Driver who destroyed GB rider’s lifelong Olympic dream escapes with fine

Well only the driver will ever know for sure why he did what he did,& Im sure we will all have our own theories, but Lauren describes what happened in her own words on her instagram page, @laurendolan_99, which gives more detail and context.

its stuff like this which is why I will never ride UK roads without a video camera thesedays

I don't agree with mandatory cyclist testing as that'd act as a barrier to getting occasional cyclists back on the roads. Maybe it'd work better as an educational awareness course, so if police catch cyclists behaving dangerously (to themselves or others) on the pavements/roads then they can make them attend a safety course in lieu of giving them a fine.

I don't know if there'd be much interest in optional training courses for adults who haven't cycled in years and want to start again but that could be an option too.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't know if there'd be much interest in optional training courses for adults who haven't cycled in years and want to start again but that could be an option too.

Councils in the Avon area used to offer just such training courses, and they were very popular.

That and basic bike maintanance courses will do well. 

Not the worst idea I've heard. Driving is a privilege, not a right - and that should mean after x number of years you are examined again to see if you're still good enough to exercise that privilege. I'd hazard a guess the majority of drivers haven't looked at The Highway Code since learning; if they did, for example, they'd realise cyclists are allowed on the road side by side.

I'd actually go down a 'motorcycle style licence' system for car drivers; want to drive a 300bhp+ car after passing your test? Well you need an extra licence for that. I often see many powerful cars being driven by 'youngsters' who are surely not equipped to drive them, apart from being able to afford the repayments....

There are solutions out there - they just can't/won't be implemented as it will cause uproar to drivers, who feel they're being picked on.

jim cumming wrote:

.. Cyclists should also (again I am one) should also sit some form of formal test in the same period. ....

Why? they are low risk.

On that level, perhaps peds should too.

Or maybe it's only the high risk worst outcome road users that need a licence....

Captain Badger wrote:

jim cumming wrote:

.. Cyclists should also (again I am one) should also sit some form of formal test in the same period. ....

Why? they are low risk.

On that level, perhaps peds should too.

Or maybe it's only the high risk worst outcome road users that need a licence....

Cyclists and pedestrians may be low risk, but they can be a risk to themselves unless they understand the rules vehicles (should) abide by, and the rules which they themselves must comply with to maximise their safety.  Ignorance of the rules of the road can, and does, lead to their own injury or at least confrontation. 

All road users have an obligation to understand the rules, and it's manifestly obvious that many do not, from all camps.  Until we teach the Highway Code to everyone at school, licensing, testing, or training is the only way to ensure widespread understanding of the rules of the road.

Are you suggesting that pedestrians should not be allowed to cross any roads until they've received their outdoors license?

But that highlights perfectly the problem with retests as a narrative, has it produced HGV drivers who all drive perfectly as a result ? My view would be no it doesnt, so what does the retest prove ?
It's not the knowledge of driving or skills required to drive that are the problem, no one speeds in their car because they didnt understand what a speed limit was, no one brake tests a cyclist because they dont realise it's a stupid & wrong thing to do.

And youd have to be a special kind of idiot to turn up to a driving test and do any of that, but passing that test wont then guarantee you wont drive off and behave like that in afterwards.

The reason people drive badly on the roads is they know the threat of being caught & prosecuted properly for it is minuscule. If the police focussed more resource on policing the roads, people would be being checked to the standard to drive every time they got behind the wheel. Speed anywhere,expect the police to catch you, drive like the individual did here,wilfully causing an accident imo, get the book thrown at them,expect a prison sentence, vehicle crushed,banned for life and properly enforced.

Yes but how much worse would the driving of HGV's be if the drivers did not have to periodically retest ? Difficult to know but I suspect driving behaviour would be much worse. The retest lets drivers know what responsibilities they have and the level of compentence expected. I agree not every HGV driver follows the highway code precisely but as a group given the mileage they cover the accident rate is lower (per km) than the general motoring population, this may not be accurately reflected by KSI as the consequence of a HGV hitting another vehicle or person is much higher. I sadly agree the chance of getting caught is pretty low and that is a very large incentive to allow people to speed and drive in a dangerous or illegal manner.

I assumed that's what they meant.
Hopefully it should be big enough to substantially increase the driver's insurance premiums, but I guess the ten points should help do that!

Bungle_52 wrote:

Quote “We hope to be able to obtain a satisfactory outcome for her in the fullness of time ....."

Does this mean they are going to try to get some form of justice through the civil courts?

The driver has now been proven by a court of law to have caused the injurys - so I would hazard a guess that financial compensation will be persued in the civil courts. I hope the guy has valid insurance...

Not too crucial as there is an uninsured losses fund.
Besides which the prosecution didn't include lack of insurance.

Given that Leigh Day specialise in such civil claims, I'd bet my house on their being a claim for compensation in the offing.  The criminal conviction makes that almost certain to succeed - though the vast majority of such claims settle without going near a courtroom.  
One thing to note is that the driver's insurance will be the ones paying out - not the driver.  He might see his premiums rise (as a result of the conviction and the claim), but at 73 he probably doesn't have too many years' driving in front of him.  And I'd prefer it if he had none at all.

So as the insurers are paying out, it's actually going to be the broad pool of motorists, and the underwriters who insure them, who are the ones that really pay for this ****'s bot of homicidal driving. 

Exactly, the roads their driving abilities were assesed for were a very different place when they took their test, not to mention the number of them with eyesight that is below the standard it should be for driving. Ten year testing and every five years for retirees would be appropriate.

I'd add the CBT as well as the cycling proficiency. We share the roads with motorcyclists & cyclists, we should receive basic training so there is some understanding of what it's like being a vulnerable road user. 

Of course, it's not going to happen.....

Such a shame we are the ones who have to wear cameras to prove dangerous driving. I've had a lot of situations where I wish I had a camera with me but find it too much of a hassle to take it out each time.
 

First time testing my gopro I did film a very close pass. Sent it to the police and the driver was sent on an awareness course. 

Yep - basically the court established that he did some brake-checking, but still no prison.

It is spelled "LICENCE" in the UK.

Well, only in English. In American it's spelled differently. It's to do with language, not geography.

It seems to have escaped you but they speak English in America, that's the language English - nothing to do with geography.