Official Close Pass Licencing response

[purplepolly]

Thats the point isnt it? He would have been safer if he let this car go earlier,instead of blocking the way and the car diving for a space that wasnt there at the worst time?

Have just studied the video again and at the point that the car has just passed mags, mags is at the start of the pinch point, therefore if he had taken a position more to the left, he would have had to pull to the right to avoid the parked cars at the same time as the car was passing.

Ultimately, though, the driver is repsonsible for the vehicle and his own actions, and even if he thought a cyclist was being a bit inconsiderate it doesn't excuse dangerous driving that could potentially have hospitalized someone.

 

[col]

Have just studied the video again and at the point that the car has just passed mags, mags is at the start of the pinch point, therefore if he had taken a position more to the left, he would have had to pull to the right to avoid the parked cars at the same time as the car was passing.

Ultimately, though, the driver is repsonsible for the vehicle and his own actions, and even if he thought a cyclist was being a bit inconsiderate it doesn't excuse dangerous driving that could potentially have hospitalized someone.

Im not excusing anything,but a bit of forethought could save situations like this.

 

[purplepolly]

Have you also noticed how a lot of what ifs,and in the gutter type things are mentioned in defence?I believe there are cyclists out there who dont block the road as they exit roundabuts,and give way for courtesy and safety reasons,even if it means losing a few seconds from their journey.

A lot of what if's? Yes because that's the essence of good driving - anticipating what might happen, not just what you think is going to happen. So in the roundabout scenario, it is reasonable to expect a good driver to anticipate that a cyclist or motorcyclist may skid and therefore leave adequate space, just as it it reasonable to anticipate that a child may run out onto the road. Unfortunately many drivers are just plain bad or selfish.

 

[col]

A lot of what if's? Yes because that's the essence of good driving - anticipating what might happen, not just what you think is going to happen. So in the roundabout scenario, it is reasonable to expect a good driver to anticipate that a cyclist or motorcyclist may skid and therefore leave adequate space, just as it it reasonable to anticipate that a child may run out onto the road. Unfortunately many drivers are just plain bad or selfish.

Its easy to say what if,and this could/might have happened as an excuse,but doing it at the time takes common sense,which it seems is largely lacking.Most of us will read ahead as a matter of course,and also most of us i believe,dont think we are the most important thing on the roads.

 

[tdr1nka]

Maybe not the most important thing on the road but certainly a higher priority with regard safety.

As I see it Mag held a clear and visible position until he could see round the side of the bus by which time he was nearly upon the pinch point.

Col, you're giving the impression that the car was right behind Mags from the exit of the roundabout, which as we saw Mags check behind one can assume it wasn't.


I see untold unsafe riding everyday and this is not, IMO, an example of unsafe cycling.
It is paramount that cyclists ride as confidently and safely as they need and not to feel bullied, disregarded or put in danger by other traffic

 

[Arch]

Arch, if it helps I think Col is talking in terms of crimes where no one has been hurt and no actual physical damage done.

Not really, I'm talking about a general principle. Col appeared to think the guy would have learned a lesson, and shouldn't be pursued further. I suggested that nothing that had happened would have given him any incentive to change his ways, and that he shouldn't get off just because he claimed he'd done nothing wrong. I used the crimes thing as an analogy and col seemed to have a problem seeing my point.

The question about 'do you think someone should get off just because they plead not guilty' was meant to be virtually rhetorical - his failure to answer and defensiveness suddenly made it look like I doubted his morals, which I don't.

 

[tdr1nka]

Fair point.
If it's any help I agree with you entirely.

 

[magnatom]

Thanks everyone, well almost eveyone!

My plan as has been suggested is to play it fairly cool. Write back to the Licencing board, and point out that they have not provided a conclusion, a course of action, did the driver drive to the standards expected of them etc. I will ask them to provide me with this information within 14 days (this bit might just make them think I'm starting to think legal). Depending on what comes of this, I can then take it up a notch as joseph has suggested.

