# Dangerous driver?



## davidphilips (18 Feb 2020)

Seen this on Utube, Actually watching it makes me think the driver seen the cyclist as he went to the wrong side of the road when turning? 
View: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=655820178507340


----------



## Drago (18 Feb 2020)

That one legged man laying in the road is lucky he didn't get run over.


----------



## TissoT (18 Feb 2020)

Ray Charles in the driving seat ,Has he got a license to drive.... probably never driven a van

No doubt taking a sharp left turn looking at his navigation.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (18 Feb 2020)

It's careless rather than dangerous I'd suggest. The driver knows he's passed a cyclist, but doesn't really know (or care) where that cyclist ended up after that pass. He likely can't see shoot on that side of that van. He could wait to turn left, but possibly doesn't get that. 

I'm not excusing him by the way, he's culpable, but seriously careless rather than outright dangerous.


----------



## raleighnut (18 Feb 2020)

I've had that happen a couple of times.


----------



## Drago (18 Feb 2020)

I believe it to be beyond careless and into dangerous. The driver knows the cyclist is there and deliberately takes a wide line into the turn in the vain hope of missing him. If was a deliberate move, recklessly attempted, seriously misjudged.


----------



## tom73 (18 Feb 2020)

If I right this is the same case 
The driver refused to say who was driving so could not be charged for the incident. 
Only for failing to nominate driver so no ban just fine and points.
Which leaves you with the question the driver knowing he was at fault. Tesco owned up and paid out.
https://road.cc/content/news/271023...-delivery-driver-knocking-cyclist-bike-london


----------



## Phaeton (18 Feb 2020)

TissoT said:


> No doubt taking a sharp left turn looking at his navigation.


Doubt it, unless the rules have changed Tesco's drivers are not allowed to use Sat Nav's


Drago said:


> I believe it to be beyond careless and into dangerous. The driver knows the cyclist is there and deliberately takes a wide line into the turn in the vain hope of missing him. If was a deliberate move, recklessly attempted, seriously misjudged.


I don't think he's taking a wide turn, I think he he sees he's just about to miss his turn & turns, bad driving


----------



## Beebo (18 Feb 2020)

tom73 said:


> If I right this is the same case
> The driver refused to say who was driving so could not be charged for the incident.
> Only for failing to nominate driver so no ban just fine and points.
> Which leaves you with the question the driver knowing he was at fault. Tesco owned up and paid out.
> https://road.cc/content/news/271023...-delivery-driver-knocking-cyclist-bike-london


I don’t understand how it wasn’t possible to identify the driver? 
Surely Tesco know who is driving there vans. The man seen getting out of the van is clearly a passenger not a driver, so the other person must be the driver.


----------



## Drago (19 Feb 2020)

Identification in Court has to be a formal process with complete continuity. Had the driver been arrested there would have been the opportunity to do a VIPER capture, and then arrange a viewing for the victims and witnesses, essentially a modern take on the ID parade.

Without some kind of formal and credible identification of the suspect you're generally stuffed. There are stated cases on the matter where the court is entitled to make their own judgement on identification based upon the evidence before them, but they almost never do because defence lawyers don't like it, and we can't upset them now, can we?


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Feb 2020)

Rightly or wrongly, it would have been viewed as careless - a momentary lapse, not a prolonged period of inattention or driving 'far below' the standard of a competent driver.

That is punishable with a fine and/or ban.

But this 'driver' is not as clever as he thinks he is.

Failing to nominate is a criminal offence of dishonesty, which is viewed far more seriously in the outside world than careless driving.

Most insurers will now decline to quote for a driver with such a conviction, so the long term impact of the conviction is greater than the simple fine and points he would probably have got for careless.

He may also find the dishonesty nature of the conviction bars him from getting some jobs, even if they don't involve driving.


----------



## Kryton521 (19 Feb 2020)

Hopefully Tesco are now advertising for a new driver and the tosser that was driving hasn't a job.
Disgusting of Tesco not to do more to see the "driver" thrown under the bus.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Feb 2020)

That is dangerous in my opinion. 

He drives past the cyclist and any clear thinking person would slow down and let the cyclist past. 

There was no way this driver was going to let the cyclist past. 

In Denmark it would be a ban and and a retest.


----------



## Drago (19 Feb 2020)

I'm surprised Tesco's own transport manager was not prosecuted for failing to identify the driver, as the nominated TMs usually have such responsibility with large fleets.


----------



## davidphilips (19 Feb 2020)

A driver like this working for tesco could undermine tesco more than any good the millions they spend on advertising? Tesco prices may not cripple you but there drivers might? Or look what happens if you dont carry a tesco clubcard?


