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone” (maybe you didn’t read it or didn’t understand it).
Now, a driver can try to claim that they were in fear of their safety, but it won’t be affray unless they make up something about the cyclist’s behaviour (e.g. pulling a knife/gun), but that could easily end in perjury if the judge decides that they are being deliberately untruthful (judges do not like it when defendants try to game the system and their court with bold faced lies).
Now, I understand that you’re trying to be hypothetical, but you’re not really making sense here.
simonlee wrote:
I didn’t do that in my mind, my mind was angered that an entitled pillock deliberately drove more than a ton of metal at a human being.
Just so I know, if i was committing a murder, after the 5th or 6th insertion of the knife the victim was to swear at me; do I get a free pass?
alansmurphy wrote:
Top tip: when robbing a bank, hold a gun to someone’s head and force them to read out swear words that you’ve written on a piece of paper. After that, the police won’t be able to touch you.
simonlee wrote:
Driving off after a collision where damage was caused is an offence under section 170 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. Keep your incorrect opinions to yourself please.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
damage, otherwise inaction from the police – https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/
Ok, you must be trolling now.
Ok, you must be trolling now.
The web page you linked even says:
What to do if you’re involved in a road traffic collision […] stop at the scene – it is a legal requirement to stop as soon as it is safe to do so
It doesn’t get clearer than that.
Logic dictates that unless
Logic dictates that unless you stop to check you can’t know whether damage was caused or not, doesn’t it?
Absolutely. Moreover, you
Absolutely. Moreover, you cannot tell whether there was damage without getting out of your car. In some cases it might take an expert to confirm whether damage was caused (e.g. carbon frame).
Try another definition
Try another definition
Green (traffic light)
“GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic
simonlee wrote:
If you honestly believe it is not an offence deliberately to drive into someone who’s in your way because the traffic signal is in your favour, please don’t ever drive.
simonlee wrote:
I would agree with you, but then we’d both be completely wrong.
I also know this junction
I also know this junction very well, having driven, cycled and ridden my motorbike through it numerous times. I even go running there sometimes. It’s not well laid out. It’s easy to understand how the cyclist would not be aware of the feeder light. I can understand the driver’s frustration (given the inadequate layout), but the person is totally in the wrong here.
If you deliberately hit
If you deliberately hit someone with your car your should be automatically charged with attempted murder and never be allowed drive again. There are almost no circumstances where hitting someone with your car on purpose is the best course of action. (“almost” as concievably there could be car jacking situations where the only way to escape is to drive through the people attacking you. That doesn’t apply here though.)
Anyone defending this driver and their behaviour is saying that their convenience and any car driver’s convenience is more important than another human life. Those defenders should also be banned from driving.