The West Midlands Police Traffic Unit say that they were “falsely” identified in making a decision they were not involved in after footage emerged on Twitter of a cyclist being hit head-on by a driver who was on the wrong side of the road, with the rider saying in his post that he had submitted it to police and been told that the incident wouldn’t be investigated.
In his post, which included footage of the shocking incident, Twitter user @jonmbriggs said: “Had a letter from @Trafficwmp today to say that this isn’t for investigation, as if this isn’t a breach of reasonable driving standards. I’ve been considering a career change to allow me to work from home, I’ll look further into it if people are allowed to treat me like this.”
Had a letter from @Trafficwmp today to say that this isn’t for investigation, as if this isn’t a breach of reasonable driving standards. I’ve been considering a career change to allow me to work from home, I’ll look further into it if people are allowed to treat me like this. pic.twitter.com/ZebGpfSjXl
— Jᴏɴ (@jonmgriggs) February 11, 2021
The post quickly gathered a number of retweets and comments, with many critical of the West Midlands Police Traffic Unit’s response – but in a reply to the original poster, the traffic policing unit said: “Good afternoon. From what we can see here, this would clearly meet any threshold for a prosecution. Can you DM us please so we can have a look into it. We agree on first glance this doesn’t seem right. Thanks.”
Well done to WMP traffic for being prepared to take it up again.
Its difficult to see how driving on the wrong side of the road until colliding with another vehicle could not be below the required standard.— Stephen Laughton (@StevoLaughton) February 11, 2021
It was officers from the West Midlands Police road policing unit that pioneered the award-winning close pass initiative in 2015 that has since been adopted by other police forces around the UK, leading several people commenting on the post to express surprise at the decision – but in a further tweet, the Traffic Unit clarified that third-party footage of incidents such as this do not come to their officers directly, but are handled centrally.
In which case, will they be reeducated? I don’t think it takes a specialist to recognise driving on the wrong side of the road (at night when raining to boot) and hitting someone is not acceptable?
— Ed Perchick (@edperch) February 11, 2021
That doesn’t explain, of course, why the footage was apparently rejected in the first instance, but the Traffic Unit added that they are now “working with the gentleman who highlighted this to resolve the issue and we actually agree that the driving is pretty shocking.”
We are aware of a tweet falsely identifying us as having made a decision that we have not. We are working with the gentleman who highlighted this to resolve the issue and we actually agree that the driving is pretty shocking. pic.twitter.com/Av3YOJGrgw
— WMP Traffic (@Trafficwmp) February 11, 2021
25 thoughts on “Cyclist hit head-on by driver on wrong side of road says police declined to investigate footage (+ video)”
I think there also needs to
I think there also needs to be an investigation on how this footage was initially rejected, as well as the footage itself.
There’s a large contingent of drivers that cut into a turn entering it on the wrong side of the road, I have seen this numerous times either driving or on the bike. It is a dangerous habit that needs to be treated more seriously, as in this case, the worst examples risk vulnerable road users literally being run over.
The public presence of Twitter seems to grab the attention of police forces that have not dealt with video footage of an incident as expected by the victim. I wonder if this may be a tactic for those left in the dark from close pass videos they’ve submitted?!
It stuns m how many drivers
It stuns m how many drivers seem to think that they can’t use the full lock of thier seering, or that it is somehow going to be hard work, how often do you pull up to turn right out of a junction and the driver who wants to turn right into the junction (so they have priority) will sit back and flash thier lights so they can take a lazy sweeping line.
EK Spinner wrote:
Beats my experience of angry gestures and words for not letting them cut the corner, and them being surprised when they have to adjust to the line they should have taken in the first place. (while driving, not cycling)
They will have been told when
They will have been told when learning to drive to take corners properly but it seems like they just forget as soon as they pass. Similarly drivers are completely oblivious that buses and trucks need more space when turning. Which of course means that cars tip trucks onto them.
I hadn’t even thought that they were trying to cut the corner when they let me out first. Sometimes I just wait for them to take the proper line.
Yes, we all know junctions
Yes, we all know junctions where this is unfortunately the norm. There’s one near me, a turn right and I always keep to the kerb in order to get a better view into the junction and avoid the cars turning out.
There’s one near me too. It
There’s one near me too. It has speed bumps in it and drivers typically come round the corner in the middle of the road to straddle them. Whether I’m on a bicycle or a motorbike, I always make a point of riding as close to the gutter as I can as I’m well aware a vehicle might swing round the corner in the middle of the road and may well be going too fast to stop.
My own street has a slight
My own street has a slight left hand curve when leaving so anyone cutting the corner will either just miss or hit oncoming traffic. It doesn’t stop them doing it though!
Shocking, not even just a
Shocking, not even just a little bit on the wrong side of the road* and I think it would tentatively be safe to rule out the sun in driver’s eyes and hidden by ‘A’ pillar defences.
