A lorry driver who pleaded not guilty after being caught by West Midlands Police’s close pass initiative has expressed confusion that he was subsequently found guilty. Dean Littleford claims that the video footage used to convict him proves his innocence.
Littleford was convicted of driving without due care and attention after being caught on camera squeezing past a cyclist on Tipton’s Park Lane West last November, becoming the first court conviction for West Midlands Police’s lauded close-pass initiative.
He was ordered to pay fines and costs totalling £1,038 and given five points on his licence, but still doesn’t seem to accept that he was at fault.
Speaking to who else but The Daily Mail, he said that when he first found the video online, “I thought it was as clear as day to me. I had left more than enough gap.”
After receiving a court summons, Littleford had initially been willing to pay the £100 fine and accept the three points on his licence as he ‘couldn’t remember the incident well enough’ – but after seeing the video, he changed his mind.
“He came up the side of me. He accelerated in my opinion. I thought it was a clear cut case and I wasn’t going to accept the fine.”
Speaking about his appearance in court, he said: “How many people just accept the three points and a £100 fine? I imagine a lot of people do. Maybe I should have, but I just thought I was innocent.
“I thought I didn’t need a solicitor. I explained to the magistrates what happened and they looked at the video. The case was only ten or 15 minutes long and then they said I was guilty. Well it was amazing, astonishing. I don’t think they were really that interested.”
PC Mark Hodson from West Midlands Police’s Central Motorway Police Group commented:
“Most offenders watch the footage, accept their driving was below par, and elect for a driver improvement course or an offer of three licence points and £100.
“This was a clear case of a close pass. The cyclist was nearly forced into the kerb and the actions of the truck driver could easily have caused a very serious collision. He maintained his innocence, though, and has now been convicted in court.”
54 thoughts on “Lorry driver convicted of close pass baffled by verdict (+ video)”
On an average ride I could
On an average ride I could generate about a conviction per mile on this basis.
BarryBianchi wrote:
I suspect most of us could.
Vehicles that wide (and long,
Vehicles that wide (and long, because it is the rear end that comes closest to the rider) shouldn’t be allowed on roads like that at peak times, when the opposite side is full of traffic. Or limited to 10 mph so the drivers aren’t tempted to overtake cyclists when there isn’t enough room.
handlebarcam wrote:
Or have a man carrying a red flag walking in front of them.
Put the unrepentant prick on
Put the unrepentant prick on a bike and get a truck to overtake him at a similar safe distance. He’ll be crying for his mummy within minutes.
And surely revoked licence until he sees the error of his ways.
The fact he thinks that was
The fact he thinks that was acceptable is rather telling. Perhaps we should make HIM cycle and we’ll instead drive his lorry past him like he did and see if he wets his little tighty whiteys?
The comments… I know it’s
The comments… I know it’s the Mail, but man… so much stupidity and ignorance on display.
srchar wrote:
Meh. I reckon that’s about the average attidue to cyclists amoungst the population as a whole.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Sadly, I think you are right.
srchar wrote:
The BBC is itself is guilty of preaching hate towards cyclists. Room 101 extra storage on shown on Wed night had a whole section on cyclists in lycra (male) start at 25:11 which gets binned at 31:55.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08y2m11/room-101-extra-storage-series-6-episode-7
Worth making a complaint perhaps?
Pub bike wrote:
Really?
srchar wrote:
What´s the ¨but¨ doing in that comment. It was perfectly true without it.
Erm, no: the lorry driver is
Erm, no: the lorry driver is wrong and got something vaguely approaching what he deserves. That was too close. The lorry is barely further away from the kerb than the manhole cover, as you can see. And yet he thinks he moved out to pass safely? (Admittedly, the cyclist appears to be riding on the painted lines, but that is not exactly a big manhole cover…).
haha he tried to defend
haha he tried to defend himself without a solicitor and is upset because he got taken to the cleaners over it. Good.
Al__S wrote:
As lawyers are fond of saying “Someone who represents themself has a fool for a client.”
burtthebike wrote:
I thought it was ¨has a fool for a solicitor¨. But maybe I misremembered.
The camera does not always
The camera does not always convey how close the pass actually was.
leaway2 wrote:
It doesn’t but it would be very easy to go back to the road and work out the exact measurements.
I’d have thought that would have been done as part of the case ?
fenix wrote:
This was in a Magistrates’ Court. I’m amazed they had the capacity to successfully watch a video, or bothered to do so in the 10-15 mins.
fenix wrote:
It doesn’t but it would be very easy to go back to the road and work out the exact measurements.
I’d have thought that would have been done as part of the case ?— leaway2
Already been done on another forum. The side of the truck was between 14″ and 16″ from the cyclist’s shoulder (from bike wheel position on red line, size of manhole cover (14″) and a few other clues.
madcarew wrote:
I would regard that as a remarkably unremarkable day-in-day-out passing distance for town/commute riding, regardless of the safety issues.
