20 cm: The Conclusion

The 1st of March 2010 was just another day cycling to work. It should have been a fairly short journey. However, the journey only started that day and only now has it reached a conclusion. On that journey I came within centimeters of loosing my life.....

20 centimeters.



Just before Christmas I finally found out why the driver in the above clip will not face prosecution, and it is definitely the end of the road for this incident.

After chasing, and chasing and chasing the Procurator Fiscal, on the 1st December I received a letter informing me that the case was not going to be prosecuted due to 'Insufficient Evidence'. Specifically the evidence lacking was the proof of who was driving the HGV. This seemed rather strange to me, as at the time of the incident the driver was questioned, admitted driving the HGV and was charged with dangerous driving. How could this be?

It turns out (following a long conversation with the PF office) that I am in fact a victim of a Supreme Court ruling from October this year.

In short the ruling means that the old practice in Scotland of interviewing a suspect without asking a suspect if they want a lawyer present was now unlawful. This ruling was also retrospective. It turns out that the HGV driver in this case was, you guessed it, interviewed in this way. Thus the interview was inadmissible in court, as was any admission of driving the HGV.

Of course there is more than one way to prove who was driving the HGV on that day, tachograph records, company records etc, but this wasn't investigated by the police so there is no corroborating evidence of who was driving the HGV.

The law is certainly in this instance an ass.

What did transpire during my conversation with the PF was that my video evidence in itself did not constitute corroborating evidence to my own statement. Thus, as it stood my testimony and the video evidence were not enough to convict. However, there was a simple way around that. If the case did come to court, the video evidence would be shown with 'in court' comments from an expert witness, i.e. a traffic officer. Any comments that the officer made about the video, i.e. 'driving of that standard would be considered dangerous driving, in my view' would provide the required corroboration.

So from an evidential point of view helmet camera evidence is admissible and useful in court.

So, whilst I am annoyed that this particular case cannot proceed any further, I am happy in the knowledge that should something like this happen again (hopefully not!) that my helmet camera evidence will be invaluable.

I'll keep on filming......

One of Those Days

First off Happy Christmas!

Today was the first day back on the bike after Christmas. In fact it was a rare outing on the bike! The weather over the last month has kept me off it.

I was looking forward to getting back on the bike, but it was last night when I readied the bike for commuting again that things started going wrong. Here is the list:

1) Back rim is worn down, and due to salt the spokes are stuck fast. New rear wheel needed

2) Replacement chain purchased and fitted, however on todays commute in the chain kept slipping. Only some gears were usable. New cassette needed!

3) One of my front lights is now only working intermittently (B&M Ixon IQ). New front light needed!

4) During the holidays I've lost my new DHB cycling gloves! New gloves needed!

5) My helmet camera recorder doesn't see all of the space on the flash card it uses. Hopefully a new recorder isn't needed!!!! (Hopefully a format will sort it!)

All this at a time when money is tight.

Oh well, at least it is cheaper than a car.....

Red Mist

I am angry today. Why? I am angry after having read this.

This is a typical Red Mist incident and and I am sick of it.

Red mist is not an acceptable justification for endangering someones life. There is no situation whatsoever where I would ever use my car in a manner that would intentionally endanger any other road user. Why? Because I have learned to control my impulses, as is required in a functional society.

If someone through red mist decides to swerve their car at me, then this person deserves to be punished fully for their actions. No question. The caution given to the driver of the above incident is not sufficient punishment.

I am sick of the attitude that some road users have. Just yesterday I came upon a a section of road that was slushy. There was a cycle lane at the side, but not only is it in the car door zone, but it had significantly more accumulation of snow/ice and slush in it. A car (4x4) sits right on my rear wheel (red light up ahead). I signal to pull back. They do slightly, but not much. We stop at the lights and the 'lady' (nicely attired, probably in a good job, has a family etc) winds down her window:

Me: You were too close to me, especially considering the conditions (slushy and -6C)

Driver: You should have been in your 'wee cycle lane'

Me: This is my lane right here.

Driver: No you should have been over there.

Me: It's full of snow and ice, it is too dangerous to cycle in.

Driver: I don't care.

Me: So I should endanger myself by cycling in that lane for your convenience?

Driver: Yes. It's your problem not mine.


Then the lights changed.

This lady was not joking. She was deadly serious.

I am sick of this attitude and I really am not willing to stand for it any longer. This is exactly why we need enforcement. Yes we need the carrot as well, but right now the stick is not big enough.

20 cm from Death

I had an incident when cycling on the 1st March 2010 which I didn't post here on my blog.

Here is my initial reaction to the incident which I posted on Cyclechat a few hours afterwards (including the original typos).

I'm still a bit shaken. This morning I was entering a roundabout at about 15 mph. Nothing else was on the roundabout at the time. I am going straight on. On the next entrance to the roundabout a HGV (oil tanker) is approaching. We make eye contact and he starts slowing. The next thing I know he is entering the roundabout and he is turning right (cutting straight across me). I can't go ahead of him, I can't go behind him. I brake hard, and my back wheel looses grip (sub zero this morning). I manage to stay upright (thank God!) and stop just short of him. He continues to tun and due to his size his rear wheels get closer and closer to me. The pass less than 20cm from me and my bike. He disappears off leaving me stood in the middle of the roundabout in complete shock.

When I get to the meeting I was going to they commented that I looked white.

So I'm just having something to eat, I'll be phoning the police (I have the reg but no markings on the tanker) and then I'll get the video up.

I honestly thought my time was up.

Days before this, I had upgraded my brake pads. I know for a fact if I had not I would have been 1m further along the road.....

It was a serious incident, one which I took straight to the police. After a little 'encouragement' from myself they were happy to charge the driver with Dangerous Driving. In Scotland this means the case is referred to the Procurator Fiscal (PF) who decide on what action to take, i.e. to take it to court or to drop the charges.

It has taken a good few months to find out from the PF what has happened to my case (that's another story), however, yesterday I found out.




Insufficient evidence.

So what do you think?