On the day that a man handed himself in to police after a video of an altercation between a van driver and a cyclist went viral on social media, it has emerged that the cyclist involved had aleady reported the incident to the police.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said that the force was made aware of the incident on December 8. No allegation of crime was made and no further action was taken.
When police in Havering became aware of the video, Havering CID spoke to the cyclist involved, but he told them he did not want to pursue the case.
In the video, the cyclist falls off his bike after the van is used to close the gap between the vehicle and the kerb.
The driver of the van then emerges and appears to assault the rider.
From the decals on its side, the van has been widely identified as belonging to Taylor Landscaping, based in Ramsden Heath, Essex.
A road.cc reader yesterday identified the location of the incident as Hornchurch.
A spokesman for Essex Police told the Echo News: "A man has voluntarily attended a Chelmsford Police station this morning to give an account of the incident.
“It has now been established that this incident took place in the Hornchurch area and the matter has been passed to the Met police to investigate.”
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "On December 8, 2014, police were made aware of a personal injury collision between a cyclist and a van.
"The incident occurred on December 5, 2014, in Butts Green Road, Emerson Park, Havering at approximately 11:40hrs.
"No allegation of crime was made and no further action was taken was taken by police.
"On Friday, 16 January 2015, Havering police became aware of a YouTube video which appeared to show a cyclist being assaulted.
"Havering CID spoke to the cyclist. He informed police that he did not wish to pursue any further allegations.
On Friday, 16 January a 34-year-old man attended an east London police station and was interviewed under caution.
"Enquiries continue."
71 thoughts on “UPDATED: Essex road rage van driver hands himself in, but cyclist declines to press charges”
There’s really enough here to
There’s really enough here to prosecute even if the cyclist doesn’t come forward, although the CPS are notoriously reticent to do so when it comes to cyclists. Driver should be thoroughly ashamed of himself though.
Voluntarily, eh?
Voluntarily, eh? B-)
How do you know it’s not the
How do you know it’s not the victim who has come forward?
Whatever legal process takes
Whatever legal process takes place this incident is going to cost the driver a lot of money. Regardless of whether or not you are a cyclist who would want a jerk like this carrying out work for you.
According to the BBC, listing
According to the BBC, listing company “Trust a trader” has suspended membership for Taylor Landscaping pending investigation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30846362
ron611087 wrote:According to
Wow, its also the most read story of the bbc website today. Hopefully the publicity will make other psychotic freaks think twice before acting like this ape.
What is really worrying is
What is really worrying is that people like this are so pumped up with aggression that they suspend whatever intelligence they have, and there’s so many of them behind the wheel. It is obvious that if you do something like this in public and you are clearly identifiable then you’re not going to get away with it. What gets people into this state? drugs, anabolics, RedBull?
So no charges will be brought
So no charges will be brought (despite clear evidence of dangerous driving and assault), trust a trader will unsuspend his account and 99.9% of his customers wont have heard about this anyway.
Better watch out on the roads of essex as he’ll no doubt be on the warpath for revenge attacks on the scum cyclists who grassed him up…
I would be really surprise if
I would be really surprise if the Met had taken any actions at all, even if the cyclist had decided to pursue the case.
It’s pretty frightening that
It’s pretty frightening that the police would insist on a victim of violence pressing charges, before they’ll do anything to the perpetrator who has already willingly tried to harm them once.
Ah well, at least the
Ah well, at least the internet has come to the rescue when the CPS hasn’t!
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that the police are not taking that further, with or without the cooperation of the victim. The thug needs to be brought to justice for the protection of the general public.
Actually, no, from experience I can believe that the police aren’t going to do anything.
~X( X(
Surprised no one has
Surprised no one has mentioned the other offence being committed, the passenger in the van is smoking in what I believe is a place of work.
This video has been on the
This video has been on the Liveleak website since yesterday and has over 900 comments!
Someone there claims to have done a vehicle check on the van featured, and the mot expired September 2014.
The BBC said they had been unable to speak to anyone at the company, I’m not surprised as loads of online viewers have been voicing their opinion directly so they’re probably not answering their phones anymore!
