Red means stop.

[JohnC6]

Always best to stop at a red light...

West Yorkshire: Dangerous driver runs red light and crashes car into lorry

The collision left the driver Shaheib Mohammed, from Halifax, and his passenger with serious injuries. The 24-year-old was jailed for two years and eight months and was banned from driving for a total of three years and four months.

news.sky.com

 

[lindsay]

That wasn't very clever of him ,was it. Poor HGV driver though. Sympathies to him.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

Here's another moronic moron. These people should be banned from driving for life.

Jason Ryder: Man jailed after leading police on 145mph North Yorkshire chase

Banned driver Jason Ryder left a courtroom and took police on a chase in North Yorkshire.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[welshwizard645]

Here's another moronic moron. These people should be banned from driving for life.

Jason Ryder: Man jailed after leading police on 145mph North Yorkshire chase

Banned driver Jason Ryder left a courtroom and took police on a chase in North Yorkshire.

www.bbc.co.uk

The term is AUDIOT.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The elephant in the room is that most of the worst offenders are driving after being banned - often multiple times.

What we need is a small island in the South Atlantic where we could dump them and leave them to look after themselves...

 

[LeeRatters]

The elephant in the room is that most of the worst offenders are driving after being banned - often multiple times.

What we need is a small island in the South Atlantic where we could dump them and leave them to look after themselves...

Ex warships in the middle of the Atlantic

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think that the real problem is lack of enforcement. Back in the old days, uninsured, untaxed or unlicenced drivers couldn't be caught unless they were stopped by police for (usually) poor driving or they were involved in an accident, but modern technology (mainly ANPR cameras, both fixed and in police vehicles) provide all the info the police need, but very few actually get stopped because of lack of police resources, or maybe lack of police interest, fear of allegations of racial prejudice etc.

There's an area of Bradford (BD3) that I had to drive through every day for years, and it's terrifying. The belief is that one vehicle in 3 is uninsured, but the police seem to avoid this area as much as I do . . .

 

[leaky5]

I regularly have to cross the main road back into our estate at a set of lights. It’s amazing how many people seem to think it’s ok to just go over a red light, if there is no other traffic about

 

[Box Brownie]

I regularly have to cross the main road back into our estate at a set of lights. It’s amazing how many people seem to think it’s ok to just go over a red light, if there is no other traffic about

Perhaps they are South African.....................I was advised in the early 2000's when on holiday there to never stop at Red robots at night if the roads are empty.

 

[notesseaswallow]

That's quite the video, isn't it? Makes you realize how a split-second decision can change everything. You're absolutely right - it's always best to stop at a red light. Not just because it's the law, but also because it's about safety for everyone on the road.

I know it can be tempting to push through a yellow light turning red, or try to rush across an intersection, but it's just not worth the risk. Not only do you put your own life in danger, but also the lives of other innocent road users. No one wants to end up like the driver in that video! Consequences for the driver can be severe, especially in a case like this.

Firstly, this driver will likely face legal repercussions. Running a red light is a traffic violation that can lead to hefty fines, and in some cases, points added to your driving record or even a suspension of your license. But in a situation where you've caused an accident, like in the video, the consequences can be even more severe. This could include charges of reckless driving or even criminal charges if the accident resulted in serious injury or death. Additionally, there's the financial impact to consider. This includes the cost of repairing or replacing the vehicle, increased insurance rates, and potential liability if the other driver decides to sue for damages. And, if the driver were to be convicted of a criminal offense, this could significantly impact their future opportunities. Many employers, landlords, and educational institutions perform applicant evaluations, and a criminal conviction can often be a deal-breaker.

Finally, there's the emotional toll of an accident like this. It can be a traumatic experience, with long-lasting effects. So yeah, in summary - always stop at red lights. The risks are just not worth it. Hope this provides a bit more insight!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So yeah, in summary - always stop at red lights.

Of course, there's no way to prosecute everyone who goes through a red light.

Oh! Wait - cameras linked to the ANPR system. Now I wonder why no one's thought of that?

