# why dont cyclists report dangerous drivers ?



## davidphilips (7 Nov 2016)

another dangerous driver cut in front of me after blowing his horn and shouting abuse yes there was a cycle lane and i will not use it as i do not consider it safe, i have the feeling he does not like cyclists as i was cycling close to the left and very little other traffic about.

when i arrived home a friend asked me why i did not take the drivers number plate and report his dangerous driving? 

question does any one report drivers that are a hazard and clearly should not be allowed to drive in such a manner/manure way, also is it worth wile or just put such things down to another of cyclings little upsets as per usual.


----------



## MiK1138 (7 Nov 2016)

for the same reason Motorists dont report dangerous cyclists there are just to many of both


----------



## Rooster1 (7 Nov 2016)

Get a camera and report it. I have done this just once in the two years I have had it. I tend to ignore a lot of incidents otherwise I becomes a full time job.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (7 Nov 2016)

I have, twice in the past. Once when I was threatened with violence for daring to be in front of a motorist going down a hill who then overtook me into oncoming traffic and once when a motorist drove his car at me for no reason at all, then shouted at me.

I couldn't report all the dangerous drivers, but I make sure I report any that put my life in danger.


----------



## mjr (7 Nov 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> Get a camera and report it. I have done this just once in the two years I have had it. I tend to ignore a lot of incidents otherwise I becomes a full time job.


^^ This. I've also no evidence that any report I've made has ever resulted in any action against the motorist, so it seems like a worthless task. I still do it, but more out of hope than anything.


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Nov 2016)




----------



## snorri (7 Nov 2016)

I've reported three drivers to the police in 20 years for executing overtaking manoeuvres which I considered to have endangered my life. On each occasion I had a call back to say they had communicated with the driver. In two of the incidents the police added further detail which I had not initially disclosed, this could only have come from the driver.
There was no actual contact between vehicle and bike or myself so I didn't expect any legal action against the driver. I was satisfied to hear that they had been spoken to and can only hope they'll take more care in future.


----------



## Markymark (7 Nov 2016)

MiK1138 said:


> for the same reason Motorists dont report dangerous cyclists there are just to many of both


They must be reporting all the dangerous cyclists as they've got the deaths from all these dangerous cyclists down to less than one a year. Maybe we should now turn our attention to the 1,500 deaths a year from motorised traffic.


----------



## subaqua (7 Nov 2016)

davidphilips said:


> another dangerous driver cut in front of me after blowing his horn and shouting abuse yes there was a cycle lane and i will not use it as i do not consider it safe, i have the feeling he does not like cyclists as i was cycling close to the left and very little other traffic about.
> 
> when i arrived home a friend asked me why i did not take the drivers number plate and report his dangerous driving?
> 
> question does any one report drivers that are a hazard and clearly should not be allowed to drive in such a manner/manure way, also is it worth wile or just put such things down to another of cyclings little upsets as per usual.




because even when we get injured we get no sympathy from plod. and they cant be bothered to invetigate properly. 

basic things like , why was he overtaking so close to a junction where people would be turning right, why was he overtaking on diagonal hatchings with a dashed edge when he shouldn't be . Why was he so close that even if a cyclist did lose control they woudl be hit. 
lazy woodentopping.


----------



## davidphilips (7 Nov 2016)

thanks ever one who replied, as abikecam says about a driver who puts his life in danger maybe it should have been reported even if as milk floats picture shows it may just be a wast of time.
%99.99 of the time i just take no notice or dont let it get to me but this morning the driver really got to me with his aggression i am very thankful that he did not stop i may well have acted completely out of character and know full well theres 2 losers in every confrontation and knowing my luck if i had done some thing i would now be facing some time with police, solicitors, court, a big legal bill, perhaps a criminal record and my name in the local paper. 
lol markymark glad you can see the funny side normally i do and just think i am lucky not to live beside the likes of the driver.
thanks again everyone and hope no one else has any close encounters with fast moving lumps of metal not controlled by ai (artificial intelligence) but by ab (aggressive behaviour).


----------



## Mrs M (7 Nov 2016)

I have reported one driver for a frighteningly close pass.
I was advised driver would be spoken to 
Hope they were and take heed.


