A cyclist who captured the moment a Range Rover driver hit him with their car has blasted Northants Police for “victim-blaming twaddle”, sharing a letter from the police confirming they were not taking action because the victim placed himself “in front of the car” by dismounting his bike. The force’s Chief Constable has now replied to the cyclist on social media to say the incident will be “reviewed and reassessed.”
Good afternoon Mat. Please leave this with me, I will have it reviewed and reassessed. Nick https://t.co/BA2roNVWuN
— Nick Adderley (@NorthantsChief) August 7, 2022
The clip from Mat Burnham, shared on Twitter, starts with the driver of the Range Rover sounding the horn.
He told road.cc: “I was cycling in reasonably busy traffic through what is a pretty crappy set of junctions for cyclists to navigate safely.
“The Range Rover driver overtook in a rather rapid fashion to reach a set of traffic lights at red. I filtered through to the front of the lights and took primary. I think she took umbrage at that and sounded her horn.”
Mat then dismounts his bike and appears to be shouting at the driver, before the car is driven into his bike.
Sharing a letter from Northants Police after reporting the incident, Mat said it was “confirmed as an assault” but no action was taken “due to victim-blaming twaddle.”
Surprisingly the officer tells Mat that the driver has steered “to her right to try to avoid you”, saying that he has “put himself in harm’s way in front of the car”.
He continued: “To be honest I didn’t expect much to come of reporting the collision as my previous experience of Northamptonshire Police has had them generating excuses on behalf of drivers rather than addressing poor behaviour.
“I thought they’d at least take it seriously, and warn the driver verbally or by letter even if they couldn’t be bothered to prosecute. As it stands, she must still think deliberately driving into a cyclist is perfectly reasonable and rational behaviour.”
He added: “I’m at my wits end. When will this nonsense end? Streets aren’t safe for vulnerable road users and never will be without enforcement and basic decency.”
The reason for police deciding not to forward the incident for prosecution has been questioned by numerous people on social media, with many suggesting that the cyclist’s actions in the clip could provide no possible justification for what occurred.
road.cc has contacted Northants Police for comment.
35 thoughts on “Cyclist driven into by Range Rover driver blasts “victim-blaming twaddle” from police who initially refused to take action”
It’s not unreasonable to ask
It’s not unreasonable to ask a driver why they beeped their horn if there’s no obvious danger. They could have noticed something loose on the bike, like a quick release.
I also don’t think you can say you are putting yourself in a dangerous position when the car is stationary. It’s where you naturally would position yourself to talk with the driver, as you’d want to be close to the drivers window and in their line of sight.
Poor response from the police here and I hope Mat gets a better outcome on review.
HoarseMann wrote:
the audio isn’t brilliant, but the cyclist does seem to be asking exactly that, whether something is dangerous or has fallen off. Totally in keeping with highway code
HoarseMann wrote:
Have to disagree with this – for them to see that there was something loose on the bike would require them to be paying enough attention to see the bike… admitting that would be entirely incompatible with the invisible cyclist defence!!
This may well get reviewed
This may well get reviewed but I suspect the the old bill will sod so all again, which appears to be their general attitude with us cyclists
It will be interesting.
It will be interesting. Unlike most CC’s Nick Adderly has a VERY active social media presence. This will be the first time I’ve seen it tested.
I expect some face saving action not quite at the level of punishment Matt and the average cyclist would prefer…..
I’m pretty sure this is
I’m pretty sure this is covered in the HC theory test.
Q. Another road user does something which annoys you. Which is the correct response?
A. Sound your horn to teach them a lesson in road manners.
B. Use your vehicle to push the miscreant aside.
C. Both of the above.
You missed out D. Kill or
You missed out D. Kill or maim them if you can.
Swift pick up on this story.
Swift pick up on this story.
As per the Twitter thread when ExReb were protesting, the driver got done for dangerous driving. This is just the same, so how can the response be any different.
Unless of course the driver was simply letting the cyclist know they were there…
Then the sun was in her eyes and the cyclist was ‘being arrogant’ or looking at her in a funny way and riding on the cracks in the tarmac.
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Saw this one on Twitter
Saw this one on Twitter before it appeared here, utterly befuddling. I’m sure everyone will have differing opinions about the cyclist’s conduct and the motorist’s conduct, but how can a police officer write to someone and use the words “there is an assault” and then say they’re not taking it any further? Hope the Chief Constable will not only rectify matters but also educate his officers that you’re not actually supposed not to take action on something that you admit is an assault.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisOr to put it another way, assault = crime = prosecute.
Your access to justice is
Your access to justice is directly proportional to your bank balance.
Don’t see what the problem
Don’t see what the problem was – it was clearly a friendly toot* to make sure the cyclist was aware there was a car behind, followed by a friendly nudge**, just in case the cyclist was blind and deaf and was unaware of the car.