 

[Usernameuser]

How was he planning on getting around that corner at that speed? The car behind him was going at a fair rate of knots too. The problem isnt with individuals, its young drivers wanting to go fast, we all did it as kids, or a lot of us did, so we need to address attitudes in younger drivers, give them alternatives, simply saying 'you cant do that' wont change things.

 

[Jelster]

How was he planning on getting around that corner at that speed? The car behind him was going at a fair rate of knots too. The problem isnt with individuals, its young drivers wanting to go fast, we all did it as kids, or a lot of us did, so we need to address attitudes in younger drivers, give them alternatives, simply saying 'you cant do that' wont change things.

Change the law, so that ANYONE who gets 3 points (not 6 as it is today) within 2 years of passing their test must retake a more advanced test. Secondly, limit the times of day that new drivers can actually get behind the wheel, so they can't drive past 10pm or before 6am.

However, as most of the dangerous driving seems to come from people already disqualified, I'm not sure what good it will do.

 

[Bristolian]

One issue with imposing time limits on new drivers is that some learn to drive so that they can get to work late at night/early in the morning. My grandson recently got a new job in a bakery and learned to ride a motorbike for the 15 miles to work. His work day starts at 5am and there's no public transport at that time of day.

I agree that something needs to be done but I would suggest that if driving instructors (be they professionals or not) taught learners how to drive rather than how to pass the L-test we would have less of a problem. I have been an Observer with IAM Roadsmart since 2008 (I also worked as an ADI for a few years) and firmly believe that the standard of general motoring knowledge (in particular the highway code and motoring law) that new drivers have is bordering on abysmal. Yes, they can (generally) get the car moving and point it in the direction they want to go but have no concept of "what if ... ?". The result eventually follows the old adage the failing to plan is planning to fail.

Steps down off soapbox

 

[Usernameuser]

Change the law, so that ANYONE who gets 3 points (not 6 as it is today) within 2 years of passing their test must retake a more advanced test. Secondly, limit the times of day that new drivers can actually get behind the wheel, so they can't drive past 10pm or before 6am.

However, as most of the dangerous driving seems to come from people already disqualified, I'm not sure what good it will do.

Changing the law wont change peoples attitudes.

 

[Garry Edwards]

One issue with imposing time limits on new drivers is that some learn to drive so that they can get to work late at night/early in the morning. My grandson recently got a new job in a bakery and learned to ride a motorbike for the 15 miles to work. His work day starts at 5am and there's no public transport at that time of day.

I agree that something needs to be done but I would suggest that if driving instructors (be they professionals or not) taught learners how to drive rather than how to pass the L-test we would have less of a problem. I have been an Observer with IAM Roadsmart since 2008 (I also worked as an ADI for a few years) and firmly believe that the standard of general motoring knowledge (in particular the highway code and motoring law) that new drivers have is bordering on abysmal. Yes, they can (generally) get the car moving and point it in the direction they want to go but have no concept of "what if ... ?". The result eventually follows the old adage the failing to plan is planning to fail.

Steps down off soapbox

That isn't going to happen and I don't believe that it has ever been the case anyway.

One issue with imposing time limits on new drivers is that some learn to drive so that they can get to work late at night/early in the morning. My grandson recently got a new job in a bakery and learned to ride a motorbike for the 15 miles to work. His work day starts at 5am and there's no public transport at that time of day.

I agree that something needs to be done but I would suggest that if driving instructors (be they professionals or not) taught learners how to drive rather than how to pass the L-test we would have less of a problem. I have been an Observer with IAM Roadsmart since 2008 (I also worked as an ADI for a few years) and firmly believe that the standard of general motoring knowledge (in particular the highway code and motoring law) that new drivers have is bordering on abysmal. Yes, they can (generally) get the car moving and point it in the direction they want to go but have no concept of "what if ... ?". The result eventually follows the old adage the failing to plan is planning to fail.

Steps down off soapbox

I agree with this, but again nothing is going to change. When I took my test in 1963 we had cars that didn't accelerate, steer or stop properly, and both breakdowns and the need to fix them during most journeys occurred routinely, forcing people to have an understanding of the physics involved and how vehicles actually work. These factors should have made us better drivers, but we're not going to go back to the days of terrible cars. As for knowledge of the highway code and motoring law, there has always been some knowledge required for the test and both the highway code and the myriad of laws are all based on common sense anyway - for example, we don't need to know the intricacies of the drink-drive laws, we just need to know that drinking and driving don't mix.

