It's a double close pass special today courtesy of a must get in front driver in Northamptonshire. Not just a close pass on a cyclist...but a jogger too...

This one comes from Plumpton Road, linking Weston and Woodend in the East Midlands county, where road.cc reader Bruce was enjoying a "great day out" on the bike.

Travelling at around 16mph he approached the jogger when the familiar rumble of a car neared from behind.

"I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait until it was safe," Bruce explained. "There are a lot of potholes on the left and the road is narrow but I could hear they had not kept a distance.

"They kept going until he forced me to the left into the path of some rather nasty potholes, either that or get hit essentially as they squeezed between myself and the jogger."

On reviewing the rear camera footage Bruce noticed the driver had barely slowed during the approach and overtake.

"They were, for some reason, desperate to get through," he continued.

"Luckily the jogger was okay, and with earbuds I think she realised how close a call she had. This was reported to the police and I believe actioned, however I am unaware of any outcome as Northampton don't get back to you like other forces."

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-698-289575

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's a double close pass special today courtesy of a must get in
> front driver in Northamptonshire. Not just a close pass on a
> cyclist...but a jogger too...
>
> This one comes from Plumpton Road, linking Weston and Woodend in the
> East Midlands county, where road.cc reader Bruce was enjoying a
> "great day out" on the bike.
>
> Travelling at around 16mph he approached the jogger when the familiar
> rumble of a car neared from behind.
>
> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait
> until it was safe," Bruce explained. "There are a lot of potholes on
> the left and the road is narrow but I could hear they had not kept a
> distance.
>
> "They kept going until he forced me to the left into the path of some
> rather nasty potholes, either that or get hit essentially as they
> squeezed between myself and the jogger."
>
> On reviewing the rear camera footage Bruce noticed the driver had
> barely slowed during the approach and overtake.
>
> "They were, for some reason, desperate to get through," he continued.
>
> "Luckily the jogger was okay, and with earbuds I think she realised
> how close a call she had. This was reported to the police and I
> believe actioned, however I am unaware of any outcome as Northampton
> don't get back to you like other forces."
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-698-289575

Never had a fuck .
Do you shave your legs as most cyclists do?

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 2:13:58 AM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
..
> Do you shave your legs as most cyclists do?

Not since a 44T lorry ran over them in 2013.

On 17/01/2022 05:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's a double close pass special today courtesy of a must get in front driver in Northamptonshire. Not just a close pass on a fairy-cyclist...but a jogger too...
>
> This one comes from Plumpton Road, linking Weston and Woodend in the East Midlands county, where road.cc reader Bruce was enjoying a "great day out" on the bike.
>
> Travelling at around 16mph he approached the jogger when the familiar rumble of a car neared from behind.
>
> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait until it was safe," Bruce explained. "There are a lot of potholes on the left and the road is narrow but I could hear they had not kept a distance.
>
> "They kept going until he forced me to the left into the path of some rather nasty potholes, either that or get hit essentially as they squeezed between myself and the jogger."
>
> On reviewing the rear camera footage Bruce noticed the driver had barely slowed during the approach and overtake.
>
> "They were, for some reason, desperate to get through," he continued.
>
> "Luckily the jogger was okay, and with earbuds I think she realised how close a call she had. This was reported to the police and I believe actioned, however I am unaware of any outcome as Northampton don't get back to you like other forces."
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-698-289575

QUOTE:
"I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait until
it was safe"
ENDQUOTE

Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in uniform (a
traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the lawful authority to direct
traffic?

By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that *he* has that
authority?

Or is he a police officer, in uniform on the day?

No, didn't think so.

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 2:13:58 AM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
> wrote: .
>> Do you shave your legs as most cyclists do?
>
> Not since a 44T lorry ran over them in 2013.

Try it again.

On 18/01/22 15:13, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Never had a fuck .
> Do you shave your legs as most cyclists do?

The bulk of Pounder’s diet consists of marine worms found in the mud of
the sea floor.

On 19/01/22 13:44, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Try it again.

Worms and crustaceans are the only live prey that Pounder can consume,
but he eats a wide variety of carrion.

