Land Rover driver fined after causing cyclist to fall off

jpaul said:
Has any ultruistic citizen actually uploaded videos under the new reinvigorated scheme the police heralded for this prosecution.
Click to expand...

after reading about the app, which is apparently just for phones, speeding detection capability is pretty good ... now, I just want that for analysing dashcam/bike-cam footage use on the local device.

"
Speedcam Anywhere is different. It is not the smartphone that measures the speed. The app buffers a video image and when you press the shutter as a car is passing and centred on the screen it selects a video snip of the previous one second and next one second. This is then uploaded to the cloud together with GPS location. The server then:

  • Uses ANPR to look up the vehicle make, model and year;
  • Looks up the wheelbase (WB) of the vehicle;
  • Uses AI to analyse the video and locate the wheel centres;
  • Finds the still in the video clip where the front wheel passes a point on the road. Takes its time stamp (T1);
  • Finds the still in the video clip where the rear wheel passes the same point on the road. Takes its time stamp (T2);
  • Uses the simple physics calculation that v=s/t ie v= WB/(T2-T1);
  • Looks up the mapping to find the speed limit at that point;
  • Creates a two second video clip overlaid with the time stamps;
  • Creates an A4 report showing location, picture of vehicle, its details, location, speed and speed limit as well as time stamped stills used;
  • Sends a summary back to the app.

"
 
Ninco! said:
The driver should have slowed down. Driving and riding standards have massively declined.

Cyclists are unaware of the Highway Code, I rarely see arm signals nowadays. In London, they jump red lights all the time.

Car drivers no longer use indicators at roundabouts and junctions. Just stop dead when turning right etc...
Click to expand...

I saw one a few days ago riding on the wrong side of the road, then just suddenly cut across the front of people in to a junction. He was about 3ft from being mowed down by a van.

Entertaining for us, yes, but not for him.
 
jpaul said:
after reading about the app, which is apparently just for phones, speeding detection capability is pretty good ... now, I just want that for analysing dashcam/bike-cam footage use on the local device.

"
Speedcam Anywhere is different. It is not the smartphone that measures the speed. The app buffers a video image and when you press the shutter as a car is passing and centred on the screen it selects a video snip of the previous one second and next one second. This is then uploaded to the cloud together with GPS location. The server then:

  • Uses ANPR to look up the vehicle make, model and year;
  • Looks up the wheelbase (WB) of the vehicle;
  • Uses AI to analyse the video and locate the wheel centres;
  • Finds the still in the video clip where the front wheel passes a point on the road. Takes its time stamp (T1);
  • Finds the still in the video clip where the rear wheel passes the same point on the road. Takes its time stamp (T2);
  • Uses the simple physics calculation that v=s/t ie v= WB/(T2-T1);
  • Looks up the mapping to find the speed limit at that point;
  • Creates a two second video clip overlaid with the time stamps;
  • Creates an A4 report showing location, picture of vehicle, its details, location, speed and speed limit as well as time stamped stills used;
  • Sends a summary back to the app.

"
Click to expand...
 
jpaul said:
after reading about the app, which is apparently just for phones, speeding detection capability is pretty good ... now, I just want that for analysing dashcam/bike-cam footage use on the local device.

"
Speedcam Anywhere is different. It is not the smartphone that measures the speed. The app buffers a video image and when you press the shutter as a car is passing and centred on the screen it selects a video snip of the previous one second and next one second. This is then uploaded to the cloud together with GPS location. The server then:

  • Uses ANPR to look up the vehicle make, model and year;
  • Looks up the wheelbase (WB) of the vehicle;
  • Uses AI to analyse the video and locate the wheel centres;
  • Finds the still in the video clip where the front wheel passes a point on the road. Takes its time stamp (T1);
  • Finds the still in the video clip where the rear wheel passes the same point on the road. Takes its time stamp (T2);
  • Uses the simple physics calculation that v=s/t ie v= WB/(T2-T1);
  • Looks up the mapping to find the speed limit at that point;
  • Creates a two second video clip overlaid with the time stamps;
  • Creates an A4 report showing location, picture of vehicle, its details, location, speed and speed limit as well as time stamped stills used;
  • Sends a summary back to the app.

"
Click to expand...
Cant see it being all that reliable or accurate. Not nearly enough to use as evidence. Its just a novelty app really.
 
I disagree with the result of the court case and potentially the law as well.

Why should the onus be on the car to stop? Why not on the cyclists to stop?

Do they not factor in how many more emissions it would cause to stop a vehicle and then accelerate again? Not to mention wear and tear on the clutch, brakes etc.

And if there are cars behind the first car are we expecting a tailback of cars all stopping just to allow 1 cyclist to continue on their way?

It's madness.
 
The Running Man said:
I disagree with the result of the court case and potentially the law as well.

Why should the onus be on the car to stop? Why not on the cyclists to stop?

Do they not factor in how many more emissions it would cause to stop a vehicle and then accelerate again? Not to mention wear and tear on the clutch, brakes etc.