Again, back in ancient history, most of us had a pedal bike at first, followed by a moped, then either a motorbike or a scooter, then a motorbike with a sidecar for the wife and kids, and a small percentage might end up with enough money to buy a car. This natural progression made people more aware of the other road users, but that's all in the past too now.

As with almost everything else in life, the vast majority of people are sensible, law-abiding and reasonably competent, and most of the offences are caused by the small minority who don't think that the laws apply to them. What's needed IMO is firstly much better enforcement, the police have all the tools and technology they need to catch uninsured and unlicensed drivers, but nothing much seems to be done. And secondly, the Courts don't seem to take driving offences very seriously. As an example, in the past someone caught driving whilst disqualified could be expected to go to prison, but even multiple repeat offenders are now rarely jailed.

 

[LCPete]

That isn't going to happen and I don't believe that it has ever been the case anyway.

I agree with this, but again nothing is going to change. When I took my test in 1963 we had cars that didn't accelerate, steer or stop properly, and both breakdowns and the need to fix them during most journeys occurred routinely, forcing people to have an understanding of the physics involved and how vehicles actually work. These factors should have made us better drivers, but we're not going to go back to the days of terrible cars. As for knowledge of the highway code and motoring law, there has always been some knowledge required for the test and both the highway code and the myriad of laws are all based on common sense anyway - for example, we don't need to know the intricacies of the drink-drive laws, we just need to know that drinking and driving don't mix.

Again, back in ancient history, most of us had a pedal bike at first, followed by a moped, then either a motorbike or a scooter, then a motorbike with a sidecar for the wife and kids, and a small percentage might end up with enough money to buy a car. This natural progression made people more aware of the other road users, but that's all in the past too now.

As with almost everything else in life, the vast majority of people are sensible, law-abiding and reasonably competent, and most of the offences are caused by the small minority who don't think that the laws apply to them. What's needed IMO is firstly much better enforcement, the police have all the tools and technology they need to catch uninsured and unlicensed drivers, but nothing much seems to be done. And secondly, the Courts don't seem to take driving offences very seriously. As an example, in the past someone caught driving whilst disqualified could be expected to go to prison, but even multiple repeat offenders are now rarely jailed.

absolutely agree most people are decent and law abiding but there’s just not enough police patrols to catch the few that aren’t
agree most problems are caused by a hardcore minority and the majority have to suffer because of it

 

[Jelster]

One issue with imposing time limits on new drivers is that some learn to drive so that they can get to work late at night/early in the morning. My grandson recently got a new job in a bakery and learned to ride a motorbike for the 15 miles to work. His work day starts at 5am and there's no public transport at that time of day.

I agree that something needs to be done but I would suggest that if driving instructors (be they professionals or not) taught learners how to drive rather than how to pass the L-test we would have less of a problem. I have been an Observer with IAM Roadsmart since 2008 (I also worked as an ADI for a few years) and firmly believe that the standard of general motoring knowledge (in particular the highway code and motoring law) that new drivers have is bordering on abysmal. Yes, they can (generally) get the car moving and point it in the direction they want to go but have no concept of "what if ... ?". The result eventually follows the old adage the failing to plan is planning to fail.

Steps down off soapbox

Having done my IAM for both car & bike, I totally agree with your sentiment. The "Hazard perception test" is nothing like real life. I remember when on my first IAM session in the car, the observer asked me the colour of the land rove that we just passed and I couldn't tell him, point made there and then. The biggest part of driving is observation and anticipation, even more so on a bike.

I have said on here before, I had to do a "speed awareness course", and most of the people there had no idea of our national speed limits, let alone any other parts of the highway code.

 

[JohnC6]

What annoys me re these multiple offences is that prison terms run 'concurrently rather than 'consecutively.'. The man was given a 10 month sentence for dangerous driving at 145mph...and a further three months for driving whilst disqualified which ran concurrently. They may as well have not given him any sentence for the disqualified driving,except it's mandatory. That should have been 13 months. Also, as with other offences that merit a custodial sentence, the prison term should double with each repeat offence. It would put a stop to a lot of crime...eg burglary.

