Home
Man charged with string of offences after collision caught on helmet cam left rider with neck and shoulder injuries

Thames Valley Police has arrested a 24-year-old man on suspicion of a number of driving offences in connection with a hit and run incident in Iver, Buckinghamshire, on 14 June when a cyclist was struck head on by a Volkswagen Golf.

The incident, which took place on Langley Park Road, left the unnamed male cyclist with neck and shoulder injuries, reports the Slough Express. After the collision, the motorist is said to have driven off along Mansion Lane.

According to police, a man from Slough, Berkshire was arrested last Thursday 31 July on suspicion of having committed six separate offences, and has been bailed until 29 September while investigations continue.

The offences the arrest relates to are suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, being the driver of a vehicle which failed to stop after a road accident, being the driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident who failed to report that accident, using a motor vehicle on a road/public place without third party insurance and fraud by false representation.

On June 14, cyclist Patrick Knetemann was riding on Langley Park Road when a Volkswagen car pulled across the road and hit him, as captured in this helmet cam video:

Knetemann said police officers had told him the number plates on the car that hit him were false.

He told ITV: "He came out of nowhere. The impact was so quick I had no time to stop.

"I hit the windscreen with my shoulder and it shattered straight away - that shows how fast and hard he hit me.

"I think he was turning right to go into the Kwik Fit garage and didn't see me.

"But I had a light on my bike, and I was wearing a bright red helmet.

"After one or two seconds he sped off leaving my there on the pavement."

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

34 comments

Avatar
jmaccelari [241 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Woohoo! Ups to the Rozzers! They take a lot of flak, but they do a lot of good work!

Avatar
jacknorell [966 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Well done Thames Valley Police!

Let's hope the CPS proves competent in prosecuting this mouthbreather.

Avatar
workhard [397 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"The offences the arrest relates to are suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, being the driver of a vehicle which failed to stop after a road accident, being the driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident who failed to report that accident, using a motor vehicle on a road/public place without third party insurance and fraud by false representation."

So the obvious thing to do is to bail him until November and just cross fingers he doesn't drive in the mean time?

Avatar
mlimburn [28 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Avatar
mad_scot_rider [581 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
workhard wrote:

So the obvious thing to do is to bail him until November and just cross fingers he doesn't drive in the mean time?

Were the law not a total ass, the Polis would have the power to impound his vehicle pending the case coming to court

Avatar
problemchild [2 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

this is where we need to copy the americans by changing the law to make a motor vehicle admissible as a weapon,so you can charge idiots like this with assault with a deadly weapon,and other appropriate charges and impound their vehicles as evidence.

Avatar
AWPeleton [3347 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
workhard wrote:

"The offences the arrest relates to are suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, being the driver of a vehicle which failed to stop after a road accident, being the driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident who failed to report that accident, using a motor vehicle on a road/public place without third party insurance and fraud by false representation."

So the obvious thing to do is to bail him until November and just cross fingers he doesn't drive in the mean time?

We dont possess magic wands and can only keep someone in custody for 24 hours before we have to apply for extensions, the enquiries can take much longer than 24hrs hence the bail date.

But like the thousands of people who drive without licences, insurance and disqualified its impossible to stop them from driving if they want to.

Avatar
usedtobefaster [175 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This is great news but I have a horrible feeling that unless the prosecuting legal team can enhance the video well enough to show the accused clearly then I suspect they have a very simple defense which would make guilty verdict unlikely.

Avatar
bikebot [1972 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
mad_scot_rider wrote:
workhard wrote:

So the obvious thing to do is to bail him until November and just cross fingers he doesn't drive in the mean time?

Were the law not a total ass, the Polis would have the power to impound his vehicle pending the case coming to court

It's an uninsured vehicle, they do have the authority to impound it on that basis alone.

Avatar
SteppenHerring [330 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

We dont possess magic wands and can only keep someone in custody for 24 hours before we have to apply for extensions, the enquiries can take much longer than 24hrs hence the bail date.

But like the thousands of people who drive without licences, insurance and disqualified its impossible to stop them from driving if they want to.

I assume this is police bail, but if it went to the mags, wouldn't they remand people in custody likely to reoffend - if it were, say, domestic violence or the like?

I was surprised to see this recently http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28552876 . If they can do this character for murder for deliberately running someone over then why can't they do someone for attempted murder for attempting to run someone over? OK mens rea and all that but they managed to prove it in this case.

Avatar
don simon [773 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Here's hoping for a result that'll send a big loud message out to those who drive cars, and drive them dangerously.
This wasn't an accident.
The driver didn't see the cyclist and was therefore driving without due care and attention, or the driver did see the cyclist and continued diving dangerously.
Which one was it?

Avatar
Mickyruff [13 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I hope that Patrick will fully recover soon and that the driver gets what he deserves. If I'm right, Patrick Knetemann's lineage is top level, assuming that is his real surname. Gerrie Knetemann was my absolute idol back when......he and Jan Raas just gobbled up the opposition in all the major classics. Can Patrick be the son and heir of Gerrie?

Avatar
Housecathst [479 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
SteppenHerring wrote:
stumps wrote:

We dont possess magic wands and can only keep someone in custody for 24 hours before we have to apply for extensions, the enquiries can take much longer than 24hrs hence the bail date.

But like the thousands of people who drive without licences, insurance and disqualified its impossible to stop them from driving if they want to.

I assume this is police bail, but if it went to the mags, wouldn't they remand people in custody likely to reoffend - if it were, say, domestic violence or the like?

I was surprised to see this recently http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28552876 . If they can do this character for murder for deliberately running someone over then why can't they do someone for attempted murder for attempting to run someone over? OK mens rea and all that but they managed to prove it in this case.

Don't forget this was a fellow motorist in the eye of the jury and therefore worth more than just a mire cyclist.

Avatar
banzicyclist2 [299 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm gkad the cops got stuck in and caught this dangerous driver. But I wonder if the courts will keep up the goid work! Life time driving ban would be a good start.

Avatar
ironmancole [322 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Watch the CPS #uck it all up. Driver will get small fine, perhaps another ban for a few months that he'll ignore and some kind of community service where he'll learn nothing and do very little as no-one bothers to check they're actually doing anything.

The little cherub will claim he isn't responsible for any of it as he thought he was insured, didn't realise he'd hit anyone, thought his current driving ban had expired, didn't know he had to report the collision (not that he knew about it) and besides the cyclist doesn't pay to use the roads so he shouldn't have been there anyway.

Disinterested fart in the magistrates court will lap it up in between dealing with two credit card cases brought by a dodgy debt collection company and accepts the pathetic excuse that the poor motorist didn't set out to hurt anyone so must have been 'a temporary lapse in concentration'...ergo the driver escapes all responsibility.

Police charge victim with wasting police time, driver successfully sues victim for damage to vehicle he doesn't even own, court awards adverse costs against victim for having the audacity to complain about being hit.

All proof of the government's commitment to getting people on bikes of course. I think the time has come for government simply to be honest and just admit they don't give a $hit about anyone not in a car.That I could deal with, this continued failure to protect whilst insisting they care is getting extremely dull.

Avatar
Ramuz [153 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

They found the fucker.

Avatar
Ramuz [153 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This time it's on video, its shocking, the cyclist can in no way be claimed to be at any fault.

If the court mess this one up, it will be the case that demands sentencing laws get changed.

Avatar
Saturday [9 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Nice to see some action taken.

It may be the vid but anyone else notice how hard it is to see the indicator flashing. I could only tell during the slow motion bit and when the camera was very close?

Avatar
AyBee [85 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Avatar
don simon [773 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

@AyBee, it wasn't an accident.

Avatar
sandrider69 [4 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

CPS - Crown Prosecution Service or as it's also known the Criminal Protection Scheme!

Avatar
SideBurn [890 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
AyBee wrote:
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Because after an accident you stop, apologise if appropriate, make sure the person is OK or if not summon an ambulance if appropriate, exchange details, let the person know (if you can) that you will do what you can to assist in the recovery of compensation, give information to Police, be breathalysed... all that stuff that this c**t did not bother to do.
Having 'done a runner' trying to claim it was an accident should really seem like a sick joke. If it was not an accident? Then what?