It’s very hard to see why one
It’s very hard to see why one wouldn’t report a crime over something like that unless the police involved tried to talk one out of it. I’m very curious what’s gone on here.
“Havering CID spoke to the
“Havering CID spoke to the cyclist. He informed police that he did not wish to pursue any further allegations”
This shouldn’t preclude prosecution. Ideally, the driver would be prosecuted but not have the excuse/justification-for-anger that it was the cyclist wot done it. Even in his own eyes, he’d then have no-one to blame but himself and might think a little harder because of it.
Ah right, so if I murder
Ah right, so if I murder someone, when I get away with it because the victim will not press charges?
Prima facie, so all the
Prima facie, so all the police need is an acceptance of guilt and he will be dooomed
What does “making an
What does “making an allegation” mean?
I was involved in an accident 6 months ago where a car turned across my path right in front of me, and I fractured my wrist and broke a rib. I spoke to the police on scene and made it clear I thought it was the other party’s fault – they were coming in the opposite direction and turned across my lane right in front of me. There was a witness and she spoke to the police as well. The police informed me they thought it was an incident with no one to blame, and I informed them I disagreed. The witness said she gave her details to the police.
Cue some months later, where I’m trying to make a claim through solicitors, and I find out the police never took a witness statement because I didn’t make an allegation. What the hell is that supposed to mean? They never asked me if I wanted to do so, whatever it is.
eurotrash wrote:What does
This is why the CTC’s Road Justice Campaign is so important. If you haven’t visited the site already the link is below.
http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/
eurotrash wrote:What does
Very interesting story. Very indicative of what we are up against here (I tend to believe you because I haver heard so many other stories like it). Just one bit of pedantry: YOU did not break a rib and fracture your wrist – the driver did
ChairRDRF wrote:eurotrash
Very interesting story. Very indicative of what we are up against here (I tend to believe you because I haver heard so many other stories like it). Just one bit of pedantry: YOU did not break a rib and fracture your wrist – the driver did— eurotrash
Wronged? Complain officially.
Witness? Make contact and see if they can help your case.
No disrespect intended, but we rarely get more than one side of the story.
There certainly is evidence
There certainly is evidence from the video, the deliberate turn in of the nearside wheel to trap the cyclist against the curb could not be clearer. The oik then tries to make out the cyclist smashed into his van before punching him in the musher.
Don’t understand why the cyclist would go to the trouble of posting the vid but then decline to press charges. The cycling community needs this actioned.
Great spot by bikecellar about the other geezer smoking in a place of work. Would the cyclist need to make an allegation on this as well before plod will do something?
For f*** sake. The Police’s
For f*** sake. The Police’s role is to enforce the law as a neutral body. If they can’t do that, then that’s when people feel obliged to resort to vigilante action, which has little grasp of balance and is fuelled by anger and the desire for revenge.
Arrest this man – it is clear he has done something wrong. He even came to you!
Firstly if he is 34 he needs
Firstly if he is 34 he needs to start moisturising and secondly he needs to start exercising, maybe cycling.
And thirdly, I would have felt I was in serious danger, and beat the sh#t out of the idiot using only the required amount of force to protect my person. X(
Compare the actions and
Compare the actions and outcome of Mr Taylor Landscaping and the similarities in this story http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/peckham-cyclist-jailed-after-dragging-london-bus-driver-cab-beating-him-1478629 There is clear evidence of multiple laws being broken and yet no prosecution for Mr Taylor Landscaping. How come?
It’s bash the police time
It’s bash the police time again I see.
Apart from the cycling zealots I doubt that many of the public would see the benefit of taking this guy to court when at best common assault or minor public order when the victim doesn’t want to know.
With no victim when your whole case is based on a video that will need to be proven as unedited then you’ve got problems when challenged.
The public interest isn’t necessarily road cc police bashers interest.
This is why I haven’t got
This is why I haven’t got writing on my van. 👿
Why does the cyclist bother
Why does the cyclist bother buying a camera, wearing it and uploading footage from it … if when the worst happens he doesn’t want to follow it through?
Ramuz wrote:Why does the
If maybe he wasn’t hurt. His bike wasn’t hurt. He realised that if he hadn’t ridden up the inside of the van towards the back of the dustcart that hadn’t cleared the junction and then called the driver a muppet the incident wouldn’t of happened.
