A woman has expressed dismay after being incorrectly told police could not investigate a collision in which she was knocked off her bike by a driver.
Emma Kennedy claims a driver pulled out of a side road and hit her bike on Thursday in York, and when she tried to report the incident to North Yorkshire Police she was told there was nothing they could do because no serious injuries were sustained. North Yorkshire police later said their operator gave Kennedy incorrect information and that they will now investigate the incident fully.
The handling of the incident was criticised by Cycling UK which, it says, indicates a lack of commitment to tackling careless driving around cyclists.
West Midlands Police to use cycling officer to target close-passing motorists
Kennedy told the Northern Echo: “North Yorkshire Police wouldn’t report this incident because it would have to satisfy one of three conditions.
“Paramedics would have to attend, the driver had to leave the scene or the road would have to be blocked, but because none of these were the case, the police didn’t have to do anything.”
She said: “In this case where it could have been a really serious injury where the person admitted to me not seeing me, nothing is being done.”
Police later issued a statement saying the information Mrs Kennedy was given was incorrect, and that they would be investigating. Cycling UK, the national cycling charity, say careless driving should be investigated, whether someone is hurt or not.
Cycling UK’s Senior Road Safety and Legal Campaigner, Duncan Dollimore, told road.cc: “Careless driving is an offence whether or not anyone has been hurt. Allegations of careless driving should be investigated by the police regardless of whether there has been any injury requiring medical treatment, or indeed any actual collision. Dismissing minor injury incidents and near misses is however unfortunately a mistake many police forces continue to make.”
Dollimore pointed to West Midlands Police, whose initiative to tackle close overtakes at the source of danger, i.e. the driver, he calls an example to follow. He said while the West Midlands police force is “clearly demonstrating a commitment to tackle careless driving affecting cyclists”, this was “a commitment not readily apparent from the initial response Emma Kennedy received from North Yorkshire Police.”
A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: “We have reviewed our response to this call, and unfortunately on this occasion it appears that the caller was given incorrect information.
“We contacted the caller, apologised for the error and arranged to see her in person so we can ensure the incident is investigated fully.”
North Yorkshire Police is appealing for witnesses to the collision, involving a car and a female cyclist at around 2pm on Thursday (8 September 2016) in Fawcett Street, York. Anyone with information should call 101, quoting incident number NYP-10092016-0130.
The spokesperson did not respond for a request to confirm whether the meeting with Mrs Kennedy had taken place at the time of writing.
8 thoughts on “Cyclist wrongly told police couldn’t investigate car collision”
“Solly ociffer, I am drunk
“Solly ociffer, I am drunk and using a handheld mobile while driving at 85mph in the wrong direction down a one-way street – but I haven’t injured very badly anyone yet, so that’s OK, ishn’t it?”
“That’s fine, Sir. Mind how you go”.
Duncann wrote:
“Insufficient evidence to pursue.”
Such a small mistake if she
Such a small mistake if she had said “would not” she would have been bang on.
In the States, going back at
In the States, going back at least 10 years or more, most city police departments have unwritten policies to discourage investigations of accidents or vehicle collisions – of any type, vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to cyclist, vehicle to pedestrian UNLESS it is a life and death event.
Then, to add insult to injury, the city planning and engineering staff will turnaround and cite that few accidents and collisions exist in their data base. No kidding!
When I was hit by a hit-and-run driver several years ago, I learned to be persistent when I called the accident in and make sure I described the event in graphic enough terms to get the police to bother to come out and investigate. Here in the States, it is a lot more difficult to claim on your insurance, without a police report. Personally, I would not be shy about describing the event as “road rage”, or advise the police if I think the driver of the car is under the influence. Both are circumstances the police are more likely to responsd to, at least here in the States.
Is not the science of smidsy
Is not the science of smidsy and best practice on near misses etc really not understood? It isn’t difficult.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/safety/safety_management_en.htm
The worry is that it seems
The worry is that it seems like road.cc, the general public etc are under the impression that this is a one-off, unfortunate exception.
It is not.
This is the standard, normal procedure that almost all cops use when confronted with an attempt to report an offence by a driver against a bike rider:
Checklist:
1. is the victim dead? Record it as an unavoidable accident so that nobody will be penalised, let everyone go, then do nothing. The victim can hardly complain, after all! Make sure that nobody is detained at the scene, because that would “hold up traffic”.
2. Is the victim alive, but severely injured? Try to avoid attending the scene, using lines like “not enough resources”. If present at the scene, shout at the injured bike rider to get off the road, so that the perpetrator and all other drivers can continue on their way. Refuse to write anything down. Insist that the victim personally attends a police station to request an investigation, after they get out of hospital and the trail has certainly gone cold. Only then put out an “appeal for witnesses”, in the certain knowledge that nobody will come forward. Make sure that nobody is detained at the scene, because that would “hold up traffic”.
3. Is the victim uninjured or slightly injured? Absolutely refuse to attend the scene. Insist that the victim must personally attend a police station to request an investigation, so that the trail will certainly go cold before they arrive. Then do nothing. If a complaint is made and it gets in the papers, issue a pretend apology, then put out an “appeal for witnesses”, in the certain knowledge that nobody will come forward.
Refuse to accept video evidence if possible, using excuses about video formats, data protection etc. Lose the video evidence if it is handed over. Insist that the evidence is not admissable if the footage is shown on a social media site.
If all else fails and the case gets recorded and a perpetrator is identified, refuse to forward the case to the CPS. But don’t worry! Even if the CPS do get their hands on it, they will choose not to prosecute. Every time that happens, tell the next 100 or so victims that THIS is the reason why their case won’t be recorded or investigated or handed to the CPS, bacause there “is no point”.
This is how institutionalised prejudice works. Any victim that doesn’t like it, and says so publicly, is seen as an anti-social nuisance. If enough victims complain, MPs or even the PM herself might make promises to solve the problem: that will shut the bloody cyclists up. Then the politicians do nothing.
Remember, your elected representative doesn’t care if you live or die. They only care about being in power. Doing something about anti-cycling cops (i.e. most cops) is very near the bottom of the list of things they could fix but won’t.
The fact is the police only
The fact is the police only enforce the laws they have to otherwise they are just making work for themselves, particularly in a case like cycling in a motor-centric society where justice through the courts is rare. They will ignore the problem until a media scandal forces the politicians into action and pressure is brought to bear. West Midlands police appear to have taken up the issue in a very responsible manner, which is a big surprise, but only time will tell if this amounts to anything of any significance.
Fifth Gear wrote:
There’s a big difference between a senior or chief officer announcing a policy to the press, and ordinaru cops on the beat actually doing anything at all to put it into practice. Once 2 or 3 months have elapsed, the “WMP is great” publicity will have run its course and all cops, including West Mids, will quietly forget that they made any such promise.