Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Driving Standards

Unfortunately, pedestrianising areas gives no guarantee at all that people won't be run over. Cyclists routinely ride in them because of course, the rules don't apply to them.

Worth remembering that by default, cycling is allowed in pedestrianised areas, and that cycling needs to be explicitly banned with a no cycling or no vehicles sign. Many pedestrianised areas (including Birmingham city centre) have no signage or signage which explicitly only bars motorised vehicles (possibly with allowances at certain times) which means cycling is allowed.
Local bylaws can be put in place to change this but as a general principle in law, cyclists are allowed to cycle in pedestrianised areas.

In determining the law in this area, an important distinction to highlight is the difference between footways and footpaths. A footway is what is commonly referred to as the pavement (although they are not always paved) which runs alongside a carriageway or road whilst a footpath is situated away from the road, often between buildings or in the countryside. Cycling on a footpath generally only constitutes a trespass against the landowner which is a civil rather than a criminal matter. This means that the police cannot take any enforcement action which includes the issuance of a Fixed Penalty Notice. It is important to note however, that local authorities can make it a criminal offence to cycle on a footpath by means of a bylaw or traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Similarly, local bylaws can make cycling in pedestrianised zones or vehicle restricted areas, such as shopping precincts, a criminal offence and consequently enforceable by the police and punishable with a Fixed Penalty Notice. Not all Traffic Regulation Orders prohibiting the entry of vehicles to areas such as shopping streets prohibit cycling but, when they do, they must be observed.

 
With much of the current road system, the only safe way to ride a bike is to get up people’s noses a bit by being in the way, out wide and visible. Meek cyclists clinging to the gutter don’t get noticed and are run off the roads or twatted by doors opening on parked cars. Obviously getting in the way of cars/trucks can piss off the terminally impatient, cause conflict etc. Not ideal but in many cases necessary for a better chance of not ending up under someone’s wheels. Bar the odd nutter, people won’t deliberately run you over for this, at worst most will just piss and moan about it on the internet.

Better designed cycling infrastructure (I.e stuff that allows people to get where they want to go at a reasonable rate, not 90 degree turns and push-button crossings) will remove a lot of this conflict by keeping bikes out of the way of cars, make it easier to coexist. I’m surprised it’s not more popular with people who mainly drive cars.
 
Crashing into the front of a police station, whilst over the drink driving limit. :facepalm:

View attachment 196490


Heh, not sure if that is better or worse than the cunt who crashed in to Guildford magistrates court last year, also pissed.
 
Maybe the driver were reporting themselves to the cops. First step towards recovery etc :thumbs:

Except you can apparently run over a copper on purpose and still go free from court without even a driving ban.

 
Except you can apparently run over a copper on purpose and still go free from court without even a driving ban.

Whereas a cyclist convicted of the same offence but who actually killed someone, got a derisory 18 month prison sentence.
 
ok - i'll bite

Suspect you're talking of Charlie Alliston? I think you'll be had pressed to find anyone that will support him, whether they're a user of 2 wheels or four

However, a quick google to check the spelling of his name brought me this - an interesting comparison of the press and relative punishment for cyclists v drivers (though the source does imply that it may not be totally independent)
Twitter user's response to media coverage of cyclist jailed for killing pedestrian is hard-hitting - and heartbreaking

But since the thread title is "driving standards", I guess that it should to be saved for another topic
 
Except you can apparently run over a copper on purpose and still go free from court without even a driving ban.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
101mph in a 30mph area

This seems a bit fast for UK roads, and he was doing it to improve his skills not for an emergency call.

PC Paul Brown, 48, of Norwich, denied 16 driving offences while in an unmarked police BMW X5.

Ipswich magistrates heard he drove with blue lights on, ran four red lights and reached speeds of 122mph.

He was cleared of the charges after telling the court he was carrying out continuous professional development (CPD) - a mandatory requirement.

PC Brown argued he was lawfully exempt from traffic laws as he was carrying out his CPD and the court heard he was "shocked" to have faced charges

 
Wouldn't the police have had to report him?

How did it reach court?

The vehicle has an on board data logger..

Based on information received later that day from a former police officer, his superior, James Waller, examined telematics on the car and found data which led to the 11 speeding charges, four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.


So his superior thought he was out of order.
 
This seems a bit fast for UK roads, and he was doing it to improve his skills not for an emergency call.






I had a look around on the internet I found some ambulance speed limits..

1581367408827.png

page 18


These suggested numbers seem sensible, even then in some situations 45 mph is going to be too fast in a 30 mph. But 105 mph seems reckless.
 
Well, if you're are going to crash when pissed-up, it may as well be a police car. :facepalm:

2.png

According to Sussex Police, officers were driving westbound along Brighton Road about 9.19pm on Friday, January 24 when a Volkswagen Polo pulled away from the kerb and collided with their vehicle and a parked vehicle, causing minor damage to both. The officers were not on an emergency call at the time and no injuries were reported.

At Worthing Magistrates’ Court on February 18, Chapman was sentenced to 16 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and disqualified from driving for three years.

He was also required to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work, and pay £85 costs and a £122 victim surcharge, police said.

 
Back
Top Bottom