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Feb 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm surprised Tesco's own transport manager was not prosecuted for failing to identify the driver, as the nominated TMs usually have such responsibility with large fleets.



I thought that odd.

Generally, the request to name the driver would have gone to the registered keeper, which may be Tesco or may be a lease company, but it would have been passed to the fleet manager.

Presumably, he named the two employees as those in charge of the vehicle at the time.

The footage, and a statement from the passenger, ought to be enough to establish who was driving at a careless trial.

Part of the problem is we don't have an accurate court report saying who was charged with what.

All we've got is the victim's understanding of what went on, which as I've seen many times, is often far from complete.


----------



## icowden (19 Feb 2020)

It seems very odd, in that even if there are two people in the van and they refuse to say who was driving, there is clear footage of one person exiting from the passenger side of the vehicle, which means that the driver *has* to be the other person. The footage shows that there was no way they could have swapped places in that time.


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> That is dangerous in my opinion.
> 
> He drives past the cyclist and any clear thinking person would slow down and let the cyclist past.
> 
> ...


I agree with you and wish we were like Denmark but I also agree with @Pale Rider insofar as a UK jury or judge would not consider this "far below" competence enough to qualify as "dangerous" in law, which is a disgrace and damning indictment of how pathetic UK driving standards and laws are.


----------



## raleighnut (19 Feb 2020)

davidphilips said:


> A driver like this working for tesco could undermine tesco more than any good the millions they spend on advertising? Tesco prices may not cripple you but there drivers might? Or look what happens if you dont carry a tesco clubcard?


Oh I don't know, "*We stop at nothing to deliver your stuff*" might go down well with some people.


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2020)

davidphilips said:


> A driver like this working for tesco could undermine tesco more than any good the millions they spend on advertising? Tesco prices may not cripple you but there drivers might? Or look what happens if you dont carry a tesco clubcard?


I would enjoy someone making that into a meme for sharing, with road.cc link to the full story, but don't have time to do it myself today.


----------



## winjim (19 Feb 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm surprised Tesco's own transport manager was not prosecuted for failing to identify the driver, as the nominated TMs usually have such responsibility with large fleets.


From this tweet it appears that they did identify the driver, but he refused to cooperate.


View: https://twitter.com/Broadsword999/status/1226866454030684161?s=19


----------



## winjim (19 Feb 2020)

raleighnut said:


> Oh I don't know, "*We stop at nothing to deliver your stuff*" might go down well with some people.


E*very little help*S


----------



## midlife (19 Feb 2020)

Slightly off topic I've never seen a passenger in a tesco delivery van round these parts, is it different in cities?


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Feb 2020)

midlife said:


> Slightly off topic I've never seen a passenger in a tesco delivery van round these parts, is it different in cities?


I assumed that was the driver who just slid across to the passenger side after the accident incident.


----------



## tom73 (19 Feb 2020)

Pale rider is right to point out he's not been very cleaver. Convictions for dishonesty have quite a few areas of consequences in employment some are not alway's clear when you are applying. Not to mention in clear in black and white that's he's willing to dishonest. Which as it is even enough for some to turn you down. 
He may find it harder to move on with then a sight forward driving conviction.


----------



## raleighnut (19 Feb 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> I assumed that was the driver who just slid across to the passenger side after the accident incident.


I wonder if they are like some other delivery trucks that have no passenger seat to enable the driver easy exit to deliver.



tom73 said:


> He may find it harder to move on with then a sight forward driving conviction



Maybe he was driving on someone else's Licence, bloke I knew drove a breakdown/recovery truck for 20+yrs and never had a Driving Licence.


----------



## icowden (19 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> I agree with you and wish we were like Denmark but I also agree with @Pale Rider insofar as a UK jury or judge would not consider this "far below" competence enough to qualify as "dangerous" in law, which is a disgrace and damning indictment of how pathetic UK driving standards and laws are.



To me, it doesn't really look like the driver took any notice of the cycles at all. He was in his lane, they were in their lane. He hasn't taken notice because of the lanes, and I am guessing he is also distracted, chatting to his colleague, almost misses his turn, so brakes late and turns in, without using his mirror or thinking.

Looking at the definitions of careless vs dangerous the distinction seems to be one of intention. So if you are deliberately dangerously overtaking, or deliberately driving a defective car, or deliberately driving after taking drugs or alcohol then that qualifies as "far below" the standard of a careful and competent driver. On the other hand, without an intention to cause a problem, it seems to get classified as "careless".