 

[JohnC6]

absolutely agree most people are decent and law abiding but there’s just not enough police patrols to catch the few that aren’t
agree most problems are caused by a hardcore minority and the majority have to suffer because of it

I think the numbers are....97% of crime is committed by the same 10%. I've heard ministers acknowledge this and say they will target the this hard-core of offenders but invariably, any meaningful remedies that are suggested die in the Treasury.

 

[Usernameuser]

When you say most people are law abiding, in fact most people arnt when out driving, at least they arnt out here in the sticks, I can easil;y assume most people have driven over the speed limit wither knowingly or not.

This isnt about enforcement, punishments etc, this is about attitudes, of drivers and also the police, How many times have you seen a speed camera oputside a school compared to speed cameras on a road where peoples speed might naturally increase or creep above the limit?

How many kids who just pass their test want to be 'bad boys' with pop and bang remaps and exhaust 'deletes' ?

How about this, if a kid gets caught speeding in his souped up pocket rocket how about an intensive course in driver safety and road awareness then get them and their pocket rocket top a track day or two so they can see that they can drive safely on the roads and that they can drive fast if they go to a track day?
And if that fails just take their car off them, and every other car they own or even drive for how ever long of a sentence a court decides?.

 

[Garry Edwards]

When you say most people are law abiding, in fact most people arnt when out driving, at least they arnt out here in the sticks, I can easil;y assume most people have driven over the speed limit wither knowingly or not.

This isnt about enforcement, punishments etc, this is about attitudes, of drivers and also the police, How many times have you seen a speed camera oputside a school compared to speed cameras on a road where peoples speed might naturally increase or creep above the limit?

How many kids who just pass their test want to be 'bad boys' with pop and bang remaps and exhaust 'deletes' ?

How about this, if a kid gets caught speeding in his souped up pocket rocket how about an intensive course in driver safety and road awareness then get them and their pocket rocket top a track day or two so they can see that they can drive safely on the roads and that they can drive fast if they go to a track day?
And if that fails just take their car off them, and every other car they own or even drive for how ever long of a sentence a court decides?.

I can only partly agree. In rural areas especially, speed limits are largely unimportant and aren't any kind of guide to safe driving. In the area around our farm, with narrow single-track roads, lots of hills, sharp bends and often mud and/or deep puddles, 20 mph is often the maximum safe speed, but the speed limits are mostly 60. much better roads going through the villages are usually 30, but perfectly safe at 40. Then there are the 20 mph limits near schools - fair enough when the schools are open but not when they are closed.

And I think it's natural that young lads who have just passed their tests think that they're good drivers and want to 'personalise' their cars, this is a phase that many of us go through, it usually takes an accident or a near miss to change that attitude. I'm sure that I thought I was God's gift to driving when I first passed my test, but a lifetime of driving every type of vehicle (except a bus) has changed my attitude.

A high level of skill is needed with large vehicles, trailers, tight maneuvering etc, but this comes with practice. Care comes with self-discipline, not with laws.

 

[Jelster]

Care comes with self-discipline, not with laws.

Oh this is so true. About 20 years ago I had an Italian v twin 1000cc bike. I called it my "Very" bike, it was very fast, very loud and very sexy.... It was also a wheelie machine - and I don't like wheelies, I like to know I'm in control. A number of my friends said that "I couldn't have one of those, I'd kill myself". My answer was always, if you learn how to respect it, and how to ride it, it won't bite you back. But throw away your discipline and it'll kill you. I still believe that today, with every vehicle I drive or ride. Hence my interest in IAM training.

 

[Usernameuser]

I can only partly agree. In rural areas especially, speed limits are largely unimportant and aren't any kind of guide to safe driving. In the area around our farm, with narrow single-track roads, lots of hills, sharp bends and often mud and/or deep puddles, 20 mph is often the maximum safe speed, but the speed limits are mostly 60. much better roads going through the villages are usually 30, but perfectly safe at 40. Then there are the 20 mph limits near schools - fair enough when the schools are open but not when they are closed.