(Not defending the driver).
He may just not want to be in the public eye or loose time at work etc.
Maybe he thought that the video exposure would do just fine on its own.
Why can’t people let it be his choice?
Unless that is Mr. Taylor
Unless that is Mr. Taylor himself, the upshot will probably a trip down the Job Centre come Monday morning. Did this gentleman not realize his is Highly Visible? and easily identifiable.
The victim took the vid off
The victim took the vid off YouTube, presumably having a change of heart for some reason. They have also declined to raise the matter with the police.
I’m not sure why someone else has copied and reposted the video. Is this a social media version of fire starting – sit back and watch the shitstorm grow? There’s certainly a shitstorm, and to no-one’s benefit.
I use a helmet cam. I see loads of shit driving. (To be honest I wonder how many of us would pass the current driving test if we took it again)! The cam is there to provide evidence to the Police if something serious enough happens to warrant reporting. Nothing goes on You Tube.
We don’t need an escalation of hatred, and as the comments on FB show, that’s just what these video’s cause.
And the passenger is also
And the passenger is also heard telling the driver to get off the phone, so the police could charge the passenger for smoking and the driver for using a phone whilst driving. Fat chance of that.
Davidn37 wrote:And the
Prosecutions re smoking in work place are the responsibility of local authorities.
You won’t get a conviction for the phone unless he admits it. Even if you prove that his phone was transmitting at the time you can’t prove that was what was (very blurred) in his hand.
Am I being stupid here, but
Am I being stupid here, but why report an incident to the police if you don’t want to press charges?
Something just doesn’t quite add up to me, it all seems a little fishy. I’d be inclined to believe the suggestion that the cyclist, upon presenting themselves to the police station was (misguidedly) warned (or threatened) off pushing ahead with charges for any multitude of reasons.
I think in cases like this there is a public duty for the police to intervene before he goes on to do something more dangerous than just rough up another road user. And wasn’t a range rover driver recently jailed for similar shenanigans after hitting a cyclist with his wing mirror, then assaulting him and demanding cash from him? How is this any different?
There are always at least 3
There are always at least 3 sides to a storey/incident: opposing sides and the real truth. It is easy to bash the police here but there is so much more to these situations and potential prosecutions that clearly people are not aware of and don’t understand. This is NOT a perfect world unfortunately.
james123 wrote:There are
Maybe the cyclist, if his name came out by persuing a case, would have been found to have a cupboard full of his own proverbial skeletons?
Emma Way + The Only Way is
Emma Way + The Only Way is Essex = Taylor Lanscaping
Driver clearly a nut job..
Driver clearly a nut job.. But not the smartest move by the cyclist to undertake the van at a junction. He could of stayed behind the van once being passed until both had cleared the junction…
Hopefully social media
Hopefully social media justice will be dealt out as the laws of the land haven’t had an impact.
Hopefully social media
Hopefully social media justice will be dealt out as the laws of the land haven’t had an impact.
Well you all know how it is,
Well you all know how it is, If the van driver had shouted ‘Allaho Akbar’, he wouldn’t have had to hand himself in because MI6 would have been on the case.
I thought you couldn’t just go around hitting people, but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps there’s some abstract law that states, if you are a gardener on a Sunday you may punch a fellow citizen just as long as he is riding a bike and shouting Muppet.
Quote:No disrespect intended,
It’s interesting to have the police view, and I hope you’ll keep posting.
However, in my opinion, there is a problem with the police approach to road incidents involving cyclists – overall, and this is necessarily a generalisation. Cyclists don’t feel that the police are sufficiently willing to take action to sanction careless, reckless, or even deliberate actions which put cyclists in danger. We’re not imagining it, and we have example after example.
It is certainly a natural reaction for the police to be defensive, and no doubt you correctly think that non-police don’t understand all the difficult issues you face.
However, it might be time to stop being defensive, and take an honest and hard look at whether actions taken by the police are enough to protect vulnerable road users. Do you too often decide not to take any action, because it’s easier, it avoids paperwork, or because there’s an in-built sense of identification and sympathy with drivers, and a mistrust of the ‘out-group’ that cyclists are?