And if there are cars behind the first car are we expecting a tailback of cars all stopping just to allow 1 cyclist to continue on their way?

It's madness.
Click to expand...

Only thing mad is you, the cyclists did stop, that’s the point as it caused the second rider to fall off due to her inexperience and there were 3 cyclists.
 
Bear said:
Only thing mad is you, the cyclists did stop, that’s the point as it caused the second rider to fall off due to her inexperience.
Click to expand...


A driver who injured a cyclist has pleaded guilty at Northampton Magistrates’ Court after footage
Click to expand...

From the source. How did the driver injure her? Made her flinch?

They didn't stop in good time but only as the car was basically alongside.

“On this occasion, the correct thing to do would have been to come to a stop to allow the cyclists to pass safely. It takes a couple of seconds and then everyone can continue their journey in safety.
Click to expand...

What if there were 50 cars behind the first driver?

Are we expecting 50 drivers to stop rather than the cyclists to dismount and move out of the way?
 
The Running Man said:
From the source. How did the driver injure her? Made her flinch?

They didn't stop in good time but only as the car was basically alongside.

What if there were 50 cars behind the first driver?

Are we expecting 50 drivers to stop rather than the cyclists to dismount and move out of the way?
Click to expand...

I agree that the driver didn’t injure the cyclist, the cyclist fell off due to inexperience as I said. The cyclists slowed down to a near stop and the driver it would seem didn’t even bother.

If there were 50 cars then it would be expected that they too slow down and pass safely with due care
 
Bear said:
I agree that the driver didn’t injure the cyclist, the cyclist fell off due to inexperience as I said. The cyclists slowed down to a near stop and the driver it would seem didn’t even bother.

If there were 50 cars then it would be expected that they too slow down and pass safely with due care
Click to expand...

No the police said the vehicle should have stopped.

So if there were 50 cars they too should also have stopped, right.

What are we trying to do here? Why shouldn't the advice be for the cyclists to dismount and move? It's harder to stop and start 2 tonnes of metal than a bike.
 
The Running Man said:
No the police said the vehicle should have stopped.

So if there were 50 cars they too should also have stopped, right.

What are we trying to do here? Why shouldn't the advice be for the cyclists to dismount and move? It's harder to stop and start 2 tonnes of metal than a bike.
Click to expand...

The police probably said the car should have stopped because under the new rules there is a revised hierarchy and larger vehicles should yield to more vulnerable road users
 
Bear said:
The police probably said the car should have stopped because under the new rules there is a revised hierarchy and larger vehicles should yield to more vulnerable road users
Click to expand...

So 50 cars should stop to allow 1 cyclist to pass for example. Rather than 1 cyclist stopping to allow 50 cars to pass?

That's my whole point. The hierarchy is backwards.
 
The Running Man said:
So 50 cars should stop to allow 1 cyclist to pass for example. Rather than 1 cyclist stopping to allow 50 cars to pass?

That's my whole point. The hierarchy is backwards.
Click to expand...

Its a good job you aren’t in charge of the laws then. I think it’s right and proper that people that have the ability to kill people in their isolated boxes take reasonable care when passing vulnerable road users. If the driver in the OP slowed down to a more reasonable speed, it probably wouldn’t have even been an issue if he didn’t actually stop. The cyclists did the right thing by slowing to a stop, all the driver needed to do was the show some courtesy and slow down and everyone would have been ok bar the noob that fell over
 
Bear said:
Its a good job you aren’t in charge of the laws then. I think it’s right and proper that people that have the ability to kill people in their isolated boxes take reasonable care when passing vulnerable road users. If the driver in the OP slowed down to a more reasonable speed, it probably wouldn’t have even been an issue if he didn’t actually stop. The cyclists did the right thing by slowing to a stop, all the driver needed to do was the show some courtesy and slow down and everyone would have been ok bar the noob that fell over
Click to expand...

That's got nothing to do with what I just asked you.
 
The Running Man said:
That's got nothing to do with what I just asked you.
Click to expand...

I had already answered your made up question in reply 170. If there were 50 cars then if they slowed down and passed with due care then I doubt there would be a problem. It would be hard to prosecute someone for driving without due care and attention if they slowed down and passed carefully despite not stopping.

I personally wouldn’t expect any cars to necessarily stop for me on a bicycle in that situation but I would expect them to slow down and pass carefully and not just charge through at pace
 
The Running Man said:
I disagree with the result of the court case and potentially the law as well.

Why should the onus be on the car to stop? Why not on the cyclists to stop?

Do they not factor in how many more emissions it would cause to stop a vehicle and then accelerate again? Not to mention wear and tear on the clutch, brakes etc.

And if there are cars behind the first car are we expecting a tailback of cars all stopping just to allow 1 cyclist to continue on their way?

It's madness.
Click to expand...

Same difference if cars met a tractor, or another car on this same narrow road.

They also reduce speed limits around areas with pedestrians, school kids etc. Its why speed limits are higher on motorways etc.

I'm not sure why people are struggling with any of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom