Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

This.

"It could happen to anyone".

there but by the grace of god etc.

Holding a driving license really is a license to kill.

They are human beings too, you'd hope.

That is such bullshit. Absolutely ridiculous.

That's hard to fathom. Are there any examples of drivers killing cyclists and actually getting a just punishment?

Had a rather shit day so took off on my bike for a couple of hours, decided to cut my ride short when some cunt decided the 25mph I was doing wasn't enough so overtook me at what I guess was 40mph+ on the wrong side of the road and then cut me up so he didn't have a head on with oncoming traffic and then slowed in traffic, I made a turn and he followed to then shout at me for taking primary and doing 20mph in a road I'm pretty sure is 20mph limit. Rang it in as 999 and got the most uninterested officer/clerk/whoever on the other end.

penhurst.co.uk stickered van DV60 EEP

From the bk at balham hill around to weir road, overtake was as I was going down balham hill.
https://www.strava.com/activities/242837890

Ah, two new cunts submitted to the database o' fail.

They never do a thing about driver who do 30-40mph on 20mph road, really frustrating, it's "my word against their".

Can't wait for the advanced in speed camera that'll catch them easily.

@edscoble the speed was a factor but it's just a small part of the mentality that they must get past/ahead/first at all costs. I can understand the decision to make 20mph zones but imo the better drivers who will obey the 20mph limit are the same ones who aren't dangerous driving constantly.

It really saddens me that I want to spend the value of my bike again on cameras.

It really saddens me that I want to spend the value of my bike again on cameras.

Me too, I hated the fact that to the police, nothing can be done, except there might be a tiny chance with a camera.

The Cycliq Fly6 look to be the best one I can find so far.

OK, so the road close to me into the Olympic Park is no entry other than for buses and cycles. But plenty of cars speed through it as it's a convenient rat run and saves them about five minutes going around a bigger loop.

I raised the issue with Roadsafe and the PC who replied commented

"Please note, having seen the picture the No Entry is conditional as it allows some vehicles not all. It is therefore not enforceable as an endorseable ticket as would be normal for a No Entry sign. It maybe that it is under civil enforcement and would be dealt with by the local council. Local policy would apply".

I replied asking

"Can you just confirm/clarify - are cars allowed to drive through on this road without penalty? To me it looks as if only busses and cycles are allowed to use the road. Are you saying that a car could use the road, despite the no entry sign, without fear of a fine or ticket should they be caught by a policeman?"

He replied "If seen driving in contravention of a traffic sign it is an offence under s.36 Road Traffic Act 1988 by means of Regulation 10 of Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. The method it is dealt with is not always the same. Some boroughs in London have chosen that some signs are to be dealt with by civil enforcement while other areas they remain with the police to enforce. Your local SNT will know what there local directions are".

I really don't get this, surely if it's a no entry sign then driving through it should at the very minimum mean a fine? And if it's local policy that the police don't enforce then who does?

1 Attachment

I ride through that every day...if you use the shared use path to the left on your picture then you should have no problems with cars; likewise the segregated cycle lane in the opposite direction. It's a bit baffling that they should put up so many signs telling drivers what to do but then not really give a shit about enforcing it, especially on a blind rise like this bridge, which becomes really dangerous at the speed a lot of drivers like to drive at!

With regards to council enforcement versus police enforcement...last summer a house opposite mine had a VERY loud party...no problem in the evening, it was a weekend, fair enough. Then the music continued beyond midnight until about 3am, at which point we called the police about it (grumpy old farts etc.). They drove by the house and told us that they couldn't do anything about it as the people having the party were indoors and not on the street, therefore it was the council who should enforce the noise complaint. Looked online for a number for the council; called it; offices closed until Monday. Useless. Went back to bed, and eventually got to sleep.

^^ There is a similar situation near where I live on a road which is supposed to just be for traffic to a hospital. They have enforcement cameras that record if you go in one side and out the other quickly.

They send you a letter the first time you do it warning not to use it as a rat run, the next time you do it they don't bother. People use it as a rat run all the time.

It's odd.

And if it's local policy that the police don't enforce then who does?

I wonder if this is similar to the situation in which the road is private. The 'owners' of the road are pretty much then responsible for enforcement? In this case kinda the council / Olympic park people etc.

Looked online for a number for the council; called it; offices closed until Monday

@SCS I'd have thought your council would have an out of hours warden etc. I know some councils do - from bitter experience. grumpy old git etc.

Yeah the law pretty much doesn't apply indoors/private land, it dates back to medieval times so if you kill someone in that road with the local lords and land owners authority behind you then the police and legal system can't do a thing*.

*this information might be out of date by some 500 years.

.

I wonder if this is similar to the situation in which the road is private. The 'owners' of the road are pretty much then responsible for enforcement?

It would be a civil matter - the only thing that the owner could enforce would be their property rights, which would boil down to using reasonable force to remove you from their property, or keep you off it in the first place, and suing for damages caused by any trespass.

They would not be able to enforce any laws under RTA or other act.

It would be a civil matter - the only thing that the owner could enforce would be their property rights, which would boil down to using reasonable force to remove you from their property, or keep you off it in the first place, and suing for damages caused by any trespass.
They would not be able to enforce any laws under RTA or other act.

If that was true then how would police justify a fine on a cyclist for using a path/road in a park(as they are claiming the olympic park area is that)? Why isn't it a civil matter if you are a cyclist?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/20/jeremy-vine-speeding-bicycle-16mph

Because cyclists are amoral dickheads who should -must!- be punished. HTH.

^^^Thinking aloud...
Would consequences of any incidents/collisions be a civil matter also? (especially if they involved following/not following the traffic instructions on those signs)

I was answering the question of what if the road were private.

I don't know what the status of the road in question is.

Police enforce fines on cyclists on paths (generally) under council byelaws, and footways under the RTA.

The Jeremy Vine fine is a bollocks fine, and no legislation exists to permit it.

Which fines are you referring to specifically?

It depends if there is an offence that is defined as occurring anywhere, or on a public road.

Purposefully killing someone with your car would be murder wherever.

Drink driving on private land is not an offence if it is not accessible to the public / not a public place. Similarly dangerous driving, IIRC. The legislation would be specific about it, and there are probably cases that have occurred that define it further.

Killing someone while drunk in your car on private land? I don't know - manslaughter?

I expect that any signage could be used as evidence.

The video on that page: http://cycliq.com/videos

Fredtastic.