Avatar
Leodis [404 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

He will plead guilty and get £75 fine and a community order and £5 victim costs.

Avatar
ficklewhippet [76 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It's not 'attempted murder'. Ridiculous statement to make.

Avatar
AyBee [85 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
SideBurn wrote:
AyBee wrote:
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Because after an accident you stop, apologise if appropriate, make sure the person is OK or if not summon an ambulance if appropriate, exchange details, let the person know (if you can) that you will do what you can to assist in the recovery of compensation, give information to Police, be breathalysed... all that stuff that this c**t did not bother to do.
Having 'done a runner' trying to claim it was an accident should really seem like a sick joke. If it was not an accident? Then what?

He didn't stop because he wasn't insured, car was on false plates and he didn't want to get caught (I'm not condoning this in any way). The opposite of accident implies he did it deliberately - is that what you genuinely think? If so, my first statement stands.

Avatar
SideBurn [890 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
AyBee wrote:
SideBurn wrote:
AyBee wrote:
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Because after an accident you stop, apologise if appropriate, make sure the person is OK or if not summon an ambulance if appropriate, exchange details, let the person know (if you can) that you will do what you can to assist in the recovery of compensation, give information to Police, be breathalysed... all that stuff that this c**t did not bother to do.
Having 'done a runner' trying to claim it was an accident should really seem like a sick joke. If it was not an accident? Then what?

He didn't stop because he wasn't insured, car was on false plates and he didn't want to get caught (I'm not condoning this in any way). The opposite of accident implies he did it deliberately - is that what you genuinely think? If so, my first statement stands.

So when someone drives a car without looking where they are going what do you call it? Why is it OK to risk other peoples lives on the road?

Avatar
oldstrath [626 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
AyBee wrote:
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Either he did it deliberately; or he's so incompetent, blind or both that he shouldn't be allowed near a lawnmower, let alone a car. Either way he should never be driving again.

Avatar
oldstrath [626 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
AyBee wrote:
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Either he did it deliberately; or he's so incompetent, blind or both that he shouldn't be allowed near a lawnmower, let alone a car. Either way he should never be driving again.

Avatar
oldstrath [626 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
AyBee wrote:
SideBurn wrote:
AyBee wrote:
mlimburn wrote:

The law stinks, should have been charged with attempted murder or GBH, or anything far more serious. This wasn't an accident, and the moron behind the wheel deserves a lot more than he will get!

Are you being serious? Attempted murder?! How do you know it wasn't an accident? You think he did it deliberately do you? Muppet!

Because after an accident you stop, apologise if appropriate, make sure the person is OK or if not summon an ambulance if appropriate, exchange details, let the person know (if you can) that you will do what you can to assist in the recovery of compensation, give information to Police, be breathalysed... all that stuff that this c**t did not bother to do.
Having 'done a runner' trying to claim it was an accident should really seem like a sick joke. If it was not an accident? Then what?

He didn't stop because he wasn't insured, car was on false plates and he didn't want to get caught (I'm not condoning this in any way). The opposite of accident implies he did it deliberately - is that what you genuinely think? If so, my first statement stands.

"Accident" suggests a random, unavoidable, event. Driving without looking is neither random nor unavoidable. At very best he either did something deliberately dangerous, or he is so brainless that his continuing to be able to breathe is surprising.

Avatar
don simon [773 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

The opposite of accident implies he did it deliberately - is that what you genuinely think

I don't think that because it's over simplifying. If the driver was distracted because they were:
Texting
Talking on a mobile
Driving too fast with the sun in their eyes
Looking at somebody on the pavement
Not paying attention to the road
Putting on makeup
Having a crafty sherman
Or whatever.
Then they made a decision to stop concentrating on the road and had this collision, I agree with the police for using collision instead of accident, and yes it implies it was deliberate. Accident implies unforseen/unpredictable event. This was neither. It's not a huge leap of faith to expect an "accident" if you take your concentration away from the task in hand.
The driver either was driving without due care or attention or dangerously. Which is it?
Fin.

Pages