And I think it's natural that young lads who have just passed their tests think that they're good drivers and want to 'personalise' their cars, this is a phase that many of us go through, it usually takes an accident or a near miss to change that attitude. I'm sure that I thought I was God's gift to driving when I first passed my test, but a lifetime of driving every type of vehicle (except a bus) has changed my attitude.

A high level of skill is needed with large vehicles, trailers, tight maneuvering etc, but this comes with practice. Care comes with self-discipline, not with laws.

I couldnt agree more, in rural areas it seems to be whatever goes, people, or at least a lot of people out here seem to forget there are other road users, around blind corners in the middle of the road for instance, I do a lot of driving and know the roads round here very well and the amount of near misses Ive had is scary, its probably partly due to my car, its a 40 year old Landy and its not great at getting out of the way too quick so I have learned to hug the left ditch on corners.

The problem with speed limits to suit road conditions is the possiblity that drivers will become overwhelmed with information , the other problem is the 40mph driver whatever the speed limit because they naturally think this is a safe speed due to the road conditions unfolding before them, not great in a 30mph zone or outside a school.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I couldnt agree more,

...and me.

To drive safely, drive for others. Consider what will happen if you go too fast and a child runs into the road or a disabled person is crossing that road. What kills is not what you can predict but what you cannot predict.

Above all: the public roads are for the public to travel safely from place to place. Not places to play with your shiny toy.

 

[Usernameuser]

...and me.

To drive safely, drive for others. Consider what will happen if you go too fast and a child runs into the road or a disabled person is crossing that road. What kills is not what you can predict but what you cannot predict.

Above all: the public roads are for the public to travel safely from place to place. Not places to play with your shiny toy.

Its not just drivers, its all road users, walkers, cyclists , joggers , horsey people, we need to live and let live, dont walk on the inside of a pathless blind bend, pull over to allow faster road users to pass, try not to take champion the wonderhorse out for a stroll at busy times, keep to the left, slow down, be considerate.
Its like smiling, its contagious. We all flash full beam to aknowledge someone doing us a favour right? You are basically saying 'thanks, here, have a face full of HID' , instead try switching dipped off and on, you would be surprised how quickly this catches on.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Its not just drivers, its all road users, walkers, cyclists , joggers , horsey people, we need to live and let live...

I agree - we should all co-operate to use the roads safely.

pull over to allow faster road users to pass,

I disagree. Safe road use, in my opinion, dictates that we should drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions. I think that, apart of course for emergency vehicles, it is up to someone who wishes to go faster than that appropriate speed to pass other vehicles safely without requiring them to do anything other than continue to drive to the road conditions. Part of driving to the road conditions is keeping a safe overtaking gap between yourself and the vehicle ahead of you, which brings us to the whole question of slow vehicles of all types, particularly cyclists...

try not to take champion the wonderhorse out for a stroll at busy times,

People who cannot travel at the "average" speed, in my opinion, must take special care to do as little as possible to create a moving road block. Cyclists and horse riders should not travel side by side and should keep a sufficient difference from one another that faster vehicles can pass them safely one at a time. While knocking the lycrasistas off their bikes might seem fun at the time, it only blocks the road and leaves a mess to clean up!

 

[Jelster]

I agree - we should all co-operate to use the roads safely.

I disagree. Safe road use, in my opinion, dictates that we should drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions. I think that, apart of course for emergency vehicles, it is up to someone who wishes to go faster than that appropriate speed to pass other vehicles safely without requiring them to do anything other than continue to drive to the road conditions. Part of driving to the road conditions is keeping a safe overtaking gap between yourself and the vehicle ahead of you, which brings us to the whole question of slow vehicles of all types, particularly cyclists...

I regularly use NSL roads around here, and on the straight bits, some people struggle to reach 30 mph. IMO, If they are not confident of at least 40 in a 60 when conditions are fine then they shouldn't be driving on their own. Likewise, cyclists that seem to have a fascination of riding 3 abreast on country lanes need their heads examined. I came around a blind bend to see a group 3 bikes wide in the middle of the road one Sunday afternoon. I stopped but one of the cyclists went off into a hedge as he wasn't watching where he was going. (He went down my nearside, there wasn't room for him on "his" side of the road as his buddies had taken all the space.)