*©AN 2022
**Not ©AN 2022
My money is the review coming
My money is the review coming up with a charge of obstruction for the cyclist and no action against the motorist.
What do you expect. I would
What do you expect. I would like to know what the police actually do for anyone today? It doesn’t matter what it is you report they simply don’t want to know, unless it is a murder, or a death, or doing an intimate search on a teenage school girl…
I would like to know what
I would like to know what the police actually do for anyone today?
Quite a lot if you’re a close passing, RLJ-ing or MOT/ insurance/ VED evading motorist- by simply ignoring the immaculately proved offences. AK60 VCJ first reported 11th July
They certainly don’t do
They certainly don’t do anything in S E London / Kent area bar driving around at high speed in unmarked cars with their lights on.
The bike jackings around the Orpington area are spreading and they’ve done nothing at all to prevent them.
I’m sure they’re always up for a strip search of a minor without the presence if an appropriate adult though.
News just in. Adderly has
News just in. Adderly has just replied on Twitter saying the decision stands. Unless there was some prior interaction between Matt and the driver we havent seen that beggars belief.
I’d be temped to claim for a respray or similar on their insurance.
I hope Matt presses for a
I hope Matt presses for a full explanation of this decision and shares it online, as prima facie it seems absurd.
It was assault but we are not
It was assault but we are not going to do anything.
How far can I go then with my 1.8T vehicle if someone or something is in my way?
Got to be a UK first that the
Got to be a UK first that the police requested and reviewed local cctv footage within two days, to aid their investigation.
Unless the cyclist had
Unless the cyclist had himself initiated an assault prior to the video, there is no justification for the claim that the car driver did not assault the cyclist or that there was no intent to do so. If this sort of thing continues, then it would seem that there is a need for an insurance scheme that would take such incidents to court.
It just goes to show. Next
It just goes to show. Next time. Put your right boot into that door. Get a good buckle into that panel.
Then. Take a left and hit the path. Taraaaa!
It appears the light went
It appears the light went green with Mat still off his bike abusing the woman; he seemed to be an active participant in road rage. If that woman lawyers up and said the cyclist made her feel unsafe, Mat might be in more trouble than her for bumping his bike to escape him.
grOg wrote:
Asking why she was hooting at him is not actually abuse. Maybe you’ve got better speakers than me, I can’t hear any bad language or threats. Typical anti-cyclist drivel expected from you, yeah well she did drive into him with a 1.5 tonne vehicle but actually, yeah, he spoke to her, so…
2.5T
2.5T
Interesting that they needed extra evidence to support the orginal decision rather than review the decision based on the evidence initially submitted.
Feel free to invent a
Feel free to invent a narrative and make up some laws too.
Police chief now acting quite
Police chief now acting quite oddly, saying he’s got CCTV and before and after footage that justifies the decision not to charge, but he won’t show it without the permission of the complainant. Why not? He doesn’t need the complainant’s permission to share footage taken in a public place. He appears to be implying that he has evidence of provocation and almost daring the cyclist to publish the footage if he thinks he’s hard enough. So the question is, if he has footage of an illegal act that justifies the driver hitting the cyclist, why isn’t he charging the cyclist, and if he hasn’t, why isn’t he charging the driver?
https://twitter.com/Stokesy1966/status/1557059833286823936
Rendel Harris wrote:
That is odd – he’s implying that there was a lot more happening involving the cyclist.
So, the next step is for the cyclist to either push further via a complaint or admit that they’ve been very selective with their editing.
Maybe the footage is from the
Maybe the footage is from the previous night and she was hit by the Tyre Extinguishers? “My client feels extremely threatened by cyclists – last night she believes several criminally damaged her vehicle in a way which could have killed her and as a result that very morning she was unable to take her sick child / hamster to get treatment / get the videos back on time [is that still a thing?]. As you can imagine when she was confronted by the plaintiff she experienced uncontrollable panic…”
Being more realistic maybe
Being more realistic maybe the CCTV just show the cyclist taking the lane earlier (“blocking”) or reacting to the motorist (“previous threats”)?
It’s “show your hand” from either side – let’s see.
Even if they were, since that
Even if they were, since that lady was done for dangerous driving for driving at protestors in the road whose sole aim was to disrupt what could the cyclist have to to justify the response of the driver ?
You have described mitigation but as HP points out, that’s for the courts to rule on not the police who already stated it was assault.
I don’t get this whole
I don’t get this whole intimidation thing. Obviously I can see how being shouted at isn’t nice and could well be scary, but if you are inside a 2.5 tonne vehicle with lockable doors and there are other people around what is the person on a bicycle going to do to you exactly?
It would be interesting if
It would be interesting if Road.cc reached out to Matt for a comment on these shenanigans.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
They have now: https://road.cc/content/news/police-chief-says-range-rover-clip-doesnt-tell-full-story-295101