Cyclist reports four close passes to police... and is told he could be prosecuted

open_roads wrote:

You may well be right... but it feels like the Police do actually focus on the wrong things when they hand out speeding tickets to cyclists in Richmond Park for doing 24mph in a 20 zone whilst a stream of prohibited trade vehicles and people drive past behind them exceeding the limit and using their phones at the same time.

Totally agree with that being poor police-work - I was only sticking up for Avon & Somerset.

open_roads wrote:

You may well be right... but it feels like the Police do actually focus on the wrong things when they hand out speeding tickets to cyclists in Richmond Park for doing 24mph in a 20 zone whilst a stream of prohibited trade vehicles and people drive past behind them exceeding the limit and using their phones at the same time.

not to mention those taking drugs whle driving.

It can't only be round here where the smell of canabis from vehicles is detectable on almost every ride.

wycombewheeler wrote:

open_roads wrote:

You may well be right... but it feels like the Police do actually focus on the wrong things when they hand out speeding tickets to cyclists in Richmond Park for doing 24mph in a 20 zone whilst a stream of prohibited trade vehicles and people drive past behind them exceeding the limit and using their phones at the same time.

not to mention those taking drugs whle driving.

It can't only be round here where the smell of canabis from vehicles is detectable on almost every ride.

I know people will say, "Bristol, eh?" but I smell weed wafting out of several vehicles on every single journey. 

And bear in mind that I'm a commuter, not a recreational cyclist so I'm travelling at c.7.30 am and c.6pm.

Very worrying...

brooksby wrote:

I know people will say, "Bristol, eh?" but I smell weed wafting out of several vehicles on every single journey. 

And bear in mind that I'm a commuter, not a recreational cyclist so I'm travelling at c.7.30 am and c.6pm.

Very worrying...

Personally I'm not too worried about that. More drivers could do with relaxing a bit and not being so concerned about rushing to join the next queue of cars. I've not yet had any issue with a car/driver that smells of weed (and I can usually identify it from quite a distance).

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I know people will say, "Bristol, eh?" but I smell weed wafting out of several vehicles on every single journey. 

And bear in mind that I'm a commuter, not a recreational cyclist so I'm travelling at c.7.30 am and c.6pm.

Very worrying...

Personally I'm not too worried about that. More drivers could do with relaxing a bit and not being so concerned about rushing to join the next queue of cars. I've not yet had any issue with a car/driver that smells of weed (and I can usually identify it from quite a distance).

Well, that's just groovy for you, man.

Did you see the bats yet?

brooksby wrote:

Well, that's just groovy for you, man.

Did you see the bats yet?

Strangely, I've noticed more cars smelling of weed in Weston-super-Mare than I have in Bristol.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Well, that's just groovy for you, man.

Did you see the bats yet?

Strangely, I've noticed more cars smelling of weed in Weston-super-Mare than I have in Bristol.

Its OK, he's my lawyer.

You should be worried. You're much more likely to be knocked off or run over by a driver who's been smoking weed than by one who hasn't.

It can also impair driver safety for days or weeks after use - with the consequence that it's harder to predict when a driver is still impaired.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-m...

and an example of the risk:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/24/liverpool-drug-driver-killed-two-cyclists...

One of the other issues in play is that it's now very hard for the police to stop drivers where cannabis use is suspected - a number of high profile cases in London has put the police in a very difficult position of being criticised if they do act, and criticised if they don't.

open_roads wrote:

You should be worried. You're much more likely to be knocked off or run over by a driver who's been smoking weed than by one who hasn't.

It can also impair driver safety for days or weeks after use - with the consequence that it's harder to predict when a driver is still impaired.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-m...

and an example of the risk:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/24/liverpool-drug-driver-killed-two-cyclists...

One of the other issues in play is that it's now very hard for the police to stop drivers where cannabis use is suspected - a number of high profile cases in London has put the police in a very difficult position of being criticised if they do act, and criticised if they don't.

Firstly, I don't mean to condone people driving whilst intoxicated - I'd like all drivers to be alert, calm and considerate at all times.

That first link has an interesting bit at the end:

Quote:

Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use — in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled. However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol.

It's difficult to evaluate the real risk due to the long time that cannabis (the term marijuana was invented to associate Mexico and immigrants with drug trafficking) stays in your system. It's also complicated by the way that chronic (ab)users don't tend to have the same loss of faculties as occasional (ab)users. In some cases it would be advisable for the user to have a quick smoke before driving to nullify any withdrawal effects, though it'd be better still if they didn't drive at all.

I think that Liverpool driver has a lot more going on than just having a quick smoke and going for a drive (in a stolen vehicle no less). I'm wondering how much "twice the legal level" actually is as I thought the legal levels were close to zero.

I'm not sure what issue police have with stopping a vehicle that smells strongly of cannabis (and with skunk, that's quite easy to detect).

My experience of cycling around Bristol (which has a large population of cannabis users) is that all the close passes and aggression has come from drivers that do not smell of weed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I think the bigger issue is drivers using mobile phones and not paying attention or drivers that have very poor road skills and insist on overtaking when there isn't enough room.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I know people will say, "Bristol, eh?" but I smell weed wafting out of several vehicles on every single journey. 

And bear in mind that I'm a commuter, not a recreational cyclist so I'm travelling at c.7.30 am and c.6pm.

Very worrying...

Personally I'm not too worried about that. More drivers could do with relaxing a bit and not being so concerned about rushing to join the next queue of cars. I've not yet had any issue with a car/driver that smells of weed (and I can usually identify it from quite a distance).

When I used to indulge, many years ago, it would frequently take me five or six goes to get the key in the lock of the front door, I'm certainly concerned about doped up drivers - and like Brooksby, I'm increasingly noticing people having a toke on their way to work in their cars. I'd go so far as to say that there is more bad driving round my neck of the woods (south London) caused by drugs than there is by alcohol, many people who wouldn't dream of driving after four pints still think it's okay to drive when they've had a smoke.

It does remind me of an excellent quote by Gaz Coombes of Supergrass though: "I say hats off to these cyclists taking drugs, they're very skilful – I tried riding my bike on drugs and I went straight into a hedge."

Rendel Harris wrote:

When I used to indulge, many years ago, it would frequently take me five or six goes to get the key in the lock of the front door, I'm certainly concerned about doped up drivers - and like Brooksby, I'm increasingly noticing people having a toke on their way to work in their cars. I'd go so far as to say that there is more bad driving round my neck of the woods (south London) caused by drugs than there is by alcohol, many people who wouldn't dream of driving after four pints still think it's okay to drive when they've had a smoke.

It does remind me of an excellent quote by Gaz Coombes of Supergrass though: "I say hats off to these cyclists taking drugs, they're very skilful – I tried riding my bike on drugs and I went straight into a hedge."

I think the reactions/coordination effects are drastically less than those caused by alcohol and probably similar to the effects of tiredness, though there's some evidence that long-term smokers end up performing the same as non-smokers on co-ordination tests (though learning new tasks can be affected).

Again, I think that we need a bigger police prescence on the roads to prevent all types of bad driving. Once people get the idea that there's a high(!) probability of them getting caught for bad driving, then they'll take more care. Currently, drivers know that they can use their phone, have a smoke and not bother checking their mirrors - if they cause a collision, they'll just get a fine if anything.