On 19/01/22 22:30, Peeler wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 21:48:44 +1300, Peter Keller, the dumb gay masochistic
> little cyclist, blabbered again:
>
>
>> Worms and crustaceans are the only live prey that Pounder can consume,
>> but he eats a wide variety of carrion.
>
> And YET more of the typical useless shit from the resident gay dumb little
> cyclist! LOL

Fuck you. I was not talking to you.

On 19/01/22 22:32, Peeler wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 21:47:35 +1300, Peter Keller, the dumb gay masochistic
> little cyclist, blabbered again:
>
> <FLUSH the usual idiotic sick shit by the resident sick gay little cyclist>

You really love poking your nose into things wot do not concern you,
don't you, Karen?

On 21/01/22 03:49, Peeler wrote:
> More of the absolutely useless shit from the filthy gay little cyclist! LOL

See what I mean?

Analysis of stomach contents has shown that Pounder will prey on dead
whales, fish, sharks, birds, and more.

On 21/01/22 03:51, Peeler wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:54:14 +1300, Peter Keller, the dumb gay masochistic
> little cyclist, blabbered again:
>
> <FLUSH yet more of the usual absolutely idiotic sick shit by the resident
> gay little cyclist>
>
OK, Karen.

On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>
> QUOTE:
> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait until
> it was safe"
> ENDQUOTE
>
> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in uniform (a
> traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the lawful authority to direct
> traffic?

I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be "directing
traffic". Best of luck with discouraging motorbikers from overtaking you
when lining up to turn right.

> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that *he* has that
> authority?

Only people with authority can punish disobedience.

On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait
>> until it was safe"
>> ENDQUOTE
>>
>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in uniform (a
>> traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the lawful authority to
>> direct traffic?
>
> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be "directing
> traffic".

No. And he wasn't signalling (eg, a right turn). He was obstructing the
highway *as* a "signal" (re-read it).

Peremptorily directing road-users is something which comes into the
purview *only* of a uniformed police officer (or, in such places as they
still exist, uniformed a traffic warden or traffic officer).

Fairy-cyclists in Lycra don't count.

> Best of luck with discouraging motorbikers from overtaking you
> when lining up to turn right.

But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?

Had he been, the sutuation would have been different and he would not
have written "...primary position to signal they needed to wait until it
was safe", would he?

Don't clutch at straws.

>> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that *he* has
>> that authority?
>
> Only people with authority can punish disobedience.

And that self-appointed vigilante has none. Even if he were an
undercover police officer, that wouldn't count either. The uniform
(including the number) is what gives the authority.

Don't, for God's sake, defend vigilantism.

On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait
>>> until it was safe"
>>> ENDQUOTE
>>>
>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in uniform (a
>>> traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the lawful authority to
>>> direct traffic?
>>
>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be "directing
>> traffic".
>
<snip>
>
> But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?

You don't want to turn right...

....but you have a motorbike behind and you're approaching a pedestrian
walking on the road (no pavement), a pothole, a builder's sign, a skip,
a parked vehicle...

> Had he been, the sutuation would have been different and he would not
> have written "...primary position to signal they needed to wait until it
> was safe", would he?

The on the spot situation matters, not the words chosen to describe it
later.

> Don't clutch at straws.

That's your job.

>>> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that *he* has
>>> that authority?
>>
>> Only people with authority can punish disobedience.
>
> And that self-appointed vigilante has none. Even if he were an
> undercover police officer, that wouldn't count either. The uniform
> (including the number) is what gives the authority.
>
> Don't, for God's sake, defend vigilantism.

Don't, for God's sake, be silly.

On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait
>> until it was safe"
>> ENDQUOTE
>>
>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in uniform (a
>> traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the lawful authority to
>> direct traffic?
>
> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be "directing
> traffic".

No. Obstructing the road (which "Brian" describes as a "signal") is illegal.

The only way in which a road-user may be directed (ordered) is via a
police officer (or similar) in uniform.

> Best of luck with discouraging motorbikers from overtaking you
> when lining up to turn right.

You paint a fantasy picture. A strawman.
>
>> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that *he* has
>> that authority?
>
> Only people with authority can punish disobedience.

