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

Broadly speaking, the court process relates to what has happened and not what could have happened. That is my point.

I do not know what you are employed as but, if in your workplace, you make a mistake, others are very annoyed but no one is hurt - would you accept having your employment terminated as a fair sanction?

I think in all lines of work you have things that can be done even accidentally that fall under a zero tolerance policy. I was speaking with a dustcart driver a few days ago that had 6 month suspension for collecting a black bin bag from the roadside as it was seen to be private waste and not the council bins they had been told to collect. Honest mistake but they have a policy so people can't get cash in hand for other rubbish. I can think of dozens of jobs where data misuse would get you fired instantly(my own included). Any jobs involving cash handling and clear instructions on how/when it should be handled.

With driving jobs they do have more training than other drivers and are held to higher standards. For many coaches/buses/trucks the driver would have had not only more training and expectation but also sensors and warnings in the cab as they got closer to a rider, it's a very conscious choice to ignore all them things.

It's also the wider impact of incidents, many companies just don't want drivers who take those risks as they have come to understand that when they do eventually kill someone from habitually bad driving the impact will be felt company wide as they lose contracts and gain a poor/unsafe reputation.

Often with this stuff the mistake the driver is saying sorry for is getting caught and not how they had been driving or attitude they have towards the road. Unfortunately very few and far between where it's a learning point for a driver.

edit - ps don't send people on safer urban driving as a punitive measure it just gives the instructors a really hard day

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bury-road-rage-jeep-cyclist-16528814

Damn.

Pretty sure if it wasn't for the witness nothing would have happened to the driver.

Given some recent cases, I'm surprised it got that far even with a witness. The cynic in me also reckons it was only the assault once he was off the bike that swung this.

if it had been a cheaper bike would it have been less horrible?

weird flex.

hey ho. have fun in prison gammonchops.

^^^ This dangerous & aggressive driver claims he used to be a cyclist.
His judgement, including replacement, new-for-old, of the bike he destroyed,
after a suitable custodial sentence should include a mileage-based requirement,
lets say 1500 miles of (un-assisted) cycling,
before he can be considered for re-applying for his driving license.

if it had been a cheaper bike would it have been less horrible?

This must be the new DM "and how much is the house worth?" take.

I was sent the link to this story by a friend. The way it is reported seems to say that the Jeep driver is old. Old cannot be a factor. This is a road rage incident and age should not play a part BUT it will. Ex-company director or retired whatever - person of good standing and older person. A load of balls. Older people are not infirm. Some can be but IMO not this guy. He’s dodgy. I will be interested to see if he has any previous and I would take a bet that he has.
Reverse ageism will factor into his sentience. I’m not happy.

I've started a separate thread for this:

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/335882/

'The driver has now been traced and offered the opportunity to attend and complete a driver improvement course.'

Taxi man that close passed/punishment passed me because I wasn't riding in the gutter.
To be honest, the vile shit logic that was coming out of his mouth for why he did it I'm shocked he hasn't been on a course already.

Also sent in a video today of me being overtaken as I stopped at red a light so the van man could accelerate through it. Proper reckless and good video so, surely, that's points for the chunt.

Really weird thing the other day where some bloke on a race motorbike ran all the red lights around Buckingham palace yet I still managed to get to the top of Constitution Hill before him as he kept on randomly pulling over.

Are mini buses allowed in bus lanes?

Depends on the individual lane and whether it is local buses or not. Also think it needs to be able to seat at least 8 plus the driver

Question, is it possible to report a licensed taxi for driving with only one wing mirror? If so, who to, in order to make it the most effective? I have a pic including the number plate and license number.

Don't know about reporting but if it is the passenger side that is missing then it isn't illegal as long as the vehicle has an interior rear view mirror.

(AIUI, IANAMotExaminer)

Are you fucking serious?

When I were a lad most cars only had a driver's side wing mirror. A passenger side one was a real luxury.

http://www.ukmot.com/manual/8.1/View-to-Rear#MOT

Apparently the mirrors bit of the MOT includes:

1.Check that the vehicle is fitted with the correct amount of obligatory mirrors.

Obligatory mirrors required are:

one interior and one offside mirror

If the interior mirror cannot meet the field of view requirements see
note Below then the obligatory mirrors required are:

one nearside mirror and one offside mirror

Note: An interior mirror must be fitted unless:

It would provide no rearward vision e.g. obscured by a solid bulkhead

The vehicle has a central driving position where there is no practical
position for the mounting of an interior mirror

When my dad was a lad some people still thought smoking was healthy.

I mean, what the actual fuck, two working side mirrors are not required? Cool. Fuck everything.

You'll be especially thrilled to learn that as long as you have a rear reflector and it's daylight there's no legal requirement for lights. Even a brake light.

Actually, you don't even need the reflector. Regulation 4(3)(a) of the Road Vehicle (Lighting)
Regulations 1989 -

'Nothing in these Regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to–

(a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamp,'

All you need to do is tape over the lights - regulation 4(4) -

'Without prejudice to regulation 16, for the purposes of these Regulations a lamp shall not be treated as being a lamp if it is–

(a)so painted over or masked that it is not capable of being immediately used or readily put to use; or
(b)an electric lamp which is not provided with any system of wiring by means of which that lamp is, or can readily be, connected with a source of electricity.'

Bring back the red flag laws I say.

Firstly, at least three persons shall be employed to drive or conduct
such locomotive, and if more than two waggons or carriages he attached
thereto, an additional person shall be employed, who shall take charge
of such waggons or carriages; Secondly, one of such persons, while any
locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not
less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly
displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the
approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when
it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages
drawn by horses, passing the same

,

Roadsafed a red light runner. Normally I can't be arsed but she was clearly driving distracted beforehand (phone or notepad in hand, I couldn't quite tell) and then blatantly ran a red, like not even a little rush towards amber it was you know, really red. Fuck her. It's fucktwads like her that put me in hospital.

It's been a while since I've had a discussion with trafpol but I believe construction and use regs require a reflector even if an MOT doesn't. Same with a chain guard on a motorbike, not an MOT fail but should you come across an officer who knows what they're on about...