@mjr says that he wishes we were like Denmark. @steveindenmark says it would be a ban and a retest. Well, that's also what can be imposed in the UK for both careless and dangerous driving, so I don't understand the distinction. The key difference between the two offences is that dangerous driving can carry a prison sentence and a larger fine.

The weakness it seems to me is that the offences only look at the behaviour of the driver and don't really take into account the seriousness of the result of their actions. Hence I have always thought that there should be a reparations element to the sentence, perhaps in liaison with the victim (mediated of course). For example if, when turning left he had hit a car, the chances of injury are very slim. It's the same action though. For the cyclist the consequences could have been much more severe. Luckily he landed clear of the vehicle and any other vehicles and his helmet prevented his head whacking the ground.

Maybe a compulsory cycle safety course where the driver has to go around on a bike for a day (or on some sort of tandem if not a cyclist) with a supervisor so they get a much better understanding of how their driving affects cyclists, along with reparations to the victim...


----------



## Profpointy (19 Feb 2020)

I can't help feeling that the very existence of the cycle lane actually increases the risk of this kind of thing, particularly as it's a different colour. In the driver's mind the other lane and any cyclists in it no longer figure in any thinking. Maybe if he'd consciously had to overtake the cyclist in the actual road he'd have been somewhat less likely to drive straight across him


----------



## tom73 (19 Feb 2020)

raleighnut said:


> I wonder if they are like some other delivery trucks that have no passenger seat to enable the driver easy exit to deliver.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was driving on someone else's Licence, bloke I knew drove a breakdown/recovery truck for 20+yrs and never had a Driving Licence.



Yes that happens for sure though any fleet management requires you to prove it's your. Not to mention employment law requires employers to do ID checks and have on file ID checks have been done. Or it's a nice bit fine. Tesco maybe many things but having unknown staff working for them I can't see happening.


----------



## Racing roadkill (19 Feb 2020)

If you watch the full recording ( all the way from the ASL on Millbank, by Vauxhall bridge) you’ll see how long the driver could see the cyclist for, and the fact the driver had to overtake the cyclist, so knew he was there. I wouldn’t have reacted quite so calmly as that rider did.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Feb 2020)

Profpointy said:


> I can't help feeling that the very existence of the cycle lane actually increases the risk of this kind of thing, particularly as it's a different colour. In the driver's mind the other lane and any cyclists in it no longer figure in any thinking. Maybe if he'd consciously had to overtake the cyclist in the actual road he'd have been somewhat less likely to drive straight across him


We have these cycle lanes all over Denmark. As a driver the colour makes the cycle lane blindingly obvious. I always feel safer on a cycle lane than on the road. If this driver did not see this cyclist, he needs a guide dog and white stick.


----------



## DRM (19 Feb 2020)

Beebo said:


> I don’t understand how it wasn’t possible to identify the driver?
> Surely Tesco know who is driving there vans. The man seen getting out of the van is clearly a passenger not a driver, so the other person must be the driver.


Having looked at the video, and paused it at the point he gets out I can’t see a driver, I’m sure those home delivery vans don’t have a passenger seat, and he’s pulled a fast one by getting out of the near side, they usually have a sack cart strapped in where the seat is missing, they also do have sat nav fitted which is part of the vans tracker, as for turning in without looking and blaming the blind spot, it’s amazing what you can see if you lean forward a little while checking the mirror, magically the blind spot reduces, the sentance is a farce, I wonder if the police were even called.


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2020)

icowden said:


> Looking at the definitions of careless vs dangerous the distinction seems to be one of intention. So if you are deliberately dangerously overtaking, or deliberately driving a defective car, or deliberately driving after taking drugs or alcohol then that qualifies as "far below" the standard of a careful and competent driver. On the other hand, without an intention to cause a problem, it seems to get classified as "careless".


That's not what sites like https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2...rence-between-dangerous-and-careless-driving/ say!



icowden said:


> @mjr says that he wishes we were like Denmark. @steveindenmark says it would be a ban and a retest. Well, that's also what can be imposed in the UK for both careless and dangerous driving, so I don't understand the distinction.


Do the sentencing guidelines actually allow it for this case, though?



icowden said:


> [...] his helmet prevented his head whacking the ground.


Oh you know it didn't and there's a whole other thread for that!


----------



## mjr (19 Feb 2020)

Profpointy said:


> I can't help feeling that the very existence of the cycle lane actually increases the risk of this kind of thing, particularly as it's a different colour. In the driver's mind the other lane and any cyclists in it no longer figure in any thinking. Maybe if he'd consciously had to overtake the cyclist in the actual road he'd have been somewhat less likely to drive straight across him


 Have you never been left-hooked on a plain and simple road? They overtake you, then turn left anyway. At least a cycle lane can reduce the risk of a close pass first, if it's wide enough, especially with shoot for negligent drivers like Lane Departure Assist now. And I would hope the different colour would raise an alarm bell in a driver's mind that they're crossing something that's not just black tarmac road, but it's not going to work every time because crap drivers are crap drivers and should have their licence sanctioned.