On 24/01/2022 10:29 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they needed to wait
>>>> until it was safe"
>>>> ENDQUOTE
>
>>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in uniform (a
>>>> traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the lawful authority to
>>>> direct traffic?
>
>>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be "directing
>>> traffic".
>
> <snip>
>>
>> But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?
>
> You don't want to turn right...
>
> ...but you have a motorbike behind and you're approaching a pedestrian
> walking on the road (no pavement), a pothole, a builder's sign, a skip,
> a parked vehicle...

The motorcyclist has his own responsibilities. Signalling a slowing down
or a stop is one thing. Deliberately blocking the road (or narrowing its
effective width) is quite another.

>> Had he been, the sutuation would have been different and he would not
>> have written "...primary position to signal they needed to wait until
>> it was safe", would he?
>
> The on the spot situation matters, not the words chosen to describe it
> later.

Neither of us has the slightest reason to suspect that that was not a
realistic description. He admits obstructing the road, albeit for his
own "good" reasons.

>> Don't clutch at straws.
>
> That's your job.
>
>>>> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that *he* has
>>>> that authority?
>
>>> Only people with authority can punish disobedience.
>
>> And that self-appointed vigilante has none. Even if he were an
>> undercover police officer, that wouldn't count either. The uniform
>> (including the number) is what gives the authority.
>
>> Don't, for God's sake, defend vigilantism.
>
> Don't, for God's sake, be silly.

Don't worry so much about what others might (or might not) do. Always
concentrate on doing the right thing for yourself, which may well
include slowing, or even - horror of horrors! - *stopping* (even if it
does spoil your Strava score or whatever).

On 24/01/2022 13:45, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 10:29 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>> QUOTE: "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they
>>>>> needed to wait until it was safe" ENDQUOTE
>>
>>>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in
>>>>> uniform (a traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the
>>>>> lawful authority to direct traffic?
>>
>>>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be
>>>> "directing traffic".
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?
>>
>> You don't want to turn right...
>>
>> ...but you have a motorbike behind and you're approaching a
>> pedestrian walking on the road (no pavement), a pothole, a
>> builder's sign, a skip, a parked vehicle...
>
> The motorcyclist has his own responsibilities. Signalling a slowing
> down or a stop is one thing. Deliberately blocking the road (or
> narrowing its effective width) is quite another.

I see. Stopping is not blocking the road (or narrowing its effective
width). A very curious idea.

>>> Had he been, the sutuation would have been different and he would
>>> not have written "...primary position to signal they needed to
>>> wait until it was safe", would he?
>>
>> The on the spot situation matters, not the words chosen to describe
>> it later.
>
> Neither of us has the slightest reason to suspect that that was not a
> realistic description. He admits obstructing the road, albeit for
> his own "good" reasons.

There is nothing wrong with his reasoning or action.

I don't see any particular problem with the driver's overtake,
incidentally. Not an ideal place but it does seem to have involved an
amount of care.

>>> Don't clutch at straws.
>>
>> That's your job.
>>
>>>>> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that
>>>>> *he* has that authority?
>>
>>>> Only people with authority can punish disobedience.
>>
>>> And that self-appointed vigilante has none. Even if he were an
>>> undercover police officer, that wouldn't count either. The
>>> uniform (including the number) is what gives the authority.
>>
>>> Don't, for God's sake, defend vigilantism.
>>
>> Don't, for God's sake, be silly.
>
> Don't worry so much about what others might (or might not) do. Always
> concentrate on doing the right thing for yourself, which may well
> include slowing,

The right thing for myself (and all cyclists) is to be concerned about
what others might do to me (or them). Sometimes it involves making
oneself bigger, sometimes smaller. What is best involves judgement, not
Nugent's opinion.

> or even - horror of horrors! - *stopping*...
> (even if it does spoil your Strava score or whatever).

What's my "Strava score"?

On 24/01/2022 03:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 13:45, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/01/2022 10:29 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> QUOTE: "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they
>>>>>> needed to wait until it was safe" ENDQUOTE
>>>
>>>>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in
>>>>>> uniform (a traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the
>>>>>> lawful authority to direct traffic?
>>>
>>>>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be
>>>>> "directing traffic".
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?
>>>
>>> You don't want to turn right...
>>>
>>> ...but you have a motorbike behind and you're approaching a
>>> pedestrian walking on the road (no pavement), a pothole, a
>>> builder's sign, a skip, a parked vehicle...
>>
>> The motorcyclist has his own responsibilities. Signalling a slowing
>> down or a stop is one thing. Deliberately blocking the road (or
>> narrowing its effective width) is quite another.
>
> I see. Stopping is not blocking the road (or narrowing its effective
> width). A very curious idea.