----------



## fossyant (7 Nov 2016)

One of the reasons I've given up commuting on a bike. Having suffered a very serious injury, it's just not worth the risk in traffic. The times I've been hit have been during rush hour as folk just take too many gambles. They can't even see cars and trucks. It's no better in the car !!


----------



## ianrauk (7 Nov 2016)

Mrs M said:


> I have reported one driver for a frighteningly close pass.
> I was advised driver would be spoken to
> Hope they were and take heed.




I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## Brandane (8 Nov 2016)

subaqua said:


> why was he overtaking on diagonal hatchings with a dashed edge when he shouldn't be .


That depends on interpretation of "unless it is necessary" (As a driver, I wouldn't have a problem entering the hatched area to overtake a cyclist - as long as the second part is complied with; "you can see that it is safe to do so"; which would obviously mean there is no-one turning right). 
According to the Highway Code, rule 130:

*Rule 130*
*Areas of white diagonal stripes* or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.


If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you *MUST NOT* enter it except in an emergency.


----------



## mjr (8 Nov 2016)

fossyant said:


> One of the reasons I've given up commuting on a bike. Having suffered a very serious injury, it's just not worth the risk in traffic. The times I've been hit have been during rush hour as folk just take too many gambles. They can't even see cars and trucks. It's no better in the car !!


But I think that's a local problem, a mix of dick driving, busy roads and bad layouts. Probably not the only place it happens, but I've few qualms riding in most places in rush hour. That said, there's one point in Lynn where I cross an A road to "salmon" up a cycle track on the right that I don't always bother with off-peak - instead, I merge back onto the left lane of a three-lane for the 600m gap in the cycle track on the left.



Brandane said:


> That depends on interpretation of "unless it is necessary" (As a driver, I wouldn't have a problem entering the hatched area to overtake a cyclist - as long as the second part is complied with; "you can see that it is safe to do so"; which would obviously mean there is no-one turning right). [...]


A turn-right protection is a bit different. I hate cycling on roads where they've painted wide hatched areas in the middle instead of wide shoulders at the sides because so many motorists are scared to enter the centre hatching to overtake but we've no shoulder to escape onto. I feel it would often be better if they allocated all the wide shoulder space to one side and bollarded it off... but some disagree vehemently, as in this CTC discussion.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Nov 2016)

In general there's a lack of interest on the part of the police, not helped by severe understaffing. I'll add to that a lack of police understanding of the dangers faced by cyclists with things like tailgating and close passes. At least there's a seed of hope with the West Midlands police traffic department and their targeting of motorists who endanger us.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Nov 2016)

Have they actually done anyone yet?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Nov 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> Have they actually done anyone yet?




Who?


----------



## jarlrmai (8 Nov 2016)

West Midlands


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Nov 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> West Midlands



Yes.


----------



## subaqua (8 Nov 2016)

Brandane said:


> That depends on interpretation of "unless it is necessary" (As a driver, I wouldn't have a problem entering the hatched area to overtake a cyclist - as long as the second part is complied with; "you can see that it is safe to do so"; which would obviously mean there is no-one turning right).
> According to the Highway Code, rule 130:
> 
> *Rule 130*
> ...



I was signalling I was turning right. that was the " Waving his hands" the other nobbers insurance said was "contributory to me losing control of the bike" which plod didn't bother with on the statements . 

as i said lazy woodentopping


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Nov 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> West Midlands



Sorry for the curt reply earlier, I was called away.

I believe they've warned 14 drivers and prosecuted a further 19 so far. As part of their Operation Close Pass, they test the eyesight of every driver stopped and have revoked at least one driving licence at the roadside. Very promising actions from a traffic department that appears to understand the vulnerability of those on bikes.

Edited to add: Checking their Twitter feed they've now reached 78 prosecutions with 3rd party footage. If only other police areas would treat this as seriously!


----------



## Brandane (8 Nov 2016)

subaqua said:


> as i said lazy woodentopping


It might have been the case that the Police's hands were tied because of evidence given to them by witnesses, rather than them being lazy. 
This is where cyclists and other solo road users are at a huge disadvantage when they are involved in a collision with a vehicle containing more than one person. Passengers are usually friends, workmates, relatives or whatever; and therefore more often than not will back up the driver - even when the driver was blatantly wrong! 
The Police simply don't have the resources to properly investigate every RTC, unless a fatality is involved. That is when you will see it done properly with road closures and forensic examination of the scene. You can imagine the chaos that would cause, never mind the cost involved, if done for every RTC..
For now they have no choice but to report the circumstances to the prosecuting authorities based on witness statements; and to get back on topic that is as good a reason as any for not wasting your time reporting dangerous drivers - unless you have good evidence to back it up. This particularly applies in Scotland, where corroboration is a fundamental principal of the rules of evidence.


