I'm not sure what to make of this one.

[northernladuk]

She may have got off completely if she hadn't lied, had stopped at the scene, had looked upset and hadn't gone to carry on with her shopping.

If you run someone over and kill them because they crossed the road in front of you when you were driving at 30mph, didn't have enough time to brake and your car was roadworthy, as long as you stop at or near the scene you won't get a caution or conviction. If you drive off and completely leave the scene then you just done a hit and run.

That's a very good point and one I forgot to add when I was pointing out the woman on the path's failings.

[Protagoras]

Interesting there is a dropped kerb there though. Is that indicative of a cycle route like no 30 mph signs when the street lights are a certain distance?

I would have assumed that the dropped kerb was for mobility scooter access.

There's nothing that suggests shared use to me; indeed the street light columns, traffic sign supports and traffic lights all obstruct the pavement, representing hazards to cyclists. On balance I think one would presume against this being shared use. But the council should know.

Just driven home from the next town. 30mph limit on a long straight, with streetlights, pavements and housing. I was overtaken by multiple vehicles exceeding the speed limit and causing the roadside speedometer sign to light up and advise them of their speed! The area is well known for police speed checks too. Some people seem not to care about being caught.

[vetran]

Interesting there is a dropped kerb there though. Is that indicative of a cycle route like no 30 mph signs when the street lights are a certain distance?

Again council can't win. They spend a fortune making it good and they'll get ripped a new one, they don't, they get ripped a new one.

Relieved I'm just a keyboard warrior spouting my uninformed opinion on this one. Hate to be connected to any of the parties mentioned in this thread that are involved.

We have had those for wheelchair users as long as I have been alive.

All the shared cycle ways round here have signs and doodles of bikes on the pavement.

Agree its very difficult.

[vetran]

She may have got off completely if she hadn't lied, had stopped at the scene, had looked upset and hadn't gone to carry on with her shopping.

If you run someone over and kill them because they crossed the road in front of you when you were driving at 30mph, didn't have enough time to brake and your car was roadworthy, as long as you stop at or near the scene you won't get a caution or conviction. If you drive off and completely leave the scene then you just done a hit and run.

Or she may have got off if she didn't have a mental condition and was recorded yelling in the street about people breaking the rules. That sort of behaviour is Autistic in my experience. Maybe if the street were properly labelled then the shouting may not of occurred.

What exactly did she lie about? Think about it.

Recently my employer said we are making 10% of staff redundant, now I was fairly confident as were a number of more highly intelligent and competent people, we all spent the day wandering about stunned and useless like every round of redundancy I have ever taken part in.

The rounds where the needle landed on me I have always had a replacement job before I walk out the door so I know it may be one door closing but traditionally the new door opening leads to greater riches and opportunities. However the threat is enough to turn most people into Zombies. I would still wake up in the morning, I would still earn the big bucks or I have so far.

Luckily my team survived but it was scary and stressful. Do not expect sense from those under great stress unless they have been trained for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a22_story.html

This woman was scared and mentally damaged with a person dying in front of her.

When I helplessly watched 2 people die in a car accident 40 years ago it damaged me badly, I still have nightmares, I'm considered fairly normal by most experts who have checked me but I'm not sure how I would fare in these conditions.

[WTFH]

…I will chose to move into the inside lane…

You should pull into the inside lane from an overtaking lane when you are not overtaking.
If you hog an overtaking lane you are a danger to yourself and other road users.

Driving passive-aggressively, as your style describes, is very dangerous. Driving at a steady speed and being aware of others is safer. (Rule 260)
You are not the police, and it is not your job to police other road users, but to drive in a safe and steady manner.
Slowing down and speeding up is not safe driving. (260)
Sitting an overtaking lane when you’re not overtaking is not safe driving (in normal conditions). (264)
Deliberately holding up traffic on a motorway when there is nothing in front of you to cause it, (no matter what speed you are doing) is not safe driving. (260)

[Whorty]

Not so in all cases. Many moons ago I was driving down the M1 south bound toward the A5 'dip', raining and dark and nose to tail. Some idiot was tailgating so close I couldn't see his head lights. So as you suggest once it was safe I pulled over (lane 3 ->2). And then all hell broke loose behind as the tailgater accelerated into the gap just as the cars in front were braking. 6 car pile up ensued. Having just last month been on a speed awareness course the official line is as V says, back off to 4 cars gap in front, it gives you time to slow down gradually and doesn't put the poor sod in front at risk. Also 'and this works in most cases' slowing down makes a reasonable driver realise they are tailgating and then you can speed back up with a reasonable and safe gap.

Hmm, not quite the same as what Vetty is saying is it?

We didn't discuss specific dangerous situations ... if it's raining, dark, nose to tail, then maybe you also shouldn't be in lane 3 driving at those speeds ... but your last actions did back up my argument completely. When it was safe to do so you moved left - and as such you was not involved in any accident, but also you didn't cause one.

What Vetty said, and he's trying to back out of now, is if someone is moving towards him at 70, he will deliberately slow down to 50 to annoy them. Well, not being funny, but if you reduce your speed by 20 mpg, there is a fair chance the driver behind you will end up in your rear boot!

And for the record, I've been driving 34 years. Never had a single point on licence. Never had an accident or insurance claim. Used to drive 30+ thousand miles a year as a consultant back in the 90's. Have lived in London and driven for years around SE London.

Drive to the conditions. Don't randomly change lanes. Don't randomly slow down. Don't signal or shout abuse at other drivers to start road rage. It's fairly simple.

[vetran]

You should pull into the inside lane from an overtaking lane when you are not overtaking.
If you hog an overtaking lane you are a danger to yourself and other road users.

Driving passive-aggressively, as your style describes, is very dangerous. Driving at a steady speed and being aware of others is safer. (Rule 260)
You are not the police, and it is not your job to police other road users, but to drive in a safe and steady manner.
Slowing down and speeding up is not safe driving. (260)
Sitting an overtaking lane when you’re not overtaking is not safe driving (in normal conditions). (264)
Deliberately holding up traffic on a motorway when there is nothing in front of you to cause it, (no matter what speed you are doing) is not safe driving. (260)

As the majority of those in lane 1 are physically limited to 55 or 60 my doing 70 in the middle lane overtaking them is not unreasonable, some moron six feet from my arse who want to exceed the national speed limit in his German D1ck extension is.

Carry on looking like a feckwit making tulip up, we expect it!

[vetran]

I'm making bollocks up as usual, my hairdresser mobile isn't scary in your rearview.

FTFY

[Whorty]

So to summarise

1. You believe a cyclist riding on the pavement illegally and who failed to stop to prevent an accident is in the right? If half the cyclists I see riding badly fell off when they were shouted about then the hobby would die out quickly.
2. Tailgating is perfectly sensible and normal drivers shouldn't protect themselves against warty level stupidity. I do however have a solution.

I'm interested why you think I drive badly? I'm not the one advocating performing a dangerous manoeuvre, you are. You're the one who thinks it's ok to slow down dangerously because, in your vigilante view, you think you need to teach someone a lesson.

I simple move out the way, when it's safe to do so. If someone wants to drive at 90 in lane 3, let them. It's far too dangerous and stupid for me to try to stop them.

[Whorty]

FTFY

So you've lost the argument, and you're resorting to name calling of me and others ... awww, you don't change do you?

Just admit it .. you're wrong. Your road behaviour is dangerous, and your view on this woman dying and blaming her (the victim) is appalling.