----------



## HMS_Dave (19 Feb 2020)

I wonder which part of the highway code it says you can turn into a road, at speed, onto the opposite side of the road? Unacceptable level of driving in my opinion...


----------



## derrick (19 Feb 2020)

CanucksTraveller said:


> It's careless rather than dangerous I'd suggest. The driver knows he's passed a cyclist, but doesn't really know (or care) where that cyclist ended up after that pass. He likely can't see shoot on that side of that van. He could wait to turn left, but possibly doesn't get that.
> 
> I'm not excusing him by the way, he's culpable, but seriously careless rather than outright dangerous.


Where are you coming from.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (19 Feb 2020)

derrick said:


> Where are you coming from.



From the point of view of the law, which is really the only useful yardstick in these conversations, anything else is simply opinion, and as always with opinions some can be measured and some can be at the other end of that scale. You know the criteria that must be fulfilled to secure a conviction for dangerous driving, right? It's been mentioned further up the thread.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Feb 2020)

Careless is defined as a momentary lapse of attention or driving that falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

Dangerous is defined as a prolonged period of inattention or driving that falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

All those judgments are subjective, which have to be made either by the magistrates or a jury if it's a crown court trial for dangerous.

Sentencing is clearer, you cannot be imprisoned for careless, but you can for dangerous,

You can be banned for careless, whether directly or by totting up if the mandatory six points takes you over the limit

A ban and retest is compulsory for dangerous, minimum 12 months.

The retest is defined as an extended test, so it is meant to be harder to pass than the original driving test.


----------



## derrick (19 Feb 2020)

The law is an ass. No wonder there are so many bad drivers on the road.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Feb 2020)

raleighnut said:


> I wonder if they are like some other delivery trucks that have no passenger seat to enable the driver easy exit to deliver.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was driving on someone else's Licence, bloke I knew drove a breakdown/recovery truck for 20+yrs and never had a Driving Licence.



Since all Tesco potential employers need to prove they have a right to work in the UK that seems unlikely.

https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work


----------



## DRM (19 Feb 2020)

CanucksTraveller said:


> It's careless rather than dangerous I'd suggest. The driver knows he's passed a cyclist, but doesn't really know (or care) where that cyclist ended up after that pass. He likely can't see shoot on that side of that van. He could wait to turn left, but possibly doesn't get that.
> 
> I'm not excusing him by the way, he's culpable, but seriously careless rather than outright dangerous.


As I wrote further up, when driving a van, if you lean forward a little when checking the near side mirror you can see a lot more of what was previously in the blind spot.


----------



## Kryton521 (20 Feb 2020)

derrick said:


> The law is an ass. No wonder there are so many bad drivers on the road.


Something like 34 million cars on our roads. Of that number in excess of a million are driving illegally, as in no insurance etc.
Successive gov's have cut Police budgets and numbers whilst demanding they do more.
Until technology catches up and every vehicle on the road requires black box type technology then they'll continue to get away with it


----------



## CanucksTraveller (20 Feb 2020)

DRM said:


> As I wrote further up, when driving a van, if you lean forward a little when checking the near side mirror you can see a lot more of what was previously in the blind spot.



I don't disagree. It's almost like he _didn't care_ or drove with _less care_ than he should if there was someone there at his side. If only there was a legal term for driving in this careless way?


----------



## DRM (20 Feb 2020)

Bottom line, set off too fast, just to get in front of the riders, which of course all drivers must do, then nearly missed the turning, and just went left without looking first, therefore that is driving that falls way below the acceptable standard.
now the driver wasn’t wearing a Tesco uniform, makes me wonder if this wasn’t a temp


----------



## mjr (20 Feb 2020)

Kryton521 said:


> Something like 34 million cars on our roads. Of that number in excess of a million are driving illegally, as in no insurance etc.


An estimated 28% haven't got the legally-required MOT, while >20% of drivers can't see to the legally-required standard, so even with perfect overlap (all the near-blind drivers have no MOT), that would be about 9½million driving illegally, even before we add on speeders, red light jumpers, yellow box sitters and all the other slam-dunks that drivers claim are victimless but fark people trying to cross the road.

