VIDEO: Van driver forces cyclist off road; QC offers help to sue

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Walking in at the nend of this one, so apologies for repeating what has already been said maybe... 

My understanding is that the employer in this instance has published a public apology, has sacked the driver in question and has pledged to put his drivers on a driver awareness course.

What else can the company do for those calling for a boycott to feel appeased? 

 

Get someone independent to review the management policies regarding travel time and treatment of workers who are having personal problems, because I strongly suspect they discourage 'wasted travel time' and are unsympathetic to problems. "One bad apple" is a common excuse, but rarely true.

Greebo954 wrote:

If you are going to ride your bike like a c*nt then you can expect to attract pr*cks.

Every now and then someone makes a comment which makes me wish that we had 'down arrows' on this site...

oldstrath wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Walking in at the nend of this one, so apologies for repeating what has already been said maybe... 

My understanding is that the employer in this instance has published a public apology, has sacked the driver in question and has pledged to put his drivers on a driver awareness course.

What else can the company do for those calling for a boycott to feel appeased? 

 

Get someone independent to review the management policies regarding travel time and treatment of workers who are having personal problems, because I strongly suspect they discourage 'wasted travel time' and are unsympathetic to problems. "One bad apple" is a common excuse, but rarely true.

Thanks for bringing up this angle.  I had not thought of it at all and am still undecided (lack of facts) about whether they deserve a boycott. It was fairly easy for me to take the bad apple bait and forget about these potential issues.

Walking in at the nend of this one, so apologies for repeating what has already been said maybe... 

My understanding is that the employer in this instance has published a public apology, has sacked the driver in question and has pledged to put his drivers on a driver awareness course.

What else can the company do for those calling for a boycott to feel appeased? 

Do we know the driver has been sacked? No. We know that the employer has appeared to be apologetic on Twitter and has claimed that the driver has been sacked. Both very quick and very easy verbal ways of defusing a lot of PR shite without actually having to *do* anything. As earlier, at the very least there should be a public message that the company will be cooperating fully with the police.

Greebo954 wrote:

If you are going to ride your bike like a c*nt then you can expect to attract pr*cks.

 

Everytime a woman walks down a street at night dressed in a nice outfit she'll attract rapists... that's what you're actually saying right?

You're utterly, utterly clueless and frankly by sound of it a dangerous deluded human being, get help immediately.

craigstitt wrote:

I know this is a very emotive issue for cyclists, and the driver quite rightly should be charged by the police for a crime....what that crime should be I am not sure of, but it should not be a trivial offence as what was carried out was a deliberate attack on a vulnerable road user.

BUT

There have been many comments on here calling for the employer to be boycotted and for the employer to be held responsible and prosecuted for the acts of their employee.  This I find disturbing and frankly uncalled for.  The employer has taken the only action that they could in the circumstances, admittedly not before making a somewhat strange statement to the general public.

If that employer had in place suitable training and monitoring for their employees then they have done all that they can, and for them to be persecuted for an unprovoked attack by one of their employees is uncalled for.  Employers can only do so much, and from what I can gather from the news reports this was an out of character incident for the employee and it was not like they had a history of such transgressions so the employer could not reasonably be expected to know that such an incident was on the cards.

For those of you calling for the employer to be prosecuted/boycotted etc..... put the boot on the other foot.... Imagine you were an employee of a small ish firm, and it was one of your colleagues who carried out this attack, would you still be calling for your employer to be boycotted?  If a smallish firm loses a contract or faces a big reduction in their income..... it is not the employer that will ultimately suffer it is the other employees because they would be the ones who would stand to lose their livelyhoods because the employer might have no other option than to make employees redundant.

You are missing the point, the recent all party parliamentary group highlighted the inadequacies of the judicial system. So short of encouraging vigilanties, the only reasonable option is to put pressure on the employer in a financial capacity. The employer has the option of mitigating this with some positive action, whatever form that may take. 

craigstitt wrote:

For those of you calling for the employer to be prosecuted/boycotted etc..... put the boot on the other foot.... Imagine you were an employee of a small ish firm, and it was one of your colleagues who carried out this attack, would you still be calling for your employer to be boycotted?  If a smallish firm loses a contract or faces a big reduction in their income..... it is not the employer that will ultimately suffer it is the other employees because they would be the ones who would stand to lose their livelyhoods because the employer might have no other option than to make employees redundant.

But boycotts have long been a tactic in any political dispute (e.g. over Apartheid).

And in any case you can't force people to use a business they don't want to.

But most of all, the total amount of business won't go down, for every lost contract for this firm there will be another firm gaining one, so if this firm makes employees redundant another will be hiring new workers.

