20 cm from Death - Outcome

[Bollo]

Are you disputing TRRL 549 then, 400bhp? It's easily downloadable, and is titled "Drivers perceptions of cyclists".

Beat me to it!

 

[HLaB]

View attachment TRL549 Basford (2002) - Drivers Perception of Cyclists.pdf

Sorry 400, but there's a well-quoted report from the Transport Research Laboratory (used to be public access, now you have to register?) that comes to this conclusion. From memory, I don't think it makes a direct link with racism, but the theory of out-groups that it uses can also be applied to racism, sexism, homophopia etc. A very interesting read if you can get hold. Origamist usually has this sort of thing at his fingertips.

 

[magnatom]

The PF have got back to me......to confirm that they will get back to me within the next 20 working days! I hope they actually manage that this time!

 

[400bhp]

Are you disputing TRRL 549 then, 400bhp? It's easily downloadable, and is titled "Drivers perceptions of cyclists".

Don't define cyclists as a race.

Fine, say other people stereotype us.

 

[Ravenbait]

Don't define cyclists as a race.

Fine, say other people stereotype us.

Nobody did.

In terms of social exclusion, however, and peer-group identification, the inherent problems of labelling are of the same ilk.

Sam

 

[Bollo]

<br />Nobody did.<br /><br />In terms of social exclusion, however, and peer-group identification, the inherent problems of labelling are  of the same ilk.<br /><br />Sam<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think we all know what BM was saying, but it's easy for that kind of comparison to be misinterpreted. It's also ok to argue or disagree with the results of a report. The TRL don't have a monopoly on wisdom. From what I remember, that particular report did a lot of data gathering to build a picture of driver attitudes and then drew comparison with an recognised model of group behaviour, so in many ways it's uncontroversial. Contrast that with the TRL's recent report on helmet use!

 

[magnatom]

I've had a reply (snail mail) from the Procurator Fiscal informing me of the reasons for not pursing the case. The relevant paragraph (including mistakes) is as follows:

Following a full and consideration of the circumstances contained in this report it was felt that there was insufficient admissable evidence to identify the driver of the oil tanker. As you may know, criminal proceedings cannot be raised in Scotland unless there is corroborated evidence, ie evidence from more than one source, to identify the accused. I have reviewed this case and consider that the decision was correct on the basis of the information available in this report.

This is all a bit strange and doesn't ring true at all. I know for a fact that the police interviewed the driver and had absolutely no problem in identifying him. No mention was ever made to me by the police that he was denying driving the lorry. In fact I am sure that the police officer (as well as mentioning how nice the driver was ) mentioned to me that he never saw me, i.e. so he was actually driving then.

Are there any legal bods out there? Surely, unless he denies (an probably admited ) driving the lorry, then there is no requirement for me to prove that he was? Anyway, surely his employer would be able to confirm if he was driving the lorry and anyone at his pick up, delivery would be able to confirm that he got in/out of the cab?

What I really need is to get a hold of the drivers statement. I know it has been suggested that FOI might be an option for this, but it isn't guaranteed. Do I have any other rights to get access to the statement (in Scots Law)?

Why do I get the feeling I am being fobbed off.......

 

[Origamist]

DISCLAIMER: I have no legal background.

Reading the above para from the PF, the problem appears to be that as the film was shot by you it is not considered corroborative evidence?

Clearly, they know who the driver is, but they cannot proceed as your statement and film comes from the same and sole source (i.e you). This is presumably why it fails to meet their corroborative threshold. I would hazard that if a third party witnessed the event or filmed it, they may well have proceeded with a prosecution.

I'm glad that our legal system is different south of the border, but I'd like someone with more knowledge of Scottish law to clarify the situation.

 

[magnatom]

DISCLAIMER: I have no legal background.

Reading the above para from PF, the problem appears to be that as the film was shot by you it is not considered corroborative evidence?

Clearly, they know who the driver is, but they cannot proceed as your statement and film comes from the same and sole source (i.e you). This is presumably why it fails to meet their corroborative threshold. I would hazard that if a third party witnessed the event or filmed it, they may well have proceeded with a prosecution.

I'm glad that our legal system is different south of the border, but I'd like someone with more knowledge of Scottish law to clarify the situation.

This what has been suggested previously, but, and this is what confuses me, surely that would mean that the evidence of the crime was at issue and not the identity of the driver, especially if I am correct that the driver admitted to driving the oil tanker. If he denied driving the oil tanker, when he was supposed to be for his employer, then that would surely mean he would loose his job anyway?!?

I definitely need to get to the bottom of this.

 

[magnatom]

I should also add, that if what you say is true Origamist, then the time has come for a change in Scottish Law.....

 

[DrSquirrel]

Thinking about England now, and the way they request info on whom the driver was for speeding camera offences... isn't it sufficient for the Police to ask the owner who the driver was, and if they cannot provide the info the owner is liable? Or does that only apply to the more dangerous act of 45 in a 40... ?

I still think with you mags, it seems there is no quarrel on whom was driving with everyone other than PF - I reckon they decided this fact AFTER you contacted them and are just making it up as they go along.

 

[Origamist]

This what has been suggested previously, but, and this is what confuses me, surely that would mean that the evidence of the crime was at issue and not the identity of the driver, especially if I am correct that the driver admitted to driving the oil tanker. If he denied driving the oil tanker, when he was supposed to be for his employer, then that would surely mean he would loose his job anyway?!?

I definitely need to get to the bottom of this.

I think it means that without corroborative evidence that identifies the accused committing an offence. But hey, I really don't know.

 

[sadjack]

If you no longer wish to persue the driver as your earlier posts suggests, I would consider trying to get your MP interested. He or she may write to the PF or others requesting a fresh look at the evidence and where this leaves future complaints. There are enough people just here on this board left feeling that justice has NOT been done to show sufficient public interest I would have thought.

On the other hand if a FOI act application does not get what you want in respect to statements etc, the only other course i can think of is to consider a civil action and ask for the evidence so that you can further that, a solicitors letter may be required to do so. Whether you actually go on with a civil claim is of course a matter to be decided after you see the evidence, but at least you will have it.

I would have thought anyway that your evidence, the evidence of the camera, together with the police interview evidence give the corroboration thats needed, and as you say, if not, the evidence from the company as to which of their employees was in charge of their vehicle should be enough.

Does the PF only consdier a signed confession as corroboration in this case?

Good luck with this.

 

[thomas]

On the other hand if a FOI act application does not get what you want in respect to statements etc, the only other course i can think of is to consider a civil action and ask for the evidence so that you can further that, a solicitors letter may be required to do so. Whether you actually go on with a civil claim is of course a matter to be decided after you see the evidence, but at least you will have it.

I would imagine a dry cleaning bill should be paid after the state of Mag's shorts when it happened

 

[sadjack]

Mags you could always consider starting a petition to show the feeling on this matter.

It need not be limited to Scotland as many people visit / tour there every year. Your issue is of concern to everybody as it seems that tankers can do as they please and people have no way of having their complaint taken forward despite quite compelling evidence.