----------



## mjr (8 Nov 2016)

Brandane said:


> get back on topic that is as good a reason as any for not wasting your time reporting dangerous drivers - unless you have good evidence to back it up.


Does handlebar/dash camera evidence generally qualify as "good"?


----------



## Brandane (8 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Does handlebar/dash camera evidence generally qualify as "good"?


Yes, depending on the quality. It _migh_t even count as corroboration, depending on what it shows.


----------



## subaqua (8 Nov 2016)

Brandane said:


> It might have been the case that the Police's hands were tied because of evidence given to them by witnesses, rather than them being lazy.
> This is where cyclists and other solo road users are at a huge disadvantage when they are involved in a collision with a vehicle containing more than one person. Passengers are usually friends, workmates, relatives or whatever; and therefore more often than not will back up the driver - even when the driver was blatantly wrong!
> The Police simply don't have the resources to properly investigate every RTC, unless a fatality is involved. That is when you will see it done properly with road closures and forensic examination of the scene. You can imagine the chaos that would cause, never mind the cost involved, if done for every RTC..
> For now they have no choice but to report the circumstances to the prosecuting authorities based on witness statements; and to get back on topic that is as good a reason as any for not wasting your time reporting dangerous drivers - unless you have good evidence to back it up. This particularly applies in Scotland, where corroboration is a fundamental principal of the rules of evidence.


The attitude of them while I was lying on the floor wasn't the best. That's the Met though. PoliceScotland might be different.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Nov 2016)

Glad I run cameras when on my own.


----------



## Simontm (11 Nov 2016)

A Corsa wrecked my bike and very nearly me about a month ago on Chiswick High Road. I was in the bus lane passing the queuing traffic and slowing down as there was a red ahead. The lane stops to allow turning cars and the Corsa just emerged in front of me turning right from the oncoming traffic stream. Nowt I could do but pray for the best.
The policeman when they finally turned up at the hospital said :"Was the Corsa stationary?"
"Of course officer I find it particularly exhilarating to charge straight into a car" I thought. I know he was checking statements from the scene but the aggression in his voice made me think he wanted to pin a car driving across a lane unsighted on me. I reckon the driver's brain went:"no big red thing, lane must be empty." And of course he SMIDSY-Ed me. 
Now here's the thing. On the witness form it has how would you like the case to proceed-no action, prosecution, driver education.
I opted for education. Why? After speaking to him at the scene, I could not see how putting points on a licence would be more effective for a young driver than an awareness course. If that one young man can learn from his mistake that caused the accident then I feel that is the correct way to go and punishment wouldn't be as effective for his future driving behaviour. His actions weren't malicious, just stupid.


----------



## Bluebug (12 Nov 2016)

subaqua said:


> The attitude of them while I was lying on the floor wasn't the best. That's the Met though. PoliceScotland might be different.


With the Met it depends in what part of London the incident happens. 

If you have a camera, was wearing the "right"* gear and it happens in a bike friendly part of London they would try and take it further. Partially because there will be paramedics and the police themselves who go around on bikes in these areas. However the CPS can be a**holes and tell the police there is in sufficient evidence to proceed so the case has to be dropped e.g. because the driver doesn't admit it.

*Unfortunately this means wearing high-viz, reflective strips, using lights in low light conditions and possibly wearing a bike helmet. Criminal convictions rely on reasonable doubt so one obstacle to overcome is ensuring a "reasonable" driver can see you.


----------



## jarlrmai (14 Nov 2016)

Prosecution IS education for driving offences.


----------



## Randombiker9 (19 Sep 2017)

I'm guessing probably because not everyone has evidence so there for there's no point of reporting it because if there's no evidence police aren't going to take action. Like it's happend to me every time I cycle on the roads but I have no evidence so what would be the point of reporting it? if there's no evidence as I said it's unlikely police will do anything. When this I get bad overtakes i just accept it and continue


----------