It may have some such effect. But the difference is that it is not
deliberate or malicious.
>
>>>> Had he been, the sutuation would have been different and he would
>>>> not have written "...primary position to signal they needed to
>>>> wait until it was safe", would he?
>>>
>>> The on the spot situation matters, not the words chosen to describe
>>> it later.
>>
>> Neither of us has the slightest reason to suspect that that was not a
>> realistic description. He admits obstructing the road, albeit for
>> his own "good" reasons.
>
> There is nothing wrong with his reasoning or action.

We disagree. He has no right to seek to control or direct th behaviour
of others.

> I don't see any particular problem with the driver's overtake,
> incidentally. Not an ideal place but it does seem to have involved an
> amount of care.

OK, but that was never an issue for me. It doesn't matter how well or
badly the driver might behave.

>>>> Don't clutch at straws.
>>>
>>> That's your job.
>>>
>>>>>> By what astounding leap of arrogance does he "think" that
>>>>>> *he* has that authority?
>>>
>>>>> Only people with authority can punish disobedience.
>>>
>>>> And that self-appointed vigilante has none. Even if he were an
>>>> undercover police officer, that wouldn't count either. The
>>>> uniform (including the number) is what gives the authority.
>>>
>>>> Don't, for God's sake, defend vigilantism.
>>>
>>> Don't, for God's sake, be silly.
>>
>> Don't worry so much about what others might (or might not) do. Always
>> concentrate on doing the right thing for yourself, which may well
>> include slowing,
>
> The right thing for myself (and all cyclists) is to be concerned about
> what others might do to me (or them). Sometimes it involves making
> oneself bigger, sometimes smaller. What is best involves judgement, not
> Nugent's opinion.
>
>> or even - horror of horrors! - *stopping*...
>> (even if it does spoil your Strava score or whatever).
>
> What's my "Strava score"?

You're the only one who can know that.

On 24/01/2022 15:45, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 03:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 24/01/2022 13:45, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2022 10:29 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> QUOTE: "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they
>>>>>>> needed to wait until it was safe" ENDQUOTE
>>>>
>>>>>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in
>>>>>>> uniform (a traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the
>>>>>>> lawful authority to direct traffic?
>>>>
>>>>>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be
>>>>>> "directing traffic".
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?
>>>>
>>>> You don't want to turn right...
>>>>
>>>> ...but you have a motorbike behind and you're approaching a
>>>> pedestrian walking on the road (no pavement), a pothole, a
>>>> builder's sign, a skip, a parked vehicle...
>>>
>>> The motorcyclist has his own responsibilities. Signalling a slowing
>>> down or a stop is one thing. Deliberately blocking the road (or
>>> narrowing its effective width) is quite another.
>>
>> I see. Stopping is not blocking the road (or narrowing its effective
>> width). A very curious idea.
>
> It may have some such effect. But the difference is that it is not
> deliberate or malicious.

Every move made by road users must be deliberate (at least one hopes
so). Only in your world can a cyclist be malicious for putting an arm
out and moving a foot further out into the road.

>> I don't see any particular problem with the driver's overtake,
>> incidentally. Not an ideal place but it does seem to have involved an
>> amount of care.
>
> OK, but that was never an issue for me. It doesn't matter how well or
> badly the driver might behave.

Yes, we know from long experience that no matter what it is, it is
always the cyclist's fault.

>>> or even - horror of horrors! - *stopping*...
>>> (even if it does spoil your Strava score or whatever).
>>
>> What's my "Strava score"?
>
> You're the only one who can know that.

Oh? You obviously know more about it than I do.

