Persistence pays off for cycling lawyer as motorist who threatened to kill him convicted

I stand (or sit or ride) corrected - after 6 years in motor insurance sales and claims, I thought I knew it all - we never use to ask for any details of convictions other than motoring ones, and there was never a field to complete for anything other than motoring convictions. Innnnterestting.

Been thinking of this for a while concerned at the general (conscious or unconscious) apathy that the police shows towards incidents against cyclists:

Is there a provision in UK law under which a victim, whose case has been dismissed by Police despite convincing evidence, or an independent party, using collective evidence over a period, can sue (say) the Met for bias against cyclist(s)?

Even if such a case can/may not be won, it'll put the police officers and leadership on alert about being under observation, and force them to at least give all offences against cyclists a serious thought (to prevent the incident from being used as evidence against them in a future suit).

If it pushes the police leadership enough to really force a serious change of attitudes inside the police departments, the cost of the suit may well be worth it.

Regarding another thought I've been having lately - are there any public numbers on what percentage of police officers regularly cycle, as part of official duty or for recreation?

My hypothesis is that most police officers do not cycle, but a big majority of them do drive. The result is that they treat a motor vehicle sideswiping a cyclist the same as, say, a car scraping against another - a casual event that just caused a few scratches on the metal that shall be settled by the insurance companies anyway.

Unfortunately, cyclists know that getting sideswiped by a motor vehicle can easily go from something as little as a damaged bike and scratched skin to ending up under the wheels of an HMV.

If this is the case and statistics can be found to back it, it could help show a direction in which to work to ensure incidents against cyclists get a proper hearing.

"Have iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit"!

Top effort!

However,

Secretly filming members of the public, and it is secret until they realise it, and because these cameras do not discriminate between people actually offending and innocently going about their lawful business, including young mums and kids, public are entitled to be outraged at it. Although there is no law against such filming it can be deemed to be behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace and can be stopped. It is a form of unwelcome vigilantism. We are asking ministers, MPs and police, where they stand on covert filming of innocent members of the public and if there needs to be checks carried out on the people who do it too.

Before exploding at me, do check the law out on this. Also do not get indignant when people have a go at you for it. If they ask you to stop, then stop. It is a natural reaction.

This barrister was foolish. This could've resulted in injury and death for him. His camera probably encouraged him to maintain contact. Is It ok being right but a right cabbage or dead? Don't be daft. On bikes, we are very vulnerable. Remember filming people makes them angry and they are controlling heavy lumps of machinery. Any sign of this get off the bike. Let them go. Don't take them on.

This whole thing needs looking at from a very strict licencing point of view.

Why aren't we surprised that there is an Ex Acpo Ltd money maker involved in this? See http://bit.ly/u92z0U

You're confusing the word 'secret' with the word 'small' there, DPU. And you're also confusing yourself, it seems, saying that "there's no law against such filming", which is true, only to later say we should "check the law", which you already seem to have done.

Quote:

If they ask you to stop, then stop. It is a natural reaction

it might well be a natural reaction. That doesn't put the law on your side.

Quote:

Remember filming people makes them angry and they are controlling heavy lumps of machinery. Any sign of this get off the bike. Let them go. Don't take them on

The conviction in Martin's case rested on him challenging the driver, so not always the case. There's no amount of provocation that would legitimise using your vehicle as a weapon in any circumstance.

Once upon a time Constable Plod rode a bike and was very aware of all that was happening around them and the dangers of the other road users .
As they go about policing now they sit in the comfort of their vehicle usually stuck in traffic without very much awareness of what is happening around them . Fact is it is very hard to get them to pull over to pass them info or seek their assistance .
Recall reading here that the first ( 2 london women )death caused by that truck driver was witnessed but the Police on the scene just wanted to keep the traffic moving and so did not do their work correctly and the witnesses were sent on their way without being recorded ! how many more incidents of sloppy Police work will be reported before there is an improvement in procedures ?
So far i have seen no report of any worthwhile penalty for the driver or reimbursement of Martin Porter's costs even though he may have declined them . Surely the Police and CPS should be aware that a member of the public loses time and incurs expense when they fail to do their duty correctly .
Once again the cyclist is wronged and the perputrater walks from court with a little less cash when the case merits custody as a warning to others !