Near Miss of the Day 315: Untaxed vehicle, but still no action from police

Philh68 wrote:

Maybe I’m missing something, hadn’t the Civic entered the bike box illegally, the rider positions themself in front as they’re supposed to, and the light changed before the rider entered the intersection? I’m sure my eyes aren’t painted on, do they need to be to blame the victim?

The civic driver highly likely crossed the asl illegally. However, there is a slim chance he crossed the line just as the lights changed and ensured he did not cross the second one, thereby being legally there.
He's obviously a law abiding chap who pays his ved on time.

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

There's always one isn't there. The moron was driving agrressivley and nearly took out the cyclist twice but Mr Self Righteous here thinks it was the cyclist at fault.

Looking up vehicles to check their tax status is not illegal. Deliberatley attempting to knock someone off their bike is.

I'm glad I don't live in your cheerfulless world. 

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

Driving any vehicle like the Civic does here is dangerous.

Facile prat.

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

why should other people need to be encouraged to behave lawfully, and why should cyclists be the ones to set an example? 

There is no excuse and no justification or possible mitigation to use cars, vans, trucks or anything else as a weapon for any purpose, including punishing people for whatever the driver, sole judge, jury and executioner, thinks the other person has done wrong.

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

I really hope you're not a lawyer.
The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not.

Driving an untaxed and apparently also uninsured vehicles is illegal and irresponsible.

Looking up other people's vehicles is not illegal - though there is a small fee for checking their insurance status. In this case the cyclist looked up the tax status of the vehicle which is perfectly legal and free (and has since reported as an untaxed vehicles it via the DfT's website - which is precisely why it's legal to check the tax status of vehicles).
Others have since looked up the vehicles's insurance status and discovered it is also (unsurprisingly) uninsured.

But I shouldn't be feeding the troll.

inicholson wrote:

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

I really hope you're not a lawyer.
The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not.

Driving an untaxed and apparently also uninsured vehicles is illegal and irresponsible.

Looking up other people's vehicles is not illegal - though there is a small fee for checking their insurance status. In this case the cyclist looked up the tax status of the vehicle which is perfectly legal and free (and has since reported as an untaxed vehicles it via the DfT's website - which is precisely why it's legal to check the tax status of vehicles).
Others have since looked up the vehicles's insurance status and discovered it is also (unsurprisingly) uninsured.

But I shouldn't be feeding the troll.

The cyclist never stopped at all. Moreover we see the traffic lights are red as he enters the box, and are not yet green by the time (0:08) that he has continued across the ASL - at best he crosses whilst the lights are red and amber combined. So neither road user respected the lights.

Sriracha wrote:

inicholson wrote:

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

I really hope you're not a lawyer.
The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not.

Driving an untaxed and apparently also uninsured vehicles is illegal and irresponsible.

Looking up other people's vehicles is not illegal - though there is a small fee for checking their insurance status. In this case the cyclist looked up the tax status of the vehicle which is perfectly legal and free (and has since reported as an untaxed vehicles it via the DfT's website - which is precisely why it's legal to check the tax status of vehicles).
Others have since looked up the vehicles's insurance status and discovered it is also (unsurprisingly) uninsured.

But I shouldn't be feeding the troll.

The cyclist never stopped at all. Moreover we see the traffic lights are red as he enters the box, and are not yet green by the time (0:08) that he has continued across the ASL - at best he crosses whilst the lights are red and amber combined. So neither road user respected the lights.

I would say the rider filtered to the front where he should have reasonably expected to find the ASL box available for his safety (it wasn't visible from further back but a regular would know it is there), Once he got to the significantly reduced safety zone, He anticipated the lights (perhaps a little too quickly BUT at no point endangered anyone.

The driver on the other hand was stopped in the cyclist safety zone (this can be done legally so I won't comment further) they then took it opppone themself to slefishly impose their own version of the rules of the road as lawmaker, judge, jury and maybe next time executioner . Of course they never endangered themself, just "some cyclist" 

Sriracha wrote:

inicholson wrote:

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

I really hope you're not a lawyer.
The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not.

Driving an untaxed and apparently also uninsured vehicles is illegal and irresponsible.

Looking up other people's vehicles is not illegal - though there is a small fee for checking their insurance status. In this case the cyclist looked up the tax status of the vehicle which is perfectly legal and free (and has since reported as an untaxed vehicles it via the DfT's website - which is precisely why it's legal to check the tax status of vehicles).
Others have since looked up the vehicles's insurance status and discovered it is also (unsurprisingly) uninsured.

But I shouldn't be feeding the troll.

The cyclist never stopped at all. Moreover we see the traffic lights are red as he enters the box, and are not yet green by the time (0:08) that he has continued across the ASL - at best he crosses whilst the lights are red and amber combined. So neither road user respected the lights.