On 24/01/2022 06:01 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 24/01/2022 15:45, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/01/2022 03:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2022 13:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/01/2022 10:29 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> QUOTE: "I tried to hold a primary position to signal they
>>>>>>>> needed to wait until it was safe" ENDQUOTE
>
>>>>>>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police officer in
>>>>>>>> uniform (a traffic warden in uniform at a pinch) has the
>>>>>>>> lawful authority to direct traffic?
>
>>>>>>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to be
>>>>>>> "directing traffic".
>
>>>>> <snip>
>
>>>>>> But was that entitled fairy-cyclist signalling a right-turn?
>
>>>>> You don't want to turn right...
>>>>> ...but you have a motorbike behind and you're approaching a
>>>>> pedestrian walking on the road (no pavement), a pothole, a
>>>>> builder's sign, a skip, a parked vehicle...
>
>>>> The motorcyclist has his own responsibilities. Signalling a slowing
>>>> down or a stop is one thing. Deliberately blocking the road (or
>>>> narrowing its effective width) is quite another.
>
>>> I see. Stopping is not blocking the road (or narrowing its effective
>>> width). A very curious idea.
>
>> It may have some such effect. But the difference is that it is not
>> deliberate or malicious.
>
> Every move made by road users must be deliberate (at least one hopes
> so).

Indeed. But not every road-user obstructs the road.

> Only in your world can a cyclist be malicious for putting an arm
> out and moving a foot further out into the road.

He admits he did it in order to prevent himself from being overtaken.

How did you miss that?

>>> I don't see any particular problem with the driver's overtake,
>>> incidentally. Not an ideal place but it does seem to have involved an
>>> amount of care.
>
>> OK, but that was never an issue for me. It doesn't matter how well or
>> badly the driver might behave.
>
> Yes, we know from long experience that no matter what it is, it is
> always the cyclist's fault.
>
If the cyclist obstructs the road, and *admit*s doing so deliberately,
it's not possible to conclude that it was someone else's fault - is it?

>>>> or even - horror of horrors! - *stopping*...
>>>> (even if it does spoil your Strava score or whatever).
>
>>> What's my "Strava score"?
>
>> You're the only one who can know that.
>
> Oh? You obviously know more about it than I do.

Fairy-cyclists - some of 'em at least - seem very concerned about the
time a journey takes and how it compares with their previous personal
worst. Some of them are trying to draw pictures on maps and don't want
to be delayed.

No, I don't see the point either. But they do it just the same. It might
explain reluctance to cycle lawfully and responsibly.

Garage at Large | 1224 posts | 5 days ago
2 likes

Really really poor driving that one, I hope they get points for that manoeuvre.

I also thought the cyclist was very weak-willed by meekly pulling aside in that manner - you need to be much more assertive than that.

reply quote

Avatar
wtjs | 1449 posts | 6 days ago
4 likes

This was reported to the police and I believe actioned, however I am unaware of any outcome as Northampton don't get back to you like other forces."

People shouldn't stand for this because it means they did either nothing or wrote in the log something about 'words of advice'.It has taken me 5 months of persistent nagging to force this information out of Lancashire Constabulary, concerning red light crashing incidents between 5th and 25th July 2021 which were all reported with video the same day of the offence, or the next day- the refusal to reply told me that they'd binned them, so I kept on and on about it:

Outcomes as requested:

Black Astra ML60 YMP – No further action taken as incident was processed too late after initial report.
Black VW N66 MOO – No further action as incident was processed too late after report.
Black taxi LS07 MHA – No Further action as incident processed too late after initial report.
4 axle tipper lorry Robinson’s of Bilsborrow MV18 UJT - No Further action as incident processed too late after initial report.
Silver Ford Transit KK07 RTX – No Further action as incident processed too late after initial report.
White Audi Q5 T90 JDT – NFA - Although report was made 25th July, was not processed until 12th August and has passed 14 day NIP cut off period..

I think they're taking payments from drivers to 'lose' these cases

reply quote

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 3892 posts | 6 days ago
4 likes

That's rubbish driving, and totally unnecessary. It would have to be a BMW wouldn't it? I really hope the driver ends up with a big fine and penalty points that'll boost their insurance costs for the next five years. If nothing else, that will sharpen the mind and reduce the risk of the person doing the same thingian.

reply quote

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to OldRidgeback | 188 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

'sharpen the mind and reduce the risk of the person doing the same thing again.'

