Near Miss of the Day 124: Close pass at speed (includes swearing)

Strivs wrote:

With a little enhancement you can make out most of it. 

As it happens OU07 YVP returns a red Honda Civic registered in 2007, so I reckon that's your plate...

Hope it leads to something constructive for you. 

Beat me to it!

Strivs wrote:

With a little enhancement you can make out most of it. 

As it happens OU07 YVP returns a red Honda Civic registered in 2007, so I reckon that's your plate...

Hope it leads to something constructive for you. 

Strong work well done, I was way off.

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

Fifth Gear posted this link:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2...

Now according to the officer from CPMG 'close pass' drivers (in WMP area) get to choose between attending a Driver Awareness Course or an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. If they decline both what happens isn't clear. Presumably a file is prepared and CPS make a decision whether to prosecute or not. 

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

Fifth Gear posted this link:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2...

Now according to the officer from CPMG 'close pass' drivers (in WMP area) get to choose between attending a Driver Awareness Course or an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. If they decline both what happens isn't clear. Presumably a file is prepared and CPS make a decision whether to prosecute or not. 

All valid points, but road.cc isn't a campaigning organisation; try Cycling UK, which very actively pursues road justice for cyclists, including setting up the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

burtthebike wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

Fifth Gear posted this link:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2...

Now according to the officer from CPMG 'close pass' drivers (in WMP area) get to choose between attending a Driver Awareness Course or an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. If they decline both what happens isn't clear. Presumably a file is prepared and CPS make a decision whether to prosecute or not. 

All valid points, but road.cc isn't a campaigning organisation; try Cycling UK, which very actively pursues road justice for cyclists, including setting up the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

I suspect that most readers of road c.c. are not members of Cycling UK. Do they support 'close pass' victims, or is it only in more serious cases e.g. injury RTCs?

I receive bulletins from them, but I'm not a member. However, I've been tempted by their joining promotions (the Lezyne lights), there's the insurance cover and discounts. I'll look in to it thanks.

burtthebike wrote:

All valid points, but road.cc isn't a campaigning organisation; try Cycling UK, which very actively pursues road justice for cyclists, including setting up the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

I agree Burt, but road.cc seems to be becoming a place where people know they can contribute their experiences to and it's happy to continue to push this to an audience that is already rightly outraged that shit like this still happens every day - it might wish to help funnel that video evidence and reader resource rather than just watching folk rattling the pitchforks. My hope was perhaps they might wish to collaborate with one or more of the national bodies and their readers...  I was also perhaps a bit harsh on them - it's also pretty shit that after over a hundred and twenty articles i've only really seen any comments which are meaningfully constructive in the last couple. That's not to say that it doesn't happen or that action isn't being taken outside of here, but it's impossiible to tell from the (lack of) feedback. 

double post

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

 

CPS guidelines on careless driving state driving inappropriately close to another vehicle qualifies for prosecution:

"Driving without due care and attention

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.

In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver, the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the driver's knowledge.

The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

Occasionally, a collision may occur but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver, or other explanation to account for why the collision happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but prosecutors should exercise caution.

If the evidence is capable of proving how an incident occurred (e.g. a collision), the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed.

The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson's at para 5.52):

"the fact that res ipsa loquitor has no application to criminal law does not mean that the prosecution have to negative every possible explanation of a defendant before he can be convicted of careless driving where the facts at the scene of an accident are such that, in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, a court can have no alternative but to convict"

See also R v Warwickshire Police Ex p. Manjit Singh Mundi [2001] EWHC Admin 448 (the court held that crossing a central white line without explanation was, in itself, evidence of careless driving).

In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.

There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:

overtaking on the inside;
*driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;*
inadvertently driving through a red light;
emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
tuning a car radio, when the driver was avoidably distracted by this action;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use (note that this is an offence itself under Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003). If this is the only relevant aspect of the case it is more appropriate to use the specific offence;
selecting and lighting a cigarette or similar when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use.

These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving. In addition, prosecutors should note that some of these examples also fall within the examples of dangerous driving.

Charging Practice

Prosecutors must note that the same factors must be taken into consideration as those outlined for the charging practice in respect of dangerous driving offences under section 2 of the RTA 1988. The manner of the driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which they took place (for example; amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc). The circumstances in every case will be unique and must be considered in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate charge.

It is necessary to put the facts into context, decide the degree to which the standard of driving fell below that required, and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge under section 3 of the RTA 1988 (careless driving) or under section 2 of the RTA 1988 (dangerous driving). See the section on Commission of a number of offences for additional guidance.

Prosecutors should also consider whether a driver has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or even dangerous driving; see section 38(7) of the RTA 1988.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-offences-guidance-cha...

Fifth Gear wrote:

CPS guidelines on careless driving state driving inappropriately close to another vehicle qualifies for prosecution:

"Driving without due care and attention

Many thanks for that, and if it was applied properly, then the number of drivers on the road would fall by about 50% overnight, with the remaininder driving very carefully indeed.  The question is why it isn't being applied.

burtthebike wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

CPS guidelines on careless driving state driving inappropriately close to another vehicle qualifies for prosecution:

"Driving without due care and attention

Many thanks for that, and if it was applied properly, then the number of drivers on the road would fall by about 50% overnight, with the remaininder driving very carefully indeed.  The question is why it isn't being applied.

 

Why indeed?!?

Also, great post Fifth Gear

I like the way Burt The Bike thinks.