Given the traffic the car
Given the traffic the car passes remarkably sensibly so credit where it’s due there. The back end of the lorry though only seems to have a couple of feet between it and the kerb so good call that court.
Unfortunately given his attitude you can probably assume that he’s already done it again…
The lorry driver has an
The lorry driver has an attitude that is ingrained into driving culture. He expected the case to be dismissed because his driving was “normal”, and we know from experience it was indeed normal driving…
It will be interesting to see where this goes, I’m expecting a major backlash against these initiatives in the future, culture change never comes easily.
It’s the typical long vehicle
It’s the typical long vehicle pass. They “forget” that once they in their seat are past you that there’s another 3, 5 whatever metres behind them that needs to give you the same clearance as the cab.
Baffled driver, no shock there then.
1961BikiE wrote:
That is an attitude not limited to long vehicle drivers in my experience.
Wow…better get some cameras
Wow…better get some cameras….I could get half the drivers I come across fined on this basis and with one fell swoop reduce the deficit and clear the national debt…
Interesting. Just heard from
Interesting. Just heard from Northamptonsire Police that they’re not going to prosecute a driver from a video I submitted because a) the driver couldn’t remember the incident and b) you couldn’t recognise the driver even though the vehicle and registration are clear, both of which are true of the case here.
Oh to live in a county where the police do their job properly.
I’m wondering whether to complain for deciding not to prosecute someone because they don’t remember what they did is a contemptible response.
billymansell wrote:
Hmmm…I wonder if the driver had been speeding they would have accepted this as grounds for non-prosecution? Actually, I don’t: they would have sent him/her a nice letter saying ‘we intend to prosecute you. If you weren’t the driver of the vehicle you own, now’s your chance to let us know who was driving…’…I would defintely make a complaint to the CC. If only all cases were this easy 🙂
Chris Hayes wrote:
as it’s a commercial vehicle, there will have been records as to who was driving…
Chris Hayes wrote:
as it’s a commercial vehicle, there will have been records as to who was driving…
billymansell wrote:
‘the driver couldn’t remember the incident’ A ridiculous reason not to prosecute. The registered owner must (after having had the relevant paperwork served on them), inform the police who the driver was at the time. The police can then show the named driver the video evidence for their comments.
Then a decision can be made to prosecute or not.
I would ask for the the decision to be reviewed, looks like someone was cutting corners (pardon the pun) here. Infact, I smell bullshit!
zero_trooper wrote:
I will be contacting them about it again.
When I first submitted the video to the police in the incident room they got back in contact within the hour having already sought advice of the CPS and they both could see clear reason to prosecute, as could the interviewing officer when the statemet was taken. All the info went to another force in the county where the incident took place and they’ve decided that because the driver can’t remember and can’t be facially identified in the video there’s no case to answer. Sad, as old Trumpy would say.
Whether it’s down to the PCC’s commissioning priorities or just the specific interests of individual officers I couldn’t say but the inconsistency and apathy at times towards certain types of dangerous and criminal behaviours in the county is infuriating particularly when it comes to video evidence as we were the first county in the country to prosecute someone using only third party (dashcam) video.
billymansell wrote:
They should at least prosecute the ‘registered keeper’ of the vehicle with ‘failing to identify the driver’!
http://road.cc/content/news/177630-police-say-horrific-nottingham-hit-and-run-resulted-£150-fine
Eric D wrote:
Yeah, Eric. I’ve been in contact with CyclingUK who said the same and one of their legal people is helping to put together a complaint.
What riles most, more than the incident itself, is the police apathy in their decision. The video clearly shows the car going round a right angled corner wholly on the wrong side of the white line but they dismiss this as a slight error and they wholly ignore the lack of indication and turning into the path of oncoming traffic.
It’s a sad indictment against the police that they’ll act so unprofessionally in responding to dangerous and criminal behaviour but thankfully we know there are good forces like WMP who not only uphold the law but challenge other forces who fail to do so.
Road.cc have you uploaded the
Road.cc have you uploaded the correct video for the story? Driver claims the cyclist came up the inside of him and that was his defense. Clearly the wrong video has been uploaded…
KevM wrote:
He probably did at some point, as one does filtering in traffic.
Worrying that he hasn’t
Worrying that he hasn’t accepted that what he did was wrong and is still able to drive, professionally 🙁
Wish I could stick a camera in my office window and get all the drivers on their phones convicted.
He should not of attempted to
He should not of attempted to overtake unless he could get over to the other carriage way. That was blocked by traffic. He then should of held back and waited for a clear road to overtake. We need to see loads of these prosecution s taking place to warn others to be more considerate and careful.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Should have
Grrr
brooksby wrote:
Tosser. 🙂
This reminds me the other day
This reminds me the other day me and my lad were cycling on an A road, we came upon 2 horse riders, we positioned ourselves in the middle of the road to pass the horses. I was looking back and could see cars approaching from behind, but I thought by our position and my constant looking back it would be clear what we were doing. As we passed the horses a car driver overtook us and the horses whilst a car was coming the other way. Bizarrely they slowed at the point of passing. Why didn’t they just wait 10 seconds for us to pass then they could of done more safely?!?
