Confrontation with a motorist: I did nothing wrong this time

[gambatte]

Sentencing

If you are convicted of driving without due care and attention then you face 3 to 9 penalty points on your licence. You will also face the possibility of a fine and Court Costs. The penalty points of driving without due care and attention are 3 to 9. If it is a very serious allegation then the Magistrates can impose a discretionary disqualification under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for whatever period the Court feels is appropriate.
http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/Without-Due-Care-and-Attention.php

 

[gambatte]

I can see why the motorist would have got prosecuted. Yeah they had a green, but they were on the phone, which is illegal and has been shown to be as bad as being over the limit. So whilst the cyclist shouldn't have RLJed, the driver wasn't exactly free of blame.
I don't think this can be equated to the cyclist is never to blame.

 

[green1]

Maybe, there is, I dont know. It was the point about blame I was trying to make, and that we (as cyclists) need to get away from this victim culture we have. Road tax or not, we have as much right to be there as the tin boxes. Except we are not surrounded by 2 tons of anticrumple zones and airbags, or have the kinetic energy of a shell fired from a tank (not even downhill).

And with rights come responsibilities, like obeying traffic lights. I'm not a perfect rider or driver but the amount of selfish tossers on the road on both 2 and 4 wheels annoys me.

 

[green1]

I can see why the motorist would have got prosecuted. Yeah they had a green, but they were on the phone, which is illegal and has been shown to be as bad as being over the limit. So whilst the cyclist shouldn't have RLJed, the driver wasn't exactly free of blame.
I don't think this can be equated to the cyclist is never to blame.

No it isn't. I often use my handsfree phone whilst driving. Far less distracting than having passengers, especially screaming kids in the back seat.

 

[gambatte]

No it isn't. I often use my handsfree phone whilst driving. Far less distracting than having passengers, especially screaming kids in the back seat.

Aye, I'll give you that. Seeing as there's a couple of descriptions of what the catchall term 'handsfree' can mean I assumed the reference was to illegal use of a phone in the car, otherwise how can it be brought up in the case as a contributory factor.

 

[smutchin]

If you go to Holland, its written in their fundamental law that the motorist is always to blame

Up to a point, Lord Copper. They have "strict liability" which isn't quite the same thing.

d.

 

[gambatte]

If you go to Holland, its written in their fundamental law that the motorist is always to blame.

Thought that was 'initially presumed'

 

[LosingFocus]

If you go to Holland, its written in their fundamental law that the motorist is always to blame

Kinda. Presumed guilt in the event of a motorvehicle+bicycle incident until proved otherwise.

 

[green1]

If you go to Holland, its written in their fundamental law that the motorist is always to blame

Not according to my Dutch coworker, they have a presumption of liability not strict liability.

Edit: and even that would only work in a civil case. Anything criminal would be innocent until proven guilty.

 

[TheJDog]

The red light jumping cyclist story is nonsense until proven otherwise. The only story google has to offer is about a speeding and texting driver who killed a rljing cyclist in Southampton, which is much more believable.

 

[mr_hippo]

This thread started when Cariad Bach from North Wales provokes a nothing incident that escalates into more pages than my `Two ducks in front of a duck` thread. We get the unverified & unsourced story of a driver in jail and now we have moved to Dutch law which does not have any legal standing in the UK - apart from, correct me if I am wrong, in the Netherlands Embassy and its consulates

 

[gambatte]

It has potential to affect you too Mr Hippo. I believe it has some standing in Tie-land and I believe some aisles of Sock Shop.

 

[Boris Bajic]

This thread started when Cariad Bach from North Wales provokes a nothing incident that escalates into more pages than my `Two ducks in front of a duck` thread. We get the unverified & unsourced story of a driver in jail and now we have moved to Dutch law which does not have any legal standing in the UK - apart from, correct me if I am wrong, in the Netherlands Embassy and its consulates

Are you trying to bring duck convoys into this?

Would that be Duck Convoys as laid out under English Law or the same items as laid out under Dutch Law?

This thread is beginning to make less sense than I do.

No wonder our jails are so full!

 

[PK99]

If you go to Holland, its written in their fundamental law that the motorist is always to blame

ly.

Good article here > http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html which give a lot of background and info on the dutch laws.
A couple of particular points:

However, a cyclist or pedestrian who is older than 14 years of age is expected to know how to behave on the streets and is likely to be held at least partly responsible in the event of a crash. If they're behaving recklessly then they can instantly expect at least 50% of the blame for any collision. An adult pedestrian dressed in black and crossing a road without looking can expect to be held to be liable for damage to a motor vehicle which hits him. That is what the law makes clear.

Article 185 came onto the statute here ​

after​

there was a majority cycling culture. The law as it stands now dates from the 1990s when cycling in the Netherlands ​

already looked like this​

.​

 

[mr_hippo]

Are you trying to bring duck convoys into this?

Just trying to duck the issue before the thread drives me anf others quackers but may be Pekin in from time to time!