None of which is to say I think this company deserves to be boycotted or that such a disparate group as cyclists are remotely capable of staging one that has any effect anyway [I mean, I never want to use the cafe of that Australian bloke who went mental at a cyclist in Richmond...but I can no longer remember who he was or where his cafe was].

I'm purely objecting generally to your general objection to boycotts.

craigstitt wrote:

For those of you calling for the employer to be prosecuted/boycotted etc..... put the boot on the other foot.... Imagine you were an employee of a small ish firm, and it was one of your colleagues who carried out this attack, would you still be calling for your employer to be boycotted?  If a smallish firm loses a contract or faces a big reduction in their income..... it is not the employer that will ultimately suffer it is the other employees because they would be the ones who would stand to lose their livelyhoods because the employer might have no other option than to make employees redundant.

my view is Id hope any company that handed keys over to an employee to drive around a vehicle with their logo plastered on it, maintained very strong & robust rules with what it expects from those employees and that it was drummed into them they were the publice face representing the company at all times whilst driving that vehicle, and the consequences of breaking those rules were well understood, be that disclipinary or sackings.

and then that completely removes the need for protesting or boycotting, because either the people driving the vehicles follow the rules, and if they dont they are swiftly dealt with by the companies terms of employment.

we only get to a protesting/complaints/boycott stage because that link between how an employee represents their company in public, and how a company deals with it subsequently is so often absent or broken.

craigstitt wrote:

Employers can only do so much, and from what I can gather from the news reports this was an out of character incident for the employee and it was not like they had a history of such transgressions so the employer could not reasonably be expected to know that such an incident was on the cards.

For those of you calling for the employer to be prosecuted/boycotted etc..... put the boot on the other foot.... Imagine you were an employee of a small ish firm, and it was one of your colleagues who carried out this attack, would you still be calling for your employer to be boycotted?  If a smallish firm loses a contract or faces a big reduction in their income..... it is not the employer that will ultimately suffer it is the other employees because they would be the ones who would stand to lose their livelyhoods because the employer might have no other option than to make employees redundant.

If he went on site and switched the three-phase back on when someone was working on the electrics, or maintained an unsafe working area, or any other of a host of H&S Act violations the employer would be jointly liable. The van he's driving is a tool to do his job and they've got a duty of care to ensure he's trained appropriately. Its pretty common for tradespeople now not to get paid for travelling time, or given a fixed time to travel to/from a job. Those time constraints are the responsibility of the employer and directly influence their employees' behaviour.  Its about time that the employers of professional drivers (I know this one isn't) were routinely prosecuted for H&S failures relating to the use of their vehicles. Should also be compulsory that dashcams are fitted - insurance industry can help with this by offering big fleet discounts. As to other employees suffering; in a small firm people tend to know each other and peer influence on behaviour is very strong. I've reported colleagues for bad driving in the past and in some industries there is a statutory duty to do so.

I've had a few people criticising my rationale in trying to defend the employer.... so my response is this......

Short of having dashcams front rear and interior fitted, and then having someone review every second of driving footage what else would you suggest this employer does?  Any employer can make it compulsory for their drivers to undergo regular driving training... but please tell me how exactly that would have prevented this?  I worked with an employer where I had to undergo an annual driving test including a full written and practical driving test.  That, like the actual driving test, only ensures your driving ability under those conditions at that particular moment in time.  I or any one of my colleagues after passing this test could jump in a company vehicle and drive it like we stole it.... but we passed our employers driving test.

Do you go around blaming the DVLA for all of the boy racers causing accidents within 12 months of passing their driving tests?  Should the driving instructors/assessors lose their jobs or be prosecuted for the drivers that they teach and pass?  Why are you putting such a high burden on the employer and holding them responsible when you, like me, do not know what procedures they have in place for driver training.

And as for people dealing with stress in their personal lives, many people will try and do their best to hide such things from their employers, especially males, as they don't want to be seen as weak.  It is only when something takes that person over the tipping point that it becomes apparent that there is something wrong.

@craigstitt: I get your point, really, but

craigstitt wrote:

Why are you putting such a high burden on the employer and holding them responsible when you, like me, do not know what procedures they have in place for driver training.

because that's how regulation works. Shit travels downhill.

If you accept that current criminal law isn't stopping people drive like pricks then you try to pressure government to have that aspect changed. But that's been tried and there's the right kind of noise, but not a lot's happened over a loooong time. It does not appear to be enough of a deterrent to stop enough people driving like pricks. That's a commonly held cyclist viewpoint, anyway.

If you accept that people drive like pricks in company vehicles... well, hello... that opens up a whole new avenue of deterrent. That's another area of pressure to be applied, either through the regulatory/government angle (corporate liability etc) or the mob rule of social media: on balance, does a company accept that its employees drive like pricks every now and then and weather the social media storm and damage to its reputation?