HarrogateSpa wrote:Quote:No
You have assumed wrongly. By ‘we” I refer to readers of this forum who only get to hear one side of the stories that you mention. In my opinion we get anything but a balanced view as we don’t hear the full circumstances, nor the from the other other party, or from the police who were involved.
What so often happens, and is happening on this thread, is that a mixture of police haters and police mistrusters criticise their actions, and those of the justice system in general, more often than not on very little or no information.
Just a couple of examples –
The police have been embarrassed about the MOT issue. How on earth do you know what they’ve done or haven’t done and why would they tell you?
That the cyclist was threatened or coerced into not pressing the matter. What factual basis is there from the information available?
It’s all guesswork and assumption. One big assumption is that he reported it at all – perhaps a witness called in and police attended the scene, but because the driver isn’t clapped in irons you all assume nothing is being done.
It says that there is a reported personal injury accident, therefore the matter of driving documents will be in the pipe line (so where’s the embarrassment?)
Let’s for a minute (humour me) assume’ that the police didn’t attach wires to the cyclist’s testicles in order to persude him not to make proceed with any allegations (or one or some allegations as it’s all guesswork) we’re back to looking at what can be done to bring about a prosecution without the aid of the cyclist.
We don’t even know if he told them about the video.
So, the driving issue – I expect so if you can get the video accepted into evidence without the cyclist who made it because defence will have that thrown out and you’ve wasted public money.
The smoking – tell the local council, that’s their remit.
The phone – you can’t prove it unless he admits it.
The assault – without the cyclist he’d get off – yes he would.
So as I see it you have no facts that support an attack on the police – but we can’t let fact get in the way of a good story can we.
I dont believe people are
I dont believe people are “attacking the police” I think there is simply an understandable desire for cases like this to be taken far more seriously than they appear to.
Id certainly feel a lot less safer riding a bike by myself if we just decided that its ok for people to leap out of their vans after forcing you off the road to punch you in the head, and the police wouldnt do anything about it.
remember if all the things you said were happening or had happened there would be a record of it on the police system. Essex police wouldnt need to ask for anyone to come forward, they could check the national database and respond with a simple, we are aware of the incident our colleagues in the Met are dealing with it or have dealt with it, case closed. but they didnt.
as for the phone proof, it would be simple to prove there was a call taking place on that phone at that time.
and remember the law says “using hand held phones” it specifically doesnt restrict itself to just you cant hold a phone to your ear and have a chat, simply using it counts, which is why all those people who sit with mobiles in their lap trying to chat on speakerphone get fined too =D>
the only dispute would be the timestamp on the cyclists video neednt be accurate, but Im sure there are alternate apnr cameras that will have timestamped the van (and maybe flagged its lack of MOT/SORNstatus etc who knows) in the area
Awavey wrote:I dont believe
You certainly don’t understand what information is available between police forces as regards allegations of crime or recorded incidents, nor do you have a good enough understanding of what is required to convict re the hand held device.
Again, assumption and incorrect information.
Note that the police contacted the cyclist, so they had a record somewhere of who he was was. Note that he declined to make an allegation. Note that they still have interviewed someone (the driver?) under caution re this incident at a police station.
We’re not going to know what he said unless there’s a trial, but some will keep on slagging the police regardless of fact.
If as suggested the vehicle
If as suggested the vehicle wasn’t taxed and insured as suggested by some then the owner will be fined for that. It is not a small offence. I am curious why the victim does not want to press charges. Assault is assault. And if the driver was to be prosecuted for the driving offence – forcing the cyclist off the road plus using a phone while driving then the penalty points would certainly stack up. It’d possibly make him think twice.
If the driver is not the owner of the business or vehicle, then he’ll probably be out of a job. If it is his business, he’ll probably lose a lot of contracts. Not many people want a thug working for them.
Interesting views… its all
Interesting views… its all about perceptions isn’t it? The great thing about a perception is that its never wrong… it is after all your perception.
Misguided yes, wrong no.
In this case… the police view as posted on this site is that no one was harmed, it was no big deal, lets all move on, ‘no harm, no foul’. This perception has been formed from dealing with far more serious crimes on a daily basis, and to be blunt from seeing cases such as this go no where when brought to the CPS.
