Near Miss of the Day 696: Driver overtakes cyclist so closely that wing mirror hits rider

Does the 7 day thing count then?

There isn't a '7 day thing' except where local police have made one up as a dodge to restrict complaints. There is the '14 day offence to NIP thing', which is frequently employed as a dodge by bent forces like Lancashire when they don't even get around to reading offence reports for over 14 days.

I expect the 7 day thing is because with the forces who do something with the videos, they wouldn't have time to submit the ownership request, get the NIP in the post and guarantee it would be there on the 14th day, which would mean the Ambulances chasers lauded by someone on here will get the scrotes off. 

Surprisingly 14 days to tell someone they are being prosecuted for an offence is a thing now. I'm assuming it was something brought in with Speed Cameras which have been watered down massively from what they were intended for, and not the stealth tax etc which certain papers used to cry about. I mean afterall, you don;t speed, you don't pay. 

Not easy to Google, but a failure to stop does not seem to require a NIP. This seems reasonable to me as in such a case it may take more time to identify the offender.

There is a requirement to stop even if the injury or damage is minor and clearly if they were observed adjusting the mirror they cannot deny having a collision.

No front footage? If front footage existed then there would be a good case (would be able to see the displaced mirror, whether fitted to door or wing!), the back footage is inconclusive.

wtjs wrote:

Does the 7 day thing count then?

There isn't a '7 day thing' except where local police have made one up as a dodge to restrict complaints. There is the '14 day offence to NIP thing', which is frequently employed as a dodge by bent forces like Lancashire when they don't even get around to reading offence reports for over 14 days.

Correct. However, the 14-day limit for issuing a NIP does NOT apply if there has been a collision, as in this case. The problem he's going to have is proving that the impact occurred (it's not in that video clip).

ANAGRAMME

swldxer wrote:

Definitely a DOOR mirror yet again.

Good luck getting WingMirrorMan to rename...

well some of the offroad tracks in Rendlesham forest are as bad but then they are literally tracks built of builders rubble but if you want to see really bad "cycle lanes" in Felixstowe,this road through Trimley/Walton if you follow it all the way through leads you to the start of the video,

https://goo.gl/maps/yN3B6QKvXkk5ZNwW9

though going back the other way out of Felixstowe is the worst as the road surface is far worse that side and its actually painted basically around the spaces to dump park cars, so you are always moving in towards the traffic passing you.

She might have complained you were riding two-abreast. 

But kudos on the other motorist.

Garage at Large wrote:

Very very bad driving, which I think was exacerbated by the ridiculously narrow "cycling lane" prompting the car occupants to think "why's he not in it? He's in the car lane".

It doesn't often happen, but... I completely agree with you on this point: those were my thoughts when I watched the video, too.

It would be more useful if Nick Freeman could propose to have all drivers re-tested every five years. But then he'd have to be re-tested and he'd find a way to avoid it.

Also remember that is what he does, propose. There is lots of stories about his opinion on "hardship rules" (the one he has used multiple times with multi millionaires), "Drink drivers" (yep defended those with loopholes) and of course his comments the government should make all pedestrians wear hi-viz. But that is what they all are, comments in the paper to get publicity for him mostly. 

Weirdly the only time he actually campaigned the government on something, it was about the Cyclist menace on the road. You know the recent one where he produced several videos lying about cyclists breaking laws or performing feats which could only be done in motorcars. 

Now, if his campaign was a petition on being tested to keep your licence every 5 or 10 years, I would sign in a hearbeat. Of course a Government wouldn't do this as unfortunately too many newspapers would be touting it as a war on the motorist or stealth taxes, and not something which might reduce road deaths as people wouldn't be doing bad driving habits and never being pulled up on them. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Also remember that is what he does, propose. There is lots of stories about his opinion on "hardship rules" (the one he has used multiple times with multi millionaires), "Drink drivers" (yep defended those with loopholes) and of course his comments the government should make all pedestrians wear hi-viz. But that is what they all are, comments in the paper to get publicity for him mostly. 

Weirdly the only time he actually campaigned the government on something, it was about the Cyclist menace on the road. You know the recent one where he produced several videos lying about cyclists breaking laws or performing feats which could only be done in motorcars. 

Now, if his campaign was a petition on being tested to keep your licence every 5 or 10 years, I would sign in a hearbeat. Of course a Government wouldn't do this as unfortunately too many newspapers would be touting it as a war on the motorist or stealth taxes, and not something which might reduce road deaths as people wouldn't be doing bad driving habits and never being pulled up on them. 

You got there before I did.

The total extent to his "campaigns" on road safety in relation to motorists are sporadic news articles and a couple of mentions on his firms blog/website.

An extract is this 

Undoubtedly there will also be those who think the charter is a bit rich coming from a lawyer who is accused of being a menace to road safety since he has made his name securing acquittals for his clients.

However, Freeman says that until the law is changed it is the duty of criminal defence lawyers to defend their clients to the best of their ability. `

“I work within the parameters of current legislation. But how much better if we could introduce the changes of my proposed charter. It would slash the number of accidents and make all forms of road transport much safer.”

I can find only one solitary article in the Daily Mail from 2018 in which Nick Freeman does not say that the "Exceptional hardship" defence should be scrapped, only that it shouldn't be applied to a bundle of offences.   

He said: 'We`re now facing ridiculous scenarios where multiple offences committed by an individual driver are bundled together so they are dealt with in one court. 

'The 'hardship argument' is then used as a piece of umbrella mitigation to cover all these offences which, in totality, would net vast numbers of points. 

And again even that is interesting because in the case of Chris Tarrant, Nick Freeman argued that 'At Reading Magistrates’ Court, celebrity lawyer Mr Freeman argued that the speeding offences should be treated as having happened on a single occasion. “The two offences occur 21 minutes apart on the same stretch of road in ideal traffic conditions,” Mr Freeman said. “Had he been 20 minutes down the road going in the same direction you would probably have been of the view it was the same occasion.”'

His position since then shows he does not wan't it scrapped https://twitter.com/themrloophole/status/1293148275214888961