As you know I'm not one to sit back and just let it go. Personally I think too much of that happens generally.

 

[hackbike 666]

Fact of the matter is, a driver with the slighest residual grain of common sense whatsoever wouldn't have overtaken in that place anyway, regardless of what position was taken by the cyclist

In the perfect world you mean.

 

[magnatom]

Fact of the matter is, a driver with the slighest residual grain of common sense whatsoever wouldn't have overtaken in that place anyway, regardless of what position was taken by the cyclist

In the perfect world you mean.

It isn't a perfect world, but the vast majority of the time, cycling exactly the same way, I have no problems. Look at my Not Official Close Pass video.

 

[hackbike 666]

Same here,I don't have too much trouble,(touch wood) but it does happen.

 

[bonj2]

If you ask me - yes I think he drove extremely badly, yes I think you should follow it up, yes I think the licensing authority's investigation has been inadequate, but if you don't mind me saying I do also think that you let it get to you a bit too much. As noble (and probably effective) as your work in bringing them to book is, there are always going to be bad drivers. If you can get to work safely despite them and don't let them ruin your day, then you've won. Simple as that.

 

[Bollo]

If you ask me - yes I think he drove extremely badly, yes I think you should follow it up, yes I think the licensing authority's investigation has been inadequate, but if you don't mind me saying I do also think that you let it get to you a bit too much. As noble (and probably effective) as your work in bringing them to book is, there are always going to be bad drivers. If you can get to work safely despite them and don't let them ruin your day, then you've won. Simple as that.

That's a good attitude to cycle with and one that I aspire to and, most of the time, manage to achieve. I'm guessing you've read the first few pages of the 'Invisible' thread.

Another thread a while ago talked about attitude to driver errors, and from what I remember many who posted agreed that the driver's attitude was more important to how they regarded an incident than the level of danger. This is an example of a bad attitude at an organisational level. I'd have been p1ssed off by the original pass but probably not have complained (remember the camera rarely gives the full effect of an incident). Life is often too short. If I had complained and received that response I'd be on the warpath just like mags.

 

[col]

Not really, I'm talking about a general principle. Col appeared to think the guy would have learned a lesson, and shouldn't be pursued further. I suggested that nothing that had happened would have given him any incentive to change his ways, and that he shouldn't get off just because he claimed he'd done nothing wrong. I used the crimes thing as an analogy and col seemed to have a problem seeing my point.

The question about 'do you think someone should get off just because they plead not guilty' was meant to be virtually rhetorical - his failure to answer and defensiveness suddenly made it look like I doubted his morals, which I don't.

Just the fact that you didnt try to point out any of this ,says a lot to me about you.I didnt have a problem,i asked why you said it.
I did answer you,im in no doubt about your intentions here now

 

[col]

Fair point.
If it's any help I agree with you entirely.

Of course

Thanks everyone, well almost eveyone!

My plan as has been suggested is to play it fairly cool. Write back to the Licencing board, and point out that they have not provided a conclusion, a course of action, did the driver drive to the standards expected of them etc. I will ask them to provide me with this information within 14 days (this bit might just make them think I'm starting to think legal). Depending on what comes of this, I can then take it up a notch as joseph has suggested.

As you know I'm not one to sit back and just let it go. Personally I think too much of that happens generally.

Yes you hound this man until he loses his job,you know its the right thing to do.

That's a good attitude to cycle with and one that I aspire to and, most of the time, manage to achieve. I'm guessing you've read the first few pages of the 'Invisible' thread.

Another thread a while ago talked about attitude to driver errors, and from what I remember many who posted agreed that the driver's attitude was more important to how they regarded an incident than the level of danger. This is an example of a bad attitude at an organisational level. I'd have been p1ssed off by the original pass but probably not have complained (remember the camera rarely gives the full effect of an incident). Life is often too short. If I had complained and received that response I'd be on the warpath just like mags.

Again of course,would we expect anything else?