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...IMO, If they are not confident of at least 40 in a 60 when conditions are fine then they shouldn't be driving on their own.

None of us can ever know why someone is doing what they're doing, when what they're doing is different from what we think we'd be doing in their place.

They could have a sick person on board or their car may be in trouble and they're just trying to get to the nearest garage. As Arthur Conan Doyle put into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes...

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

 

[Jelster]

None of us can ever know why someone is doing what they're doing, when what they're doing is different from what we think we'd be doing in their place.

They could have a sick person on board or their car may be in trouble and they're just trying to get to the nearest garage. As Arthur Conan Doyle put into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes...

If you lived here you would understand, it always seems to be somebody in a very small car, quite often a Panda, Picanto, or maybe a Jazz. And even on the straight bits, the roads are narrow, too narrow to risk overtaking a driver that obviously lacks confidence. It's funny how they manage to do over 30 in the 30 limit though.....

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If you lived here you would understand,

Indeed I do.

Here in East Devon we have many such roads. There are stretches of two miles on the A roads with more or less continuous double white lines and it's much the same on the B roads. As for the lanes, which many people have to use, they're like the French Bocage with added bends.

Then there's the caravans and the farm machinery...

 

[Pound Coin]

It is usually someome else’s fault.

it couldn’t possibly be mine.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Indeed I do.

Here in East Devon we have many such roads. There are stretches of two miles on the A roads with more or less continuous double white lines and it's much the same on the B roads. As for the lanes, which many people have to use, they're like the French Bocage with added bends.

Then there's the caravans and the farm machinery...

View attachment 394827

Ahh yes, the farm machinery. It should be banned during the summer months when private cars want to use the roads, even though that's when farmers NEED to move between farms. Just imagine how much inconvenience these drivers cause to car drivers, with a 14 ton trailer towed behind a 10 ton tractor on roads that are just about wide enough for a Transit van ...
And combine harvesters probably cause the most inconvenience, the farmer has to ask the police to provide an escort but they never have an escort available, so something like 19m x 4m has to manage without and hope that there are no parked cars - or even oncoming cars, because the average car driver will just keep going until there's nowhere to go, and then won't know how to reverse out of the way.

I don't have much sympathy for caravan towers, they are doing it from choice. The difference between a tractor driver and the average caravan tower is that the tractor driver actually knows how to drive - and now that the trailer tests have been scrapped, caravans will get even worse.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Ahh yes, the farm machinery.

I agree with the spirit of everything you wrote.

Too many people move to areas like this, believing the rubbish about "rural idylls" and are horrified when they find that these are working areas, often with underdeveloped and ill maintained roads. They buy "charming country cottages", pricing out the locals and complain when they discover that the local farmers have to harvest late into the nights to meet contracts and avoid bad weather. Then they find out that the local towns and villages have to expand and get furious when that field growing rough, where they send their children to play, has been scheduled for thirty houses in the local plan.

...and don't get them started on farmers who dare to walk their sheep across the lane between two fields...

 

[Garry Edwards]

I agree with the spirit of everything you wrote.

Too many people move to areas like this, believing the rubbish about "rural idylls" and are horrified when they find that these are working areas, often with underdeveloped and ill maintained roads. They buy "charming country cottages", pricing out the locals and complain when they discover that the local farmers have to harvest late into the nights to meet contracts and avoid bad weather. Then they find out that the local towns and villages have to expand and get furious when that field growing rough, where they send their children to play, has been scheduled for thirty houses in the local plan.

...and don't get them started on farmers who dare to walk their sheep across the lane between two fields...

View attachment 394882

You will never know how much I agree with this.
Think of an entitled, wealthy woman who bought a very nice house, with a few acres of land, in an area completely surrounded by farms. She then complained to everyone about farm smells, noise, agricultural vehicles etc. Sued several local farmers, won every time (in the sense that the insurance companies always pay up rather than face court costs), She came unstuck when she sued us, claiming false flood damage, and including a claim that we cut a hedge at 7.10 a.m, failed to give way to her sports car on the access track when we were driving a 9.5 ton machine, frightened her horse with our quad bike and once worked until 3 a.m. cutting hay and had an unsightly muck heap.

