Dangerous driver?

[steveindenmark]

I can't help feeling that the very existence of the cycle lane actually increases the risk of this kind of thing, particularly as it's a different colour. In the driver's mind the other lane and any cyclists in it no longer figure in any thinking. Maybe if he'd consciously had to overtake the cyclist in the actual road he'd have been somewhat less likely to drive straight across him

We have these cycle lanes all over Denmark. As a driver the colour makes the cycle lane blindingly obvious. I always feel safer on a cycle lane than on the road. If this driver did not see this cyclist, he needs a guide dog and white stick.

 

[DRM]

I don’t understand how it wasn’t possible to identify the driver?
Surely Tesco know who is driving there vans. The man seen getting out of the van is clearly a passenger not a driver, so the other person must be the driver.

Having looked at the video, and paused it at the point he gets out I can’t see a driver, I’m sure those home delivery vans don’t have a passenger seat, and he’s pulled a fast one by getting out of the near side, they usually have a sack cart strapped in where the seat is missing, they also do have sat nav fitted which is part of the vans tracker, as for turning in without looking and blaming the blind spot, it’s amazing what you can see if you lean forward a little while checking the mirror, magically the blind spot reduces, the sentance is a farce, I wonder if the police were even called.

 

[mjr]

Looking at the definitions of careless vs dangerous the distinction seems to be one of intention. So if you are deliberately dangerously overtaking, or deliberately driving a defective car, or deliberately driving after taking drugs or alcohol then that qualifies as "far below" the standard of a careful and competent driver. On the other hand, without an intention to cause a problem, it seems to get classified as "careless".

That's not what sites like https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2...rence-between-dangerous-and-careless-driving/ say!

@mjr says that he wishes we were like Denmark. @steveindenmark says it would be a ban and a retest. Well, that's also what can be imposed in the UK for both careless and dangerous driving, so I don't understand the distinction.

Do the sentencing guidelines actually allow it for this case, though?

[...] his helmet prevented his head whacking the ground.

Oh you know it didn't and there's a whole other thread for that!

 

[mjr]

I can't help feeling that the very existence of the cycle lane actually increases the risk of this kind of thing, particularly as it's a different colour. In the driver's mind the other lane and any cyclists in it no longer figure in any thinking. Maybe if he'd consciously had to overtake the cyclist in the actual road he'd have been somewhat less likely to drive straight across him

Have you never been left-hooked on a plain and simple road? They overtake you, then turn left anyway. At least a cycle lane can reduce the risk of a close pass first, if it's wide enough, especially with shoot for negligent drivers like Lane Departure Assist now. And I would hope the different colour would raise an alarm bell in a driver's mind that they're crossing something that's not just black tarmac road, but it's not going to work every time because crap drivers are crap drivers and should have their licence sanctioned.

 

[HMS_Dave]

I wonder which part of the highway code it says you can turn into a road, at speed, onto the opposite side of the road? Unacceptable level of driving in my opinion...

 

[derrick]

It's careless rather than dangerous I'd suggest. The driver knows he's passed a cyclist, but doesn't really know (or care) where that cyclist ended up after that pass. He likely can't see shoot on that side of that van. He could wait to turn left, but possibly doesn't get that.

I'm not excusing him by the way, he's culpable, but seriously careless rather than outright dangerous.

Where are you coming from.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Where are you coming from.

From the point of view of the law, which is really the only useful yardstick in these conversations, anything else is simply opinion, and as always with opinions some can be measured and some can be at the other end of that scale. You know the criteria that must be fulfilled to secure a conviction for dangerous driving, right? It's been mentioned further up the thread.

 

[Pale Rider]

Careless is defined as a momentary lapse of attention or driving that falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

Dangerous is defined as a prolonged period of inattention or driving that falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

All those judgments are subjective, which have to be made either by the magistrates or a jury if it's a crown court trial for dangerous.

Sentencing is clearer, you cannot be imprisoned for careless, but you can for dangerous,

You can be banned for careless, whether directly or by totting up if the mandatory six points takes you over the limit

A ban and retest is compulsory for dangerous, minimum 12 months.

The retest is defined as an extended test, so it is meant to be harder to pass than the original driving test.

 

[derrick]

The law is an ass. No wonder there are so many bad drivers on the road.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I wonder if they are like some other delivery trucks that have no passenger seat to enable the driver easy exit to deliver.



Maybe he was driving on someone else's Licence, bloke I knew drove a breakdown/recovery truck for 20+yrs and never had a Driving Licence.

Since all Tesco potential employers need to prove they have a right to work in the UK that seems unlikely.

https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work

 

[DRM]

It's careless rather than dangerous I'd suggest. The driver knows he's passed a cyclist, but doesn't really know (or care) where that cyclist ended up after that pass. He likely can't see shoot on that side of that van. He could wait to turn left, but possibly doesn't get that.

I'm not excusing him by the way, he's culpable, but seriously careless rather than outright dangerous.

As I wrote further up, when driving a van, if you lean forward a little when checking the near side mirror you can see a lot more of what was previously in the blind spot.

 

[Kryton521]

The law is an ass. No wonder there are so many bad drivers on the road.

Something like 34 million cars on our roads. Of that number in excess of a million are driving illegally, as in no insurance etc.
Successive gov's have cut Police budgets and numbers whilst demanding they do more.
Until technology catches up and every vehicle on the road requires black box type technology then they'll continue to get away with it

 

[CanucksTraveller]

As I wrote further up, when driving a van, if you lean forward a little when checking the near side mirror you can see a lot more of what was previously in the blind spot.

I don't disagree. It's almost like he didn't care or drove with less care than he should if there was someone there at his side. If only there was a legal term for driving in this careless way?

 

[DRM]

Bottom line, set off too fast, just to get in front of the riders, which of course all drivers must do, then nearly missed the turning, and just went left without looking first, therefore that is driving that falls way below the acceptable standard.
now the driver wasn’t wearing a Tesco uniform, makes me wonder if this wasn’t a temp

 

[mjr]

Something like 34 million cars on our roads. Of that number in excess of a million are driving illegally, as in no insurance etc.

An estimated 28% haven't got the legally-required MOT, while >20% of drivers can't see to the legally-required standard, so even with perfect overlap (all the near-blind drivers have no MOT), that would be about 9½million driving illegally, even before we add on speeders, red light jumpers, yellow box sitters and all the other slam-dunks that drivers claim are victimless but fark people trying to cross the road.

Let's not underestimate the rampant criminality on the roads now. Meanwhile, anything else seems to be a higher priority for policing and few report these crimes so they don't show up as unsolved so there's a bit of a see-no-evil going on.