If only! Regret to say that I very much doubt that drivers like this change their behaviour regardless of penalties.

reply quote

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Flintshire Boy | 3892 posts | 6 days ago
3 likes

That depends - points on the licence will mean a sharp increase in insurance premiums - more of a penalty than the penalty points and the fine. Every time the person renews their insurance they'll think about it. It's even possible they might have to change their car to something with a lower insurance band.

reply quote

Avatar
Smurf replied to OldRidgeback | 7 posts | 5 days ago
0 likes

No MOT either....just saying, check the gap online....and the time this happened.

reply quote

Avatar
smcc1879 | 47 posts | 6 days ago
9 likes

Northants Police publish their 'Operation Snap' outcomes here: https://www.northantspas.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/23 (link is external)

If this is the one I think it is, the driver was given the offence code RT88575 (Drive a Mechanically Propelled Vehicle on a [Road / In a Public Place]. Without Due Care and Attention).

But I'm sure you all knew that anyway! 🥸

reply quote

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to smcc1879 | 2912 posts | 6 days ago
6 likes

Wow, heavan, and at least some reasons some were not processed. Nice to know they accept Horse Rider(s) although they need better cameras.

Still 50% processed further and 50% got off, mostly because the VRM cannot be read on the camera. Methinks someone should be campaigning to have Massive Number plates attached to all motor vehicles instead of a tabard which would be covered by my rucksack,

reply quote

Avatar
Seventyone replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 63 posts | 6 days ago
2 likes

looking through a few of the entries on their .csv files is very interesting.

I'd love to see the footage that got this comment (and an NFA) "Cyclist holds Primary position for far too long despite several adequate passing points. Vehicle performs safe overtake at a point with good visibility."

reply quote

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Seventyone | 2589 posts | 6 days ago
4 likes

Two in the November submissions rejected for 'Insufficient video quality' because 'Video footage is upside down'.

Which makes you wonder if the reviewer is really technically qualified for the job.

reply quote

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to mdavidford | 7956 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

mdavidford wrote:

Two in the November submissions rejected for 'Insufficient video quality' because 'Video footage is upside down'.

Which makes you wonder if the reviewer is really technically qualified for the job.

....or an Australian?

reply quote

Avatar
wtjs replied to mdavidford | 1449 posts | 6 days ago
3 likes

Two in the November submissions rejected for 'Insufficient video quality' because 'Video footage is upside down'.

They really are thicker than you think, but they're also clutching at anything that they think allows them to bin cases. I had one rejected because it concerned 2 cases- there were 2 separate case numbers, and 2 separate forms concerning 2 different registration numbers, but the video showed 2 close passes, one immediately after another. I uploaded the same video twice, once for each case. I replied that if they didn't want offences occurring close together they should try to deter them with effective punishment. They had to give way!

reply quote

Avatar
hirsute replied to Seventyone | 5052 posts | 6 days ago
2 likes

Good spot. That led me to have a look.

"Driver has hovered along side in space between them and when he is ahead of them and then has to brake for lead cyclist who should have held back at the parked car. "

Sounds like we need a Spot the Ball or Please Reconstruct the Incident competition !

reply quote

Avatar
hirsute replied to Seventyone | 5052 posts | 6 days ago
2 likes

Found this gem

"Although close, road is narrow, only couple feet from offside verge when overtaking, cant go much further"

Well, if there is not enough room, don't overtake. How can the above be a reason not to proceed?

"Although there was oncoming traffic, I had to close pass the cyclist to avoid my car getting a scratch"

reply quote

Avatar
hirsute replied to Seventyone | 5052 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

2 cyclist on cyclist submissions !

"Offender is a cyclist and cannot be identified"

"vehicles cannot be identified as no VRM plates"

reply quote

Avatar
Sriracha replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2893 posts | 6 days ago
3 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Still 50% processed further and 50% got off, mostly because the VRM cannot be read on the camera. Methinks someone should be campaigning to have Massive Number plates attached to all motor vehicles

I'd settle for a campaign for numberplates to be:
1) present
2) legally compliant
2.1) not misrepresenting the reg mark
2.2) not with a darkened/smoked overlay
2.3) not missing the retro-reflective backing

Since all the above infractions are deliberate, and moreover indicative of an intention to pervert justice, I think the full penalty should apply in every case. Simple photographic evidence, automatic £1000 fine in the post. Police can't complain of administrative overload, just let the cameras and computers do the work.

reply quote

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Sriracha | 2912 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