Very well connected politically, with friends on the local parish council, the planning authority, local authority, the local hunt, goes to church on Sundays and does a bit of fundraising for a local charity. Judging from her success with planning permission applications, some of these relationships may be corrupt.

Long story short, we didn't involve our insurers and fought the case. We won, the total costs bill was over £75K, all paid for by her insurers, so she only lost face and reputation. But, other local farmers have now followed our lead and are fighting her on her latest claims against them.

So, a massive victory - but she has basically won because she is still there and is still a pain in the arse, so we now want to sell up and go. But our land is now worth less because we will have to disclose the problems with her, which may mean that she will be the only person prepared to buy our land.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But our land is now worth less because we will have to disclose the problems with her, which may mean that she will be the only person prepared to buy our land.

It's good that you won and the victory might point to a solution.

I have no idea if it would work but could several of her victims get together and look at getting a civil proceedings order against her? ( https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/civil-proceedings-orders-against-vexatious-litigants )

It might be worth sounding out the neighbours who have suffered and if they agree, talking to a specialist in this field. I suppose it will come down to how much time and money you're prepared to gamble on shutting her up once and for all. I imagine the real problem would be showing that the insurers "threw the cases" to your detriment and only a specialist could tell you if such an approach might work.

 

[Garry Edwards]

It's good that you won and the victory might point to a solution.

I have no idea if it would work but could several of her victims get together and look at getting a civil proceedings order against her? ( https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/civil-proceedings-orders-against-vexatious-litigants )

It might be worth sounding out the neighbours who have suffered and if they agree, talking to a specialist in this field. I suppose it will come down to how much time and money you're prepared to gamble on shutting her up once and for all. I imagine the real problem would be showing that the insurers "threw the cases" to your detriment and only a specialist could tell you if such an approach might work.

Thanks for that, but it won't work in this case. AFAIK, only 2 cases have actually gone to Court, all of the others were settled by the victim's insurers so, although this lady clearly abuses the system, the evidence just isn't there.

 

[Bristolian]

I regularly use NSL roads around here, and on the straight bits, some people struggle to reach 30 mph. IMO, If they are not confident of at least 40 in a 60 when conditions are fine then they shouldn't be driving on their own. Likewise, cyclists that seem to have a fascination of riding 3 abreast on country lanes need their heads examined. I came around a blind bend to see a group 3 bikes wide in the middle of the road one Sunday afternoon. I stopped but one of the cyclists went off into a hedge as he wasn't watching where he was going. (He went down my nearside, there wasn't room for him on "his" side of the road as his buddies had taken all the space.)

I am an ageing cyclist (well 68 years young anyway) and find the attitude of some cyclists to act very "entitled", often using the latest Highway Code Rule 66 as their justification for riding two or three abreast. They then ignore the rest of that rule which says they should move into single file to let faster traffic overtake. They also appear to be able to switch off their instinct for self-preservation too. It is because of this attitude that I have stopped going on group rides on the public highway, although I do get together with a few friends for group rides on the national cycling network trails.

 

[Jelster]

I am an ageing cyclist (well 68 years young anyway) and find the attitude of some cyclists to act very "entitled", often using the latest Highway Code Rule 66 as their justification for riding two or three abreast. They then ignore the rest of that rule which says they should move into single file to let faster traffic overtake. They also appear to be able to switch off their instinct for self-preservation too. It is because of this attitude that I have stopped going on group rides on the public highway, although I do get together with a few friends for group rides on the national cycling network trails.

That's exactly where I'm coming from. In these lanes, I tend to use all of the road when I can see nobody is coming, if I can't see around a left hand bend, I'll make sure I'm tight to my side "just in case". I have no problem with them being 3 or 4, even 5 abreast when it is appropriate to do so. I did my HGV while in the TA many, many years ago, and was taught then, that if I was holding up traffic, to pull over when I could to let the faster traffic pass. I still do it today, though normally when I have a group of motorcycles behind me and I know they want to get past.