Let's not underestimate the rampant criminality on the roads now. Meanwhile, anything else seems to be a higher priority for policing and few report these crimes so they don't show up as unsolved so there's a bit of a see-no-evil going on.


----------



## Profpointy (20 Feb 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> We have these cycle lanes all over Denmark. As a driver the colour makes the cycle lane blindingly obvious. I always feel safer on a cycle lane than on the road. If this driver did not see this cyclist, he needs a guide dog and white stick.





mjr said:


> Have you never been left-hooked on a plain and simple road? They overtake you, then turn left anyway. At least a cycle lane can reduce the risk of a close pass first, if it's wide enough, especially with shoot for negligent drivers like Lane Departure Assist now. And I would hope the different colour would raise an alarm bell in a driver's mind that they're crossing something that's not just black tarmac road, but it's not going to work every time because crap drivers are crap drivers and should have their licence sanctioned.



My experience suggests to me (anecdote it may be) that if I'm in a cycle lane drivers happily pass me with inches to spare, because they are in their own lane. If there's no cycle lane a much higher proportion of drivers pass properly. In addition, the existence of the lane makes it harder to pull out into the road proper to "control" those behind - they then get extra cross and beep - if the lane weren't there you'd be part of the traffic, and changing road position is considered more acceptable by drivers. Your experience may vary, but that's how I see it.


----------



## mjr (20 Feb 2020)

Profpointy said:


> the existence of the lane makes it harder to pull out into the road proper to "control" those behind - they then get extra cross and beep - if the lane weren't there you'd be part of the traffic, and changing road position is considered more acceptable by drivers. Your experience may vary, but that's how I see it.


Yeah, I find haters hate and beepers beep any time you move into control/primary position, even when there's no lane. I'd agree that cycle lanes should be >2m or not bother and drop the speed limit.


----------



## icowden (20 Feb 2020)

I agree with @Profpointy. There is something about "i am in my lane, you should be in your lane" and "if you have a lane, it must be wide enough for you and I don't have to worry about you". The fact that the lane is designated gives a feeling of ownership of that lane. "This lane is for my car, that lane is for your bike". The oddness in this particular case is that the driver is so focused on where they have to deliver to that they seemingly forget that the cycle lane exists at all, or that there are cyclists in it.


----------



## mjr (20 Feb 2020)

icowden said:


> I agree with @Profpointy. There is something about "i am in my lane, you should be in your lane" and "if you have a lane, it must be wide enough for you and I don't have to worry about you". The fact that the lane is designated gives a feeling of ownership of that lane. "This lane is for my car, that lane is for your bike". The oddness in this particular case is that the driver is so focused on where they have to deliver to that they seemingly forget that the cycle lane exists at all, or that there are cyclists in it.


If they were focused on where they have to deliver, it wouldn't look like they almost missed their turning! It seems more likely they were focused on a newspaper or electronic device.


----------



## DRM (20 Feb 2020)

There’s a cycle lane that goes from Hunslet to Belle Isle in Leeds, some bright spark decided that this particular stretch of road needed speed bumps too, the cushion type where you straddle them with your car wheels, and then installed them with the left side of the bump about 3” away from the right hand side of the cycle lane, so that it forces vehicles to the left and closer to any poor sod who’s riding a bike, bad enough with a car, lethal with a bus or lorry.


----------



## icowden (21 Feb 2020)

mjr said:


> If they were focused on where they have to deliver, it wouldn't look like they almost missed their turning! It seems more likely they were focused on a newspaper or electronic device.



I'd suggest that they were focused on a Satnav. If you don't know where you are going, it's quite easy to mistake a turn, and try to get to it last minute.


----------



## raleighnut (21 Feb 2020)

I think a lot of it is drivers don't realise how fast a bike may be travelling, a lot expect them to be doing not much more than walking pace so once they've overtaken them they think they're past not realising the bike could be at some speed and they haven't really got by it yet.

No excuse but I'm sure that's their mindset.


----------



## Profpointy (21 Feb 2020)

raleighnut said:


> I think a lot of it is drivers don't realise how fast a bike may be travelling, a lot expect them to be doing not much more than walking pace so once they've overtaken them they think they're past not realising the bike could be at some speed and they haven't really got by it yet.
> 
> No excuse but I'm sure that's their mindset.



That's true as well. I still get the jitters remembering the guy towing a trailer with a digger on it who pulled in whilst it was still beside me !


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Feb 2020)

Were I the rider in the video I would have stop pedalling/dabbed the brakes to get the Tesco van well in front.

I've done that a few times, particularly with bigger vehicles.

Shouldn't have to, but keeping pace in a vehicle's nearside blind spot is not a good idea.


----------