I thought cyclists were allowed to enter the ASL box on red?  It's motorists who aren't.

And he continues out of the asl box about a second before the light turns from amber to green, which seems a bit absolutist to complain about, considering the common motorist practice of treating the entire amber phase (and often a good bit of the red phase) as green.

Seems very nit-picky, to me.  Almost as if your aim is to divert attention from the motorist's behaviour.  [speculation about motivation retracted, in attempt to be less argumentative]

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

inicholson wrote:

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

I really hope you're not a lawyer.
The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not.

Driving an untaxed and apparently also uninsured vehicles is illegal and irresponsible.

Looking up other people's vehicles is not illegal - though there is a small fee for checking their insurance status. In this case the cyclist looked up the tax status of the vehicle which is perfectly legal and free (and has since reported as an untaxed vehicles it via the DfT's website - which is precisely why it's legal to check the tax status of vehicles).
Others have since looked up the vehicles's insurance status and discovered it is also (unsurprisingly) uninsured.

But I shouldn't be feeding the troll.

The cyclist never stopped at all. Moreover we see the traffic lights are red as he enters the box, and are not yet green by the time (0:08) that he has continued across the ASL - at best he crosses whilst the lights are red and amber combined. So neither road user respected the lights.

 

I thought cyclists were allowed to enter the ASL box on red?  It's motorists who aren't.

And he continues out of the asl box about a second before the light turns from amber to green, which seems a bit absolutist to complain about, considering the common motorist practice of treating the entire amber phase (and often a good bit of the red phase) as green.

Seems very nit-picky, to me.  Almost as if your aim is to divert attention from the motorist's behaviour.

 

Of course cyclists are allowed to enter the ASL box on red - I never said anything to suggest otherwise. I was pointing out that the lights were red as the cyclists approached. The problem is that he did not then stop, in the box or anywhere else. My purpose was to address the statements, "The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not." Since the premise was false so is the conclusion.

Sriracha wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

inicholson wrote:

mrcheerful wrote:

Perhaps if the rider used the roads in a legal manner it would encourage others to do the same.  Crossing stop lines when the lights are red is dangerous, driving an untaxed vehicle is not.  Many vehicles are insured yet will not show up as such on askmid, and looking up other people's vehicles on askmid is also illegal.

I really hope you're not a lawyer.
The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not.

Driving an untaxed and apparently also uninsured vehicles is illegal and irresponsible.

Looking up other people's vehicles is not illegal - though there is a small fee for checking their insurance status. In this case the cyclist looked up the tax status of the vehicle which is perfectly legal and free (and has since reported as an untaxed vehicles it via the DfT's website - which is precisely why it's legal to check the tax status of vehicles).
Others have since looked up the vehicles's insurance status and discovered it is also (unsurprisingly) uninsured.

But I shouldn't be feeding the troll.

The cyclist never stopped at all. Moreover we see the traffic lights are red as he enters the box, and are not yet green by the time (0:08) that he has continued across the ASL - at best he crosses whilst the lights are red and amber combined. So neither road user respected the lights.

 

I thought cyclists were allowed to enter the ASL box on red?  It's motorists who aren't.

And he continues out of the asl box about a second before the light turns from amber to green, which seems a bit absolutist to complain about, considering the common motorist practice of treating the entire amber phase (and often a good bit of the red phase) as green.

Seems very nit-picky, to me.  Almost as if your aim is to divert attention from the motorist's behaviour.

 

Of course cyclists are allowed to enter the ASL box on red - I never said anything to suggest otherwise. I was pointing out that the lights were red as the cyclists approached. The problem is that he did not then stop, in the box or anywhere else. My purpose was to address the statements, "The cyclist stopped behind the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists. The motorist did not stop behind the first stop line. The cyclist used the road in a legal manner, the motorist did not." Since the premise was false so is the conclusion.

Again seems highly nit-picky. From the timing of the lights there was scarcely time for the cyclist to stop and start again before the lights turned green. And given the impatience of the driver behind, I don't blame him for wanting to get out of the ASL with minimum delay.

In fact I'm wondering what state the lights were in at the point where the close-passing car crossed the stop lane after the ASL. Would have to sync the front and rear cameras to work that out.

thx1138 wrote:

And it still isn't taxed to this date! Nor is it insured accoring to askmid.com. Jesus christ. What does it take to get these people off the roads.  

commit a crime that has some political significance it seems. 

Tommytrucker wrote:

Love the flash of the headlights too

I bet the driver was muttering about cyclists not paying road tax…

burtthebike wrote:

Well, some police forces are obviously better than others, but not taking action after being presented with this on a plate, with a driver who clearly has no respect for the law and has probably committed many other offences, is absurd.

This has to justify a formal complaint. It's the only way of making them do their job properly.