Too lenient. Instant seizure of vehicle is my recommendation for making illegal changes to the car.

reply quote

Avatar
Smurf replied to smcc1879 | 7 posts | 5 days ago
0 likes

No MOT either....just saying, check the gap online....and the time this happened.

reply quote

Avatar
biker phil | 606 posts | 6 days ago
3 likes

BMW driver, no surprises there then.

reply quote

Avatar
wtjs replied to biker phil | 1449 posts | 6 days ago
2 likes

BMW driver, no surprises there then
So was my latest Garstang red light crasher. Crikey- that confirmation bias is working overtime!

reply quote

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to wtjs | 188 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

That's Garstang for ya!

Better in Bilsborrow.

Great in Goosnargh.

Brilliant in Broughton.

reply quote

Avatar
andystow replied to biker phil | 458 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

Of course! It always, 100% of the time, a BMW.

When it's not an Audi. Or a white van.

reply quote

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to andystow | 2912 posts | 6 days ago
1 like

I had both on the way to work yesterday. BMW pulling out of side road on wrong side of road he was leaving and entering wrong side straight at me. Obviously a giveway which was initially being treated as his right of way.

On 24/01/2022 18:22, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 06:01 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 24/01/2022 15:45, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2022 03:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 24/01/2022 13:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 24/01/2022 10:29 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/01/2022 13:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/01/2022 12:27 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2022 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> QUOTE: "I tried to hold a primary position to signal
>>>>>>>>> they needed to wait until it was safe" ENDQUOTE
>>
>>>>>>>>> Does "Brian" not understand that only a police
>>>>>>>>> officer in uniform (a traffic warden in uniform at a
>>>>>>>>> pinch) has the lawful authority to direct traffic?
>>
>>>>>>>> I see. In Nugentworld, signalling is now considered to
>>>>>>>> be "directing traffic".
>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> But was that entitled cyclist signalling a
>>>>>>> right-turn?
>>
>>>>>> You don't want to turn right... ...but you have a motorbike
>>>>>> behind and you're approaching a pedestrian walking on the
>>>>>> road (no pavement), a pothole, a builder's sign, a skip, a
>>>>>> parked vehicle...
>>
>>>>> The motorcyclist has his own responsibilities. Signalling a
>>>>> slowing down or a stop is one thing. Deliberately blocking
>>>>> the road (or narrowing its effective width) is quite
>>>>> another.
>>
>>>> I see. Stopping is not blocking the road (or narrowing its
>>>> effective width). A very curious idea.
>>
>>> It may have some such effect. But the difference is that it is
>>> not deliberate or malicious.
>>
>> Every move made by road users must be deliberate (at least one
>> hopes so).
>
> Indeed. But not every road-user obstructs the road.

The road user in front is always an obstruction. When an obstruction
means an inconvenience (which is the only possible explanation for your
interpretation), rather than something that makes progress impossible.

>> Only in your world can a cyclist be malicious for putting an arm
>> out and moving a foot further out into the road.
>
> He admits he did it in order to prevent himself from being
> overtaken.

Nothing wrong when is reacting to a temporary set of conditions.

> How did you miss that?

I haven't.

>>>> I don't see any particular problem with the driver's overtake,
>>>> incidentally. Not an ideal place but it does seem to have
>>>> involved an amount of care.
>>
>>> OK, but that was never an issue for me. It doesn't matter how
>>> well or badly the driver might behave.
>>
>> Yes, we know from long experience that no matter what it is, it is
>> always the cyclist's fault.
>>
> If the cyclist obstructs the road, and *admit*s doing so
> deliberately, it's not possible to conclude that it was someone
> else's fault - is it?

I refer to the general case, not this one in particular.

>>>>> or even - horror of horrors! - *stopping*... (even if it does
>>>>> spoil your Strava score or whatever).
>>
>>>> What's my "Strava score"?
>>
>>> You're the only one who can know that.
>>
>> Oh? You obviously know more about it than I do.
>
> Cyclists - some of 'em at least - seem very concerned about the time
> a journey takes and how it compares with their previous personal
> worst. Some of them are trying to draw pictures on maps and don't
> want to be delayed.
>
> No, I don't see the point either. But they do it just the same. It
> might explain reluctance to cycle lawfully and responsibly.

If you say so.