If this van driver knew there was a chance he'd get sacked as the red mist descended, would he have run the cyclist off the road? The MD of the company used the term 'made an example' of him, which suggested that it was an extreme action, a rare occurrence, and that they probably didn't have a specific 'drive like a prick' policy, or one that resulted in sacking. They probably do now... as might other companies whose MDs have read this story.

There's a raft of rules in place for all companies - you want to have a look at what you can and can't do with personal data, for example, and what's coming down that road from the EU next year. When there are rules that bind companies over what their employees can do with a name they scribble on a notepad, it really isn't too much to expect companies to be bound by rules to have their drivers not drive like pricks when they're out on business.

craigstitt wrote:

Do you go around blaming the DVLA for all of the boy racers causing accidents within 12 months of passing their driving tests?

Yes, yes I do. They seem to give licences to anyone these days, and rarely take them away for very long. The test probably could do with being tightened up.

craigstitt wrote:

Should the driving instructors/assessors lose their jobs or be prosecuted for the drivers that they teach and pass?

Possibly some of them should lose their jobs, yes. I don't get the impression it's a 'profession' with particularly high standards or entry-requirements ('never been caught breaking the law when driving? Then you're in!'). Wasn't long ago I saw a driving instructor using a hand-held phone while behind the wheel of his driving school car (parked, but with the engine running, so illegal).

I again suggest you are over-estimating the awesome power of 'cyclists' and worrying unnecessarily. I doubt any 'boycott' will really amount to anything anyway.

craigstitt wrote:

I've had a few people criticising my rationale in trying to defend the employer.... so my response is this......

Short of having dashcams front rear and interior fitted, and then having someone review every second of driving footage what else would you suggest this employer does?  Any employer can make it compulsory for their drivers to undergo regular driving training... but please tell me how exactly that would have prevented this?  I worked with an employer where I had to undergo an annual driving test including a full written and practical driving test.  That, like the actual driving test, only ensures your driving ability under those conditions at that particular moment in time.  I or any one of my colleagues after passing this test could jump in a company vehicle and drive it like we stole it.... but we passed our employers driving test.

Do you go around blaming the DVLA for all of the boy racers causing accidents within 12 months of passing their driving tests?  Should the driving instructors/assessors lose their jobs or be prosecuted for the drivers that they teach and pass?  Why are you putting such a high burden on the employer and holding them responsible when you, like me, do not know what procedures they have in place for driver training.

And as for people dealing with stress in their personal lives, many people will try and do their best to hide such things from their employers, especially males, as they don't want to be seen as weak.  It is only when something takes that person over the tipping point that it becomes apparent that there is something wrong.

Agree with some of those points. However, the mindset needs to be changed. For example, look at the Germanwings deliberate air crash last year - attributable to the airline in part for not monitoring the mental health of their employee.

I guess it comes down to this. Why do we have a driving license system? And why is the expected level of competence different based on what vehicle you're driving? One answer is risk. An HGV driver will cause greater damage and loss of life if he makes an error than a cyclist will. A bus driver is responsible for the lives of 30-70 other people. The post-pass standards expected of drivers holding those licenses should be much higher, as should the penalty for any transgressions. Returning to the public transport angle flying drunk is a criminal offence and will result in a pilot losing their job. Same applies to ship deck officers. Anyone driving a vehicle as part of their job should be subject to higher required standards and penalties and part of that responsibility is the employer's. For example, for lorry drivers there are statutory requirements around driver hours and the lorries are speed-limited.

Housecathst wrote:

So the solid white line "rule" is totally meaningless, as I assume any rule regarding the dashed white lines doesn't say it's fine to cross them even when it's unsafe to do so. It's interesting that the white van man follows a made rule about the solid white lines but thinks nothing of using his vehicle as a weapon, it's a fun old world 

It's not meaningless.

There are a small number of specific circumstances in which it is legal to cross a solid white line (on your side).

In all other circumstances it is illegal.

Rich_cb wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

So the solid white line "rule" is totally meaningless, as I assume any rule regarding the dashed white lines doesn't say it's fine to cross them even when it's unsafe to do so. It's interesting that the white van man follows a made rule about the solid white lines but thinks nothing of using his vehicle as a weapon, it's a fun old world 

It's not meaningless. There are a small number of specific circumstances in which it is legal to cross a solid white line (on your side). In all other circumstances it is illegal.

That's not how it reads to me. You can cross if safe and you can cross it to pass stationary vehicles etc. There nothing to suggest these are mutually exclusive. 

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less

Housecathst wrote:

That's not how it reads to me. You can cross if safe and you can cross it to pass stationary vehicles etc. There nothing to suggest these are mutually exclusive. 

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less

You're reading it wrong.

unless it is safe AND you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road.

So both criteria have to be met.

You can only cross to enter an adjoining property or side road and you can only do that if it is safe.