Motorist fined after being caught on camera driving at group of cyclists, causing one to fall off bike (+ video)

If East Dorset, it's very normal, if West Dorset, it's not. Better drivers once you get away from Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch, just avoid the New Forest

You're quite right, low speed falls are just as dangerous as those at higher speeds. A chap I cycled with was returning from a Sunday bimble around the local lanes and had pulled up outside his house, unbuckled his helmet and turned to wave farewell to rest of the group. Somehow he slipped, fell backwards, hit his head on the kerb and died. 

Somehow he slipped, fell backwards, hit his head on the kerb and died

"And, you know, wearing a helmet would have made no difference to the outcome!"

Actually, no. This incident is precisely the sort of low speed incident in which a helmet is supposed to be of use. But let's not turn this into a helmet debate, he'd taken it off and he's dead. We'll never know and further speculation is pointless.

Quite- that's why I put it in quotes! It's what the anti-helmeteers always claim even when common sense indicates the opposite

In which case we're in agreement, the sadness remains and clearly still impairs my subtlty monitors!

Or as it is an "real" 4x4 and used to drive in fields and off road, he could have easily slowed and put two of those rugged tires on the grass verge on his side. 

HoarseMann wrote:

Is that an 'I'm here' toot of the horn right at the beginning?!

I really think the highway code should have included guidance about this specific situation. By far the safest thing to do is for the motorised vehicle to stop and allow the cyclists to negotiate their way past. The landrover would have stopped if a car had been coming the other way.

I never understand drivers in this situation. Just move over slightly & stop, few seconds later carry on. It is so much more hassle if the other road user is also in a car, one has to reverse to the last passing spot, then the other has to inch slowly around, taking minutes. One they hate, the other they just accept. Totally backwards thinking

Yep, some drivers do slow down, but it's far better for them too if they stop. When they just slow, I then slow, and we have to do a bit more of a wiggle past. If they just stopped, I would be happier carrying more speed past them and would clear in less time.

Has there been some modding here ?
Weren't there more replies earlier and a few complaints?
Hopefully another ban.

I lose track of which threads Nige has posted on, but was pretty sure he'd posted on this one...

Seems just post removals as still around elsewhere. The cynic in me thinks it is because I accused Road.cc have allowing PBU back on the site for the "engagement factor". 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Isn't there something in the regs about displaying Learner plates when there isn't a learner in the car or driving?

Not as far as I know.  But, as my lady says, I don't know much.

There is in the Highway Code, but it's a "should" not a "must", so not really a regulation but guidance. 
 

"Plates should be removed or covered when not being driven by a learner (except on driving school vehicles)."

The police seemed to be up on this back when I was younger, but they were more on it with any faults with the car.

Easier to remove and replace when the L plate was attached with string rather than the stickers.

There is in the Highway Code, but it's a "should" not a "must", so not really a regulation but guidance

This is a false distinction- there are many things including 'MUST' which the police just ignore, so they're not regulations either:

Rule 175

You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision

This is not taken at all seriously in Lancashire and, I suspect, not in many other police jurisdictions either. I appreciate this is an annoying repetition, but you can just skip past! This WS Transport 44 tonne artic PN22 DTX is about to go through this light when it turns red at 50 mph. You can't see it when the light turns amber because it's so far away from the stop line- yet Lancashire Constabulary are still refusing to go back on OpSnapLancs' decision that it's not an offence because they have decided (wrongly, but that's not the point) that because the lorry had passed the advanced stop line when the light turned red, it was perfectly entitled to carry on across the stop line. When the police are this crap and this obstinate, the HC doesn't mean much and neither do 'should' and 'MUST'

Thanks, I was going to look at that Twitter but I can't be bothered with that typical boring bile.

Sadly, It’s probably a fair sample of the kind of justifications for acquitting drivers in cycling-related prosecutions that juries which are predominantly made up of drivers come up with.

Many solicitors routinely advise taking it to court even when the evidence quite clearly shows guilt in the hope that the witness(es) don't show, then plead guilty if they do. Surely time for the guilty party, if they do that, to have to pay compensation to the witness for their wasted time and also the costs incurred by the CPS and police in bringing the case (not just a token £100 as in this instance).