The general cyclists perception is that is simply unbelievable that such action should be left uncountered by the law when such clear evidence is being presented.
The saddest perception demonstrate here, and unfortunetly one that has seemingly been proven to be entirely accurate is that of the driver. His perception is that he can, at will, and with the good grace of our laws, decide to deliberately knock a cyclist off their bike, then get out of his car and physcially assault that cyclist without fear of punishment or consequence.
That to me is a real shame.
And that brings me to my perception. My perception is that I resent the victim here. I resent him bringing this into the public light. In doing so he has simply confirmed to drivers like the honourable gentlemen (as now judged by the law and society) driving the van, and indeed those with a currently more moderate approach are absolutely able to act in this way without repercussion.
We all witter on about helmets on here like they are some form of sacred talisman, but honestly, this is by far a bigger threat to our daily lives I assure you.
However…
As mentioned by someone else earlier, I also now feel far more comfortable taking a more physical approach to future altercations. As the police view here demonstrates, as long as no one i seriously hurt, this is after all acceptable behaviour in the eyes of the law… so fair game. Is that right?
Has the rider been threatened
Has the rider been threatened not to go any further? May be the focus should be on what kind of buisness employs a thug who assaults people like that presumably during work hours or as a minimum in a work van.
The cyclist does society a
The cyclist does society a disservice by not proceeding with charges. The sort of disservice that encourages the assailant to carry on in his thuggish ways.
Women have been doing the same for years, letting domestic abusers carry on until the thug kills them or the next gf.
And yes, the cowson’s van has no MOT. https://www.vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ NC56 FMP Ford
Edit – actually, it’s being driven on a SORN. So driver and owner are breaking the law.
racyrich wrote:The cyclist
Amazing detective work…but you’d better stop now, you’re embarrassing the police!
Perhaps the DVLA should have one of those 0800 numbers.
racyrich wrote:The cyclist
If the vehicle is on a SORN, then it isn’t taxed and that also means any insurance is also invalid. Those aren’t minor offences. The owner will be facing hefty fines, while the driver will be looking at penalty points.
He should be charged with
He should be charged with something, a traffic offence at least, it is in the public interest. Maybe he will plead guilty anyway.
I’m guessing the driver got
I’m guessing the driver got more than he bargained for in any respect.
Whilst what the driver did
Whilst what the driver did was bang out of order (turning in on purpose), what was the cyclist doing trying to force his way down the side of the van in the first place. The driver had given him ample space when he overtook him and then had to slow down as the bin wagon was turning left. Why did the cyclist think it was ok to try to force his way between the van and the turning bin wagon? He should have just slowed down and waited for the wagon to turn and then followed behind the van. He did himself no favours really in my opinion.
This Van Driver should be
This Van Driver should be arrested and the Cyclist should press charges! We should not let people get away with this violent behaviour!
Yesterday, before the social
Yesterday, before the social media storm the police said “We’re aware of a You Tube video of a cyclist being assaulted + would advise the victim to contact police on 101 so it can be investigated”
Its reasonable to assume that at that stage they had done sweet FA – not even spoken to the ape that could have killed the cyclist with his 3 tonne van.
Kadinkski wrote:Yesterday,
No, not reasonable to assume that at all.
Essex police made a very sensible response. The scene was later identified as as within the MPD who later confirmed that they had a report of a PI accident and that the cyclist didn’t want to proceed with a complaint re assault.
That is all we know, everything else is conjecture and in some cases I suspect complete fantasy. As said before, you don’t even know if the cyclist told them about the video.
You’re left with a minor injury accident report which would not involve speaking with the driver at this early stage.
So no police fail there from from the facts – but keep at it.
Eebijeebi wrote:Kadinkski
No, not reasonable to assume that at all.
Essex police made a very sensible response. The scene was later identified as as within the MPD who later confirmed that they had a report of a PI accident and that the cyclist didn’t want to proceed with a complaint re assault.
That is all we know, everything else is conjecture and in some cases I suspect complete fantasy. As said before, you don’t even know if the cyclist told them about the video.
You’re left with a minor injury accident report which would not involve speaking with the driver at this early stage.