No need for a fine. No need
No need for a fine. No need for driver improvement courses. Every conviction, or admission of guilt, should result in 20 hours riding for anyone physically able (yep, they guilty party even gets the health benefits of excersize!). To be done around the area the incident occured at a similar time. (The money that would have been taken as a fine can be used to purchase a bike).
Gotta be a few cycle trainers
Gotta be a few cycle trainers out there wondering why the cyclist was riding in the gutter thereby inviting the traffic to overtake rather than blocking it until there was room for them?
griggers wrote:
Taking primary. Damned if do
deaddamned if you don’t.griggers wrote:
The blue car managed a reasonable overtake. If I’d been the driver of the blue car I wouldn’t have passed and if I’d been the cyclist, I wouldn’t have hugged the kerb.
I’m conflicted, how could someone who cycles enough to warrant the investment in two cameras have such poor positioning. On the other hand, it is not surprising that someone who positions his cycle so poorly, suffers so many close passes and feels the need for cameras.
I’m not defending the truck driver, but that wasn’t even secondary position, and in conditions like that, primary wouldn’t have been unreasonable. It is clearly a busy time of day, the only advantage the truck and the car drivers could hope to achieve is an earlier arrival at the next queue of traffic.
I think I’d be pretty
I think I’d be pretty grateful on my daily commute if I was given that much room by a passing vehicle.
OK so it’s rush hour and
OK so it’s rush hour and there’s a bike in front of you with not enough room to pass at a safe (legal) distance? You hold up the rest of the traffic behind and wait for the cyclist to either turn or let you past? And what happens if they don’t? Why are there no cycle lanes to stop this happening? Or is this what they are trying to raise money for by fining this man so much money!
Wemo1978 wrote:
farty’s got another log-in.
Wemo1978 wrote:
How do you fit so much stupid in one post?
Wemo1978 wrote:
Ok.
Yes.
You continue to wait.
Because the roads are for bicycles too. And horses. And people.
No, they fined him for being a twat, which is illegal in all jurisdictions.
OK, so it’s rush hour and you know there’s a lot of people trying to get to work, because that’s what rush hour is. They’ll be on bikes, and in cars, taxis and buses, and on scooters and walking, crossing the road and shit like that. So why would you add to the problem by trying to drive a lorry through it when you know that an hour ago, and in an hour’s time, the streets are a bit quieter?
What makes you believe that one group of people has priority over another when they’re all going about their lawful business?
Ok.
Ok.
Yes.
You continue to wait.
Because the roads are for bicycles too. And horses. And people.
No, they fined him for being a twat, which is illegal in all jurisdictions.
OK, so it’s rush hour and you know there’s a lot of people trying to get to work, because that’s what rush hour is. They’ll be on bikes, and in cars, taxis and buses, and on scooters and walking, crossing the road and shit like that. So why would you add to the problem by trying to drive a lorry through it when you know that an hour ago, and in an hour’s time, the streets are a bit quieter?
What makes you believe that one group of people has priority over another when they’re all going about their lawful business?
[/quote]
If being a twat was illegal, sounds like you would be locked up!
No need to be funny and yes lots of people on the road but bus drivers for example still have to work in peak times and same would be said for them, they can’t sit behind a cyclist all day especially when they don’t have unlimited amount of time they can drive for.
Wasn’t looking for an argument and don’t get defensive but surely if there were cycle lanes in more parts of the UK this kind of thing would be avoided…
Or maybe if this cyclist didn’t sit in the gutter waiting for someone to pass too close so he could get some kind of enjoyment out of filming them, we could all get along nicely!
Wemo1978 wrote:
If being a twat was illegal, sounds like you would be locked up!
No need to be funny and yes lots of people on the road but bus drivers for example still have to work in peak times and same would be said for them, they can’t sit behind a cyclist all day especially when they don’t have unlimited amount of time they can drive for.
Wasn’t looking for an argument and don’t get defensive but surely if there were cycle lanes in more parts of the UK this kind of thing would be avoided…
Or maybe if this cyclist didn’t sit in the gutter waiting for someone to pass too close so he could get some kind of enjoyment out of filming them, we could all get along nicely![/quote]
If you’re really unlucky might get to wait two minutes behind a bike. Unless you are a first responder it will make exactly no difference to your life.
More adequately wide, well surfaced, separated cycle lanes might be a good thing. In this country they are also a fantasy
Wemo1978 wrote:
dupe post
So the driver thought his
So the driver thought his driving was good?
I wonder what FSW Limited Overnight Pallet Service and do they still employ someone who thinks this is acceptable driving?