Debate with roadsafelondon (long)

[Tinuts]

Some great points here. I'm waiting until I get a reply from Roadsafe before commenting further.

Just to clarify, the Police got exactly the same YouTube link as I've posted here.

 

[gaz]

This below is a straight copy and paste of something i have posted before, It is with regards to a very dangerous manouever by a car that overtook me on a bridge, crossing double white lines and nearly having a head on collision. He then proceded to stop on the bridge, get out of his vehicle and be verbaly aggressive to me. Their response is poor imo.

_____________________________________________

After many many many many phone calls trying to find out if i can actually speak to someone about this ( the answer is no)... i replied to the initial e-mail i was sent. after many many e-mails i finally got a response i was looking for and have found out what happened.

This is what was sent to the registered owner of the vehicle

We have received information that suggests a male driver of the above vehicle was seen driving without due care and attention on the A222 (Croydon Road by Elmers End)
If the information is correct the driver was committing an offence that often attracts a fine and penalty points.

Last year there were over 180 deaths on London roads; there were many more collisions that resulted in very serious injuries.

The purpose of this letter is to increase driver awareness and promote road safety.

Please drive carefully, keep yourself and others safe and avoid the risk of being prosecuted.

If you were not the driver on this occasion please pass this letter to the person who was

If the information is correct? i had video proof! Not the result i was looking for.

They also told me this about the roadsafe london service which i used to report this incident.

You may be aware that 'Roadsafe London' is in its infancy and your report has raised issues that had not before been dealt with, particularly around possible prosecutions of offenders and the wording of our standard letter.

Roadsafe London was set up largely to provide the Metropolitan Police Service with a source of intelligence that relates to road incidents as opposed to the crime matters normally dealt with by Crimestoppers. This will enable tasking of roads policing units based on a number of reports as opposed to individual incidents per se. We anticipated, and have received, a large number of reports and considered a standard letter to drivers on a first notification was the only practical way to deal with volume reports and a 'standard' letter was sent to the driver in your case.

I appreciate this will not always provide satisfaction of prosecution or direct police contact on a first case but I hope you will understand what we are trying to achieve by this gathering of information. ALL identifiable drivers that have allegedly been driven in an unacceptable manner will be contacted by letter and, where a vehicle receives multiple reports, an intervention against an individual may be warranted backed up by Roadsafe reports and other intelligence where available.

I won't be using this service again to report what i would define as major altercations with other vehicles on the road but will continue to use it for reporting minor incidents.

 

[Tinuts]

I saw your video, gaz, and it was a shocking example of the sort of bullying and abusive behaviour which I'm sure a number of us have experienced. I agree with you that it is pointless reporting this sort of incident to RoadSafe. Best to go straight to the Police and make a formal complaint. This is no criticism of the RS initiative, I just don't believe that it was set up to deal with incidents of this severity. I do feel that RS might like to consider pointing out to drivers who are the subject of more than one complaint that they are at serious risk of being investigated further and that it is quite possible that prosecution may result.

When I submitted my video it was with the attitude that the best outcome I could expect would be that a letter be sent to the perpetrator. This will, so I'm told, happen so I'm currently satisfied with the response, even if I'm not in agreement with RS' interpretation of traffic law when it comes to overtaking cyclists. With regard to that interpretation, I'm sure that a healthy debate on this forum may help shape RS officers' future attitude to such incidents as I've since been informed that comments have been noted. So let the debate continue.

Last year I attended a forum which I seem to remember may have been hosted by Westminster Council (or maybe City of London). This forum was aimed at getting cyclists, road planners, Police and other interested parties together to air their views. I have suggested to RS that they may consider doing the same. I'm sure there are quite a few London based cyclists on this forum who would welcome such an opportunity to share their views with the RS team. I'm sure we're all keen to see what the response is.

 

[Origamist]

The site appears to offer people the opportunity to report incidences of poor driving/illegality that they would not normally bother reporting - so in that sense, I think it's a step forward. Like others have said, if you are involved in a serious incident you do need to get yourself down to the cop shop (preferably with witnesses/footage) and make a formal complaint.

Tinuts, I'd try to make you replies snappier - I imagine the officers are receiving a high volume of reported incidents and they do not have the time to get involved in a protracted correspondence. That said, good work for persevering.

 

[Crankarm]

Yeah, goodwork Tinuts. Obviously it would have been better to have not been close passed in the first place thus no need for your letter. I thought it was good although I, like Origamist, thought it could have been a bit more concise. Unfortunately the copper's response indicates what a long way most of them have to go to understanding what it is like to cycle on the roads. Many are still pretty ignorant. If you take a look at the other thread on cycle training for coppers it explains a lot.

As for chap he is just trying to be controversial. I didn't think your letter included any sort of or hint of any insult. I liked your response to him - very measured and reasoned. I was waiting for a metaphorical knock out blow, but it never came. As for rubbing the Met up the wrong way or getting on the wrong side of them which might be detrimental for you - WTF! Are they going to kettle you in as you walk out your front door or knock you to the ground like Mr Tomlinson? These people are public servants they have to account for their decisions and how they behave.

Just set WC on them.

.

 

[Tinuts]

OK, conciseness may not be my forte, but remember, the devil is in the detail!.......

Clearly the RS officer didn't fall asleep at his desk reading my letter as I have had a response. Not, unfortunately, to the issues concerning the finer points of trafic law but to my request for a public forum.

