Offence of Dangerous Driving

[nick boardman]

Unless there is a specific prohibition on turning right, why should there be any fault apportioned to the driver?

View attachment 384945

Oh dear........ I'm not going to use capitals but I am shouting ............ Because it's a ' Dangerous Manoeuvre ' as in the thread title of Dangerous Driving !

 

[mjr]

Unless there is a specific prohibition on turning right, why should there be any fault apportioned to the driver?

Not all cockwomblery is specifically prohibited, like nothing says I can't turn right out of my drive, but the acute angles of the road layout where it meets the main road to the right means I'd be either merging into oncoming traffic or making a U turn swinging across both lanes and possibly the cycleway opposite, even in my little car, so instead I turn left and make a U turn out of that end. If I went right and didn't reverse back along the 30m or so (or maybe far enough to turn in the road) once I realised the road layout, I'd expect to be open to an accusation of carelessness.

 

[nick boardman]

And the facts are you were cycling a manner where you weren't able to stop when you needed to do so, on a road which you admit you knew had blind corners.

Not a cyclist then ?

 

[nick boardman]

Not all cockwomblery is specifically prohibited, like nothing says I can't turn right out of my drive, but the acute angles of the road layout where it meets the main road to the right means I'd be either merging into oncoming traffic or making a U turn swinging across both lanes and possibly the cycleway opposite, even in my little car, so instead I turn left and make a U turn out of that end. If I went right and didn't reverse back along the 30m or so (or maybe far enough to turn in the road) once I realised the road layout, I'd expect to be open to an accusation of carelessness.

That's a great word. I know a few cockwomblers !

 

[I like Skol]

Not all cockwomblery is specifically prohibited, like nothing says I can't turn right out of my drive, but the acute angles of the road layout where it meets the main road to the right means I'd be either merging into oncoming traffic or making a U turn swinging across both lanes and possibly the cycleway opposite, even in my little car, so instead I turn left and make a U turn out of that end. If I went right and didn't reverse back along the 30m or so (or maybe far enough to turn in the road) once I realised the road layout, I'd expect to be open to an accusation of carelessness.

True.

The OPs description makes it sound as though he would have hit anything that had been in the road regardless of how it got there.

 

[mjr]

Not a cyclist then ?

either you've not checked his posting history or think his discussion of off roading this morning was a euphemism

More to the point, why do you think cyclists will agree with you riding blind around a bend?

 

[NickNick]

Not a cyclist then ?

If anything being a cyclist should make one particularly cautious around blind corners as we don't have the benefit of ABS to help an emergency stop without loosing control and we're particularly vulnerable if we hurtle round a corner into the back of a broken down vehicle or a traffic jam.

You're also missing the point a few of us have raised, that as cyclists we are not the most vulnerable road users and we have just as much of a duty of care to those more vulnerable than us, as car drivers to towards us. Hence always making sure that you are going at a speed where you can safely stop within the distance that you are able to see.

 

[alicat]

Hmmm, new member arguing with oldtimers about the definition of a well-known offence. Is this a troll I see before me?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

So no fault apportioned to the driver then ? !

As has already been pointed out, the car you hit could have been any obstacle in the road that was around that blind bend; the tail of a traffic queue, a previous collision, a fallen tree etc. You can't (especially as a cyclist) ride into unseen space assuming it to be clear.

 

[potsy]

Careless driving at best, poor cycling.

Lesson learnt and we move on.

 

[jefmcg]

So no fault apportioned to the driver then ? !

No. You can't criminalise someone's driveway. Because if he had turned left and there had been a car coming the other way, you'd have been in the same situation. Or worse, if you had swerved in the oncoming lane before you realised.

Who's fault would that have been?

 

[winjim]

No. You can't criminalise someone's driveway.

Well, you could go down the route of trying to find out whether the driveway conforms to planning regulations regarding visibility etc...

 

[jefmcg]

Well, you could go down the route of trying to find out whether the driveway conforms to planning regulations regarding visibility etc...

Sure, of course. But that's civil. I meant criminal precisely.

 

[winjim]

Sure, of course. But that's civil. I meant criminal precisely.

Indeed. Although it would still be hilarious if the driver ended up having to demolish his drive.

 

[winjim]

One would assume that, if he has a dropped kerb, all that will have been checked as part of the council installation process.

It has about the same level of futility as an attempt to prosecute for dangerous driving. Chances are it's >10years old anyway.