Swansea motorist pleads guilty after cyclist captures near miss on film

What surprised me most about this article is that a near-miss was actually prosecuted. That's reportable in itself.

As always, we only get part of the evidence, at third or fourth hand.
Shows the value of the video.

I think it was a case of 'turning right while looking left'.
Cyclist dismissed as presumed to be slow ? Or just not seen or looked-for.
The cyclist thought he 'made eye-contact', but that can be misleading, especially if the driver has poor eyesight.

Can anyone see any distracting/obscuring 'floral displays on the railings' ?
He should have been done for perjury or 'attempting to pervert the course of justice', if there were none.

Google Street View shows hanging baskets, that might have 'inspired' him, but they are
- 15 feet up a lamp-post
- on a different date
- visibly absent in the video
https://goo.gl/maps/wfR8SmUpjEK2

I think the bit about the sun could have been an explanation for the headlamps flashing.

You can see the oncoming car is driving through sunbeams, which have reflected off the windows of the buildings. This could cause 'flashes' - although bumps in the road can also cause flashes with dipped headlights. Definitely shouldn't be taken as proof it's OK to pull out !

Pavement parking is a real problem there - that seems to be why the railings were installed.
I don't know why the signs for the traffic lights and speed/camera are so high above the ground - I suspect that is against the TSRGD rules ?

I like the bit about how another driver flashed at him so he thought that it was safe to proceed. I was under the impression that you still have to check whether it actually *is* safe... Just because someone else said it was OK doesn't mean that it actually is. (I can hear my gran saying "If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?")

If you can demonstrate via video that someone has violated the law the police, irrespective of how inconvenient or trivial it may seem, are duty bound to do something.  We fund the police service so if a motorist passes closely at speed for example (within the limit specified by law for an overtake) then an offence has been committed - period.

If the police fail to act press it further, as far as it takes.  Once the CPS are involved (once you get past the unwillingness to fill out the forms) the argument is that it is in the interests of the general public to pursue a prosecution as this is a matter of life and death, there can be no counter argument that cars are not lethal.

Quite often you just need to be prepared to make yourself a pain in the arse and insist the letter of the law is followed fully.  The authorities would soon be interested in your video footage if you accidentally captured bank robbers getting into their vehicle, makes no difference how important it may seem to the police, something is either illegal or it isn't. 

If it's illegal they should act on the evidence given to them.

To be fair the low sun wasn't to do with the driver. The website mentioned it 

The sun was behind the driver so it wouldn't have been a factor. 

We we do have a time bomb on our hands with older drivers who haven't been retested in50 years and whose eyesight has drastically reduced. 

This coffin dodger should have to take a re-test which he might well fail thus meaning there is one less incompetent dangerous driver on the roads. He shouldn't even be allowed to be in control of his own zimmer frame or commode, let alone a car.

Can't lay hands on the figures just now but government statistics definitely show that drivers aged 17 - 25 are involved in several times as many accidents per person as the elderly.

Maybe they should all be regularly assessed by a trained instructor who can begin the process ....... ?

Postcode lottery? No question about it. I live on the Hampshire/Berkshire border and have reported dangerous driving, supported by helmet-cam footage, to both Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Police.

TVP, to their credit, review each incident, and where it is not serious enough to warrant prosecution will send a letter to the offending driver, explaining that they have been reported and that their details will kept on file.

Hampshire Police do sweet FA - they don't even ask to look at footage and don't contact the driver. When I compained at their lack of action I was told that they concentrate on incidents that are likely to result in a prosecution, rather than going after drivers that might have made an honest mistake. So if you live in Hampshire, it's open season on cyclists

That guy should not be driving. His reactions are not fast enough now. Emerging incorrectly is one thing, but having done so he should have reacted much faster and stamped on his brakes so hard and fast that the front of his bonnet goes down way before the cyclist gets up to the car.

I would not wish to take a driving licence away from any elderly person but safety must come first always. I don't think he's safe to drive at his age. There should be yearly check drives with everyone over the age of 70 by a trained instructor who can begin the process of removing a dangerous driver from the road.

Quote:

"but said in mitigation that his view was obscured due to a floral display"

"but another motorist had flashed his headlights at him, which he took as a signal that it was safe to proceed."

"Due to the brightness of the sun, which is low in the sky,"

Oh do fuck off!
Take responsibility for your own shit driving.