Sam Leong's band of brothers - cyclists

[Hypocrite-The]

Cyclist who reported driver for using his mobile phone accused of breaking the law
Dave Clifton has been charged with riding a cycle on a road without due care and attention
0 seconds of 0 seconds
5 hours ago
A cyclist who reported a driver for using his mobile phone at the wheel has found himself being accused of breaking the law.

Dave Clifton, 56, spotted a Range Rover driver holding a phone handset while he was cycling through Belgravia, and he captured the incident on his helmet camera.

But after submitting the video clip to police, they claimed the cyclist had been riding on the wrong side of the road, and suggested that he “could pose a danger to other road users”.

Mr Clifton, from south-west London, has been charged with riding a cycle on a road without due care and attention. He intends to fight the claim at a trial next month.

“It is ludicrous. I don’t know if it is malicious or incompetence,” he told the Standard, branding the case against him “petty”.

The only evidence in the case is Mr Clifton’s own video footage, and he insists it shows he was not on the wrong side of the road.

In the video, Mr Clifton is riding along Pont Street in Belgravia at just after 1.30pm on August 22 last year when he spots the Range Rover driving in the opposite direction. The cyclist then turns around to capture the driver using his mobile phone while at the wheel.


Mr Clifton was cycling through Belgravia when he noticed the driver
Dave Clifton
Natasha Springford, a Met police staff member in the traffic division, claims the cyclist is “in the middle of the road” and is then “very close to the Range Rover on the opposite side of the road whilst a motorcyclist is oncoming with a passenger”.

She continues: “You can see the cyclist cycling towards the oncoming motorbike that is filtering between traffic,” and then suggests the motorbike has to “ride in between the cyclist that is very close and the Range Rover”.

This is called retribution

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Isn't that criminal intimidation?

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Act against cyclists who ignore traffic lights​

APR 16, 2024

I recently came across a police notice asking for witnesses in a case where a collision with a cyclist at a traffic light led to the death of a pedestrian.
I wonder why many cyclists frequently ignore red lights and ride through them with impunity.
As a regular cyclist, I invariably call out such behaviour, usually when I have stopped at a red signal and see others carrying on blithely.
I was at Woodlands Road early one morning recently and witnessed a close call when a cyclist travelling at speed ignored a red light and almost collided with a pedestrian crossing on the green-man signal.
Were it not for the pedestrian’s quick reflexes, he would have been another road accident statistic.
If drivers who are also cyclists would never consider ignoring a set of traffic lights, how does it make sense to do so on a bicycle when the only protection afforded is a plastic helmet and a millimetre or two of lycra?
Could the issue of cyclists running red lights be partly related to a lack of enforcement? I wonder how often cyclists are booked for doing so.

I suspect that if the Traffic Police were to run a short campaign, perhaps stationing themselves along roads frequented by early-morning weekend cyclists and issuing warnings where warranted, word would quickly get around as the cycling community in Singapore is fairly tight-knit.
If the Traffic Police could conduct spot checks for drink driving at night, why not do something similar to prevent cyclists from ignoring traffic signals?
I believe law-abiding cyclists would welcome steps to enforce traffic laws because the sooner cyclists who break the rules are brought into line, the sooner drivers will accept that cyclists have a legitimate right to be on the road and treat them more respectfully.
That must surely be an outcome that would benefit all road users.

Wong Ee Wai

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Isn't that criminal intimidation?

At the least: being a public nuisance

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]