Apparently, Roadsafe have a partnership team that plans events and meetings with groups of road users. Cycling groups have been targeted particularly due to the numbers of serious collisions they are involved in. My e-mail has, I'm assured, been passed to them so that I can be included in future events/meetings.

I well keep the forum posted on this.

 

[Tinuts]

Oh, I forgot. It was also suggested I might like to post a link to the video here:

http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/

What do you think, people?

 

[Origamist]

Oh, I forgot. It was also suggested I might like to post a link to the video here:

http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/

What do you think, people?

It does not appear to have a cycling sub-forum - perhaps we should campaign for one!

If you post the film on that site it might be a good opportunity to raise awareness of cycling and best practice with other roadusers as (from a cursory glance) it does not appear to be on par with pistonheads...

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

This is why I partly feel the "obay the law and motorists will love all cyclists" argument, though well intentioned, is at least partly flawed IMO

Similar thing today, in primary approaching a right turn, cars streaming past me whilst I have my right arm outstretched, I am almost at the junction so I continue to (carefully) move further out, cue revving and beeping from the idiot overtaking a road user indicating to turn right, and being informed that I "should wait at the left"

There is no way on this earth that the driver thought later "oh, I lost my temper and was in the wrong". In his mind I was a "bloody cyclist nuisance" with no regard for the law, (that is, in his complete ignorant non-understanding of the law or HC)

Drivers like that, and the prat in the videeo, are NEVER going to be influenced by cyclists sticking to other parts of the law (though I agree thay may be unnecessarily wound up by flouting laws)

Then when you have the official response which is, to cut it short, "cyclists should get out of the way regardless", is there any wonder?

 

[Crankarm]

IAM . Some of them are the worst drivers on the roads!!!! Retired, old and clueless generally towing a caravan .

It can be survival of the strongest on the roads. Like ST I was approaching a cross roads today cycling in secondary looking behind frequently as I wanted to go straight on. Quite a lot of traffic turns left at this cross, some goes straight on and fewer turn right. So the risk of being side swiped is a real one. So getting closer to it, slightly uphill, 3 or 4 cars come by giving me lots of room. Ok no problem. Then 25-30 yards from the X I look behind again and move from strong secondary to primary / right of primary as the straight on is not quite straight, but a slight right then left so to speak, so you need to be on the right of the lane as if turning right. Anyway hearing a car engine rev and seeing a blue Ford people carrier from goose necking behind, I eyeballed this stupid bint who decided to try to over take. However a car turns in on opposite side of road. She is now on their side of the road going to cause a head on . But unfortunately this doesn't happen as the approaching car comes to a stop which I am now level with, to allow her to get back in behind me. I eyeball her giving her a curled lip f*ck off stare. As I cross over the X I see the silly b1tch has turned left, no indication either. So she could have waited behind me for 2 seconds for me to go straight on out of her way.

 

[chap]

Pitifully immature

As for chap he is just trying to be controversial. I didn't think your letter included any sort of or hint of any insult. I liked your response to him - very measured and reasoned. I was waiting for a metaphorical knock out blow, but it never came.

Yawn!

I see you've arrived at a mature approach then Crankarm.



For anyone interested... a while ago I posted that I was unimpressed with the LCC, eventually going so far to say some naughty things. Crankarm took exception to this and eventually I posted a public apology AFTER sending him a personal one, to which I received no reply.

Now I am not particularly bothered by this, I initially thought it a shame to go off on bad terms over something rather unimportant, but then to think that a grown man, whose mental aptitude for reason we would hope would correlate with his age, should continue to hold such a petty grudge deems this individual undeserving of my time or effort.

Therefore I shall waste no more time on master Cranky

Apologies for wasting valuable thread space dealing with lamentable impersonal issues, as usual I'm up for a good discussion and debate (no thumb sucking allowed )

 

[Tinuts]

Crikey, just looked at the LCC site and discovered I went to school with their head honcho.....

I must say, chap, that (re your other post) I don't remember him as being a parasite then, but it was, er, some years ago.

Me, I'm a CTC member!

 

[chap]

Crikey, just looked at the LCC site and discovered I went to school with their head honcho.....

I must say, chap, that (re your other post) I don't remember him as being a parasite then, but it was, er, some years ago.

Me, I'm a CTC member!

And I doubt he is. T'was a silly statement, an over exaggeration, which I retracted in the very same thread.

That said, I still believe the LCC (as a campaign organisation) to be rather...'elitist' in certain approaches. They could be doing more to cater for the less assertive cyclist and campaigning against HGV's in the city a little more with better grounded criteria, cycle-awareness training is simply a paid day off work, perhaps imposing real limits and enforcing more beneficial standards would do the trick. If both the public and the companies benefit, it is win-win.

When it is standard to see young teens, and women casually cycling, without all the gear, on the streets/paths throughout London, and cyclist down headlines are very few and far between, then we shall know they have succeeded.

 

[Tinuts]

And I doubt he is. T'was a silly statement, an over exaggeration, which I retracted in the very same thread.

Don't worry, I didn't take it seriously!

When it is standard to see young teens, and women casually cycling, without all the gear, on the streets/paths throughout London, and cyclist down headlines are very few and far between, then we shall know they have succeeded.

Absolutely. The reason I get from most non-cyclists as to why they won't take to two wheels is that they perceive the roads as being too dangerous. The sooner we get legislation like minimum required distances for overtaking in place along with an attitude from Police which means that they will take our concerns seriously and actually do something to deter much of the bullying behaviour we, as cyclists, encounter the better.