When submitting video footage to an online Police portal, why would the person submitting the footage not assume that it is going to be reviewed by the Police, or at the minimum a qualified civilian operator working under Police supervision? WMP seem to be very defensive of their poor internal departmental organisation.
*Assuming the cyclist is not going the wrong way on a one way street.
Dazzled by the cyclist’s
Dazzled by the cyclist’s illegal light.
It’s illegal for cyclists to
It’s illegal for cyclists to have lights?
alexls wrote:
It’s illegal to use lights that dazzle other road users.
However, it’s also below the standard required to carry on driving regardless when you cannot see for being dazzled. It’s also not recommended to drive AT the light.
GMBasix wrote:
Someone needs to tell all those SUV drivers, in that case…
alexls wrote:
Not illegal per se, just not the done thing…
You seem to be not adding to
You seem to be not adding to the list of excuses…
……………..
Front Lamp
At least one lamp is required, showing a white light, positioned centrally or offside (the right-hand side of the bike), up to 1500mm from the ground, aligned towards and visible from the front. If capable of emitting a steady light, it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard.
If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candelas.
Note: It might sound obvious, but the light needs to be fixed to the bicycle; there is a fashion for helmet lights which can be pointed in the direction you’re looking which might be useful but is not legal. A single helmet mounted light doesn’t conform – and if you’re an adult, then the chances are that your helmet light will be more than the 1500mm height limit from the ground anyway.
The reference to ‘4 candelas’ isn’t very useful because most bike lights are given an output in ‘lumens’; for a guide, 1 candela approximates to 12 lumens, so the tiny blinky flashing lights which usually put out around 25 lumens won’t enough on their own; you’ll need at least two of them.
……………
https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
hirsute wrote:
Okay, but if the light isn’t marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard (and all the other requirements you list) – does that mean the light is an illegal light or simply not a legal light. I.e. if you had two lights, one that conformed to all the requirement and another that did not, could you be prosecuted?
I think you are missing the
I think you are missing the point of the original post.
Yes, I was a police officer
Yes, I was a police officer for thirty years and it’s only now do I realise how defensive and insular the ‘police family’ can be.
Silly me!
I’ve mentioned several times
I’ve mentioned several times that WMP are no longer leaders in the field of cyclists safety. Whether it is because of the serious illness (and i think death) of one of the pioneers or a change in tact of the bigwigs but they started by removing the dedicated @WMPRHRT twitter account in late 2019. This used to show regular updates of the superb team in fighting speeding, close passing, bad parking and mobile phone use and was also used to reply to badly informed opinion on Twitter. Since then the team have pretty much been incognito with the occiasional mention on the WMPTraffic twitter.
This was soon after they collaborated with Road.cc on the best way to submit valid Cycle cam footage. ANyone here want to do a follow up on what is happening with them? It is not just Covid as this was at least 6 months before that.
Thanks for that input. Any
Thanks for that update . Any reader with WMP?
In my experience campaigns often need to be ‘flavour of the month’ with someone (often behind the scenes) pushing it.
When they move on to say a different department or job entirely, the campaign just withers.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
That’s certainly putting it mildly. I’ve submitted over 20 incidents to them with camera footage and registration plates, and heard nothing about any of them.
Same here, but at least
Same here, but at least previously with Mark cycling along and catching people on my own commuting route, I could know that at least the WMP were doing something about shite drivers for cyclists and pedestrians. Now all you see is catching stolen vehicles and the odd close pass demo with someone on a mat.
My experience of the police
My experience of the police is that if there isn’t obvious intent by the driver to deliberately hit a cyclist then they’re not interested. At a guess, I’d say the person looking at the video has decided that if two cars were in that situation the police would take no action and leave it to the insurers. So much for Boris’ ‘golden age of cycling’!
Unfortunately, another “ruse”
Unfortunately, another “ruse” of the police, of which I’ve had personal experience, is to take so long making a decision whether to prosecute or not, that too much time has passed, so the driver is effectively let off. To compound the issue, if CCTV is available, they’ll wait until at least a week has passed before taking a slow stroll down to the source, knowing that in all likelihood it’s been deleted by then.
How much more evidence is
How much more evidence is required before people realise that the immediate reaction of the police to any online incident report from a cyclist is ‘file in bin’? They use a number of dodges if they’re caught out: I have very recently received from Lancashire the ‘log wasn’t signed so we don’t know who did it’ dodge, and WMP apparently think that ‘nothing to do with us, squire’ is a satisfactory excuse. If people can’t be bothered to complain and then follow it up as far as possible when they’re fobbed off (which is a 100% certainty), then there will be no improvement.
wtjs wrote:
— wtjsIndeed. We need to make it more costly and annoying for them not to address our reports than to action them immediately.