So no police fail there from from the facts – but keep at it.— Kadinkski
Again, this is about perception… and my perception is that you feel it is perfectly acceptable to shrug your shoulders and let this go. Now I appreciate that what happens behind the scenes means its far less black and white as us common folk will see it… but can you not see that in there is the rub?
I go back to my point… there is clear video evidence of a physical assault and no one is going to do anything about it. Can you not see why there is frustration, and why some of that frustration is getting directed at the authorities we the uneducated common man were foolishly of the understanding were there to protect us?
As mentioned, the cyclist in question is doing society a grave mis-service for this blatant advertising of what you can get away with in this fair land these days.
Recently fitted a pair of
Recently fitted a pair of 26mm gravel kings to my old Mavic wheels.
Have to say I’m really disappointed as the tyres actually measure 23mm fitted which is the same as my old ones.
The whole reason for getting 26mm was to fit widest tyres I could on the frame as I have to travel on bumpy but paved towpath with short cobbled sections under bridges.
Moral of story – beware, as posted above, about actual tyre volume.
I wish I had bought the 28mm (as these probaly actually measure 25mm) anyone want to swap?
I know those tyres mean that
I know those tyres mean that you can ride a bit off piste, but that doesn’t include this forum too.
Has anyone else noticed the 4
Has anyone else noticed the 4 ft wide load on the back of the bike?
Explains why he was hugging the kerb.
The landscaping company’s
The landscaping company’s getting a right shoeing. :))
http://www.192.com/business/review/81f936debf79774c9c1cdd3737ee32cee56527c2/comp/
I understand why the cyclist
I understand why the cyclist has not decided to press charges, as it is now a national media event. I suspect they feel that this put them, their friends and family at risk.
Regarding the reaction of the police, I adopted a different approach when faced with the lack of an appropriate response when a van driver threatened to run me over on a Saturday afternoon, in a busy shopping street. I partially resolved the issue through correspondence with my local MP, other police officers, the use of both local and national cycling organisations, and the local media. Also I obtained helpful CCTV footage, as was my legal right. Perhaps the victim in this case should be contacted and given advice on how to proceed. If the driver is not prosecuted for the various criminal offences they apparently committed then I can see other drivers taking this as a “green light” to behave in a similar fashion and victims taking a much more robust stance in self-defence.
Whoever deals with the fleet
Whoever deals with the fleet of vehicles at the landscaping company is for the high jump. The van was SORN’d in September and no MOT either.
http://t.co/UcQT8klXDJ
Redvee wrote:Whoever deals
…which also means it was not insured. Those are charges the police can use without having to have the cyclist make a complaint.
Apparently the thug is being
Apparently the thug is being charged with a public order offense, and the MET is reviewing the traffic offenses as well.
Good news..
Good news..
The police do not in fact
The police do not in fact need a complaint of assault from the victim to charge a suspect. They changed that bit of the law to combat domestic abuse and thugs who threaten victims with reprisals.
As a cyclist who commutes to
As a cyclist who commutes to work to London 20 miles every day I experience my fair share of so called “Muppets”.
Personally I don’t think it was a smart move to antagonise the van driver in the first place. This doesn’t excuse the van driver’s actions but I wasn’t exactly surprised. I think you’d get the same outcome if you shouted at them from your car.
Lets assume that the average white van man is not going to appreciate a critique of their driving or reappraising them of the Highway Code. They are hardly likely to want to discuss the matter over tea and crumpets. I see a lot of cyclists these days shouting the odds and I don’t think it does any good for cycling in general.
What works for me is to accept that Biggest Wins and that you are very vulnerable on a bicycle. This is especially apparent when being tailgated by a fecking London Bus.
I’m sorry the driver has not
I’m sorry the driver has not been prosecuted, he will feel even more that he can do what he wants. Would he have gone to the police station if not been seen on camera.
Unclebadger says shouldn’t antagonise these people in the first place, but while I agree with this, I found I’ve had to knock on the side of vehicles or stare through the window because drivers haven’t even realised I’m there, or they’re trying to go through a space that just isn’t big enough.
I say this as someone who as yet has not got one but I think camera’s are a great help for cyclists.