A cyclist has questioned West Yorkshire Police’s approach to investigating roads incidents, concluding that he fears the force is “completely unwilling to prosecute drivers” who hit cyclists, after he was knocked off his bike in a collision two weeks ago.
road.cc reader George was hit by an elderly driver near Leeds on the 13th November, the 87-year-old woman turning across his path and knocking him from his bike in an incident captured by his front camera. The footage (below) was viewed by the police and the driver referred for a Fitness To Drive Assessment as an alternative to proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court for driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other road users.
Following an official complaint, the cyclist believing the driving crossed the threshold for prosecution for careless or dangerous driving, West Yorkshire Police stood by the decision and said it had “no issue” with the outcome and is “more than satisfied that there is no evidence whatsoever of an offence of dangerous driving”.
“I don’t think that West Yorkshire Police take the safety of vulnerable road users seriously, and at times this turns into victim blaming,” George said. “I work with the police on other aspects of public safety, and they take those much more seriously and are keen to avoid victim blaming there. I feel that gross negligence in charge of a heavy vehicle is not seen as a serious issue, but as a simple unavoidable, unforeseeable accident.
“I simply cannot see how such gross incompetence is treated so trivially, or what the threshold might be for treating it more seriously. Drivers like this are going to kill or seriously injure someone — and it could have been me if I wasn’t cycling relatively slowly uphill at the point of impact.
“A key problem is that police officers, even specialist roads officers, very rarely have any experience of cycling on public roads, and so they have no empathy or understanding of cyclists. This is an important issue of safety, as well as law and order.
“Further to this, I’d add that it seems that a key part of the problem is that the police are treating driver-cyclist incidents in the same way as they treat driver-driver incidents, without any adjustment for the fact that cyclists are more vulnerable. So a collision with a cyclist in these circumstances is treated in the same way as if the driver had driven into another vehicle, without any consideration of the hierarchy of vulnerability. This reflects a kind of institutional lack of understanding, or perhaps even prejudice, towards cyclists.”
When road.cc contacted West Yorkshire Police for comment on the allegations, we were told that the force would not comment on individual cases, but a spokesperson insisted that the force is “committed to casualty prevention” and employs “a range of possible options in our aim to improve behaviour on the road and prevent the likelihood of them being involved in future collisions”.
And while there was no comment specific to this case, we’ve seen the response the cyclist received regarding his complaint, where the decision-making process behind the case was explained further.
During that response, an officer from the force’s Service Review Team explained they previously served as a Roads Policing Officer for five years and “developed a certain level of expertise within the role based on years of experience in dealing with and managing serious collisions, primarily fatal road traffic collisions”.
The response went on to state that the officer is “more than satisfied that there is no evidence whatsoever of an offence of dangerous driving” and that they have “no issue” with the decision to refer the elderly driver for a Fitness to Drive Assessment as an alternative to proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court for driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other road users.
When West Yorkshire Police was contacted for comment, a force spokesperson said: “We are unable to comment about individual cases. West Yorkshire Police is committed to casualty prevention and works with partners across the county to reduce road risk and deliver our Vision Zero ambition to prevent all road deaths by 2040.
“Where driving offences have been committed, we employ a range of possible options in our aim to improve driver/rider behaviour on the road and prevent the likelihood of them being involved in future collisions.
“These options include Approved Driver Retraining Courses for eligible lower-level offenders as an alternative to prosecution, a Fitness to Drive assessments where it is believed that the cognitive ability of a driver/rider may have been a factor in a collision, or the full weight of prosecution at court in the case of more serious and repeat offending.”
58 thoughts on ““Drivers like this are going to kill or seriously injure someone”: Cyclist knocked off bike claims police “completely unwilling to prosecute” drivers who hit cyclists”
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Dreadful piece of driving.
Dreadful piece of driving. Thank goodness they have registration plates so they can be held to account. Oh wait.
Entirely standard police
Entirely standard police dodging masquerading as ‘a wise police officer seeking the right resolution through his years of experience’ bollocks. What actually happened was ‘little road rat wasn’t actually killed/ seriously injured/ injured/ hit (depending on whether they’re explaining away a close pass/ collision/ serious collision/ cyclist death), so what’s he/ family members whingeing about? (cut and paste in: our thoughts and prayers… insincerity additional bollocks as necessary. I have shown much more than enough evidence on here of other serious moving traffic offences which the police ignore because they can’t be bothered/ have decided that everybody offends like that so it’s not a real offence/ doesn’t like cyclists and thinks everybody would be better off if they were frightened or bullied off the roads / sees themselves as matey blokes on the side of the motorist. As soon as they hear of an offence against a cyclist they’re concentrating on ways of binning the case- as they succeeded in doing here. Just remember: it would have been just the same if the cyclist had been KSI’d: she didn’t mean to do it/ tormenting the motorist won’t bring the cyclist back …
Quote:
There only seem to be two possible ways to support that – either they’re claiming that there’s no evidence that this happened, or they’re claiming that driving a car into a person isn’t dangerous.
Schoolboy error you see.
Schoolboy error you see. “Bloody cyclists” are not people.
The_Ewan wrote:
There only seem to be two possible ways to support that – either they’re claiming that there’s no evidence that this happened, or they’re claiming that driving a car into a person isn’t dangerous.
There’s no evidence it was being driven – the car could have been moving of its own accord.
developed a certain level of
developed a certain level of expertise within the role based on years of experience in dealing with and managing serious collisions, primarily fatal road traffic collisions
This translates as ‘it wasn’t fatal, think yourself lucky, shut up and go away, if you don’t like conditions on the roads find another mode of transport…’
What a baffling piece of
What a baffling piece of driving. The cyclist was clearly visible (you can see his lights reflecting off street signs), the sight lines are good, it’s all low speed. How could the driver simply drive their car into the cyclist? They couldn’t possibly have been on their phone whilst negotiation a junction, surely…
Almost certainly not
Almost certainly not prosecuted because the driver had agreed to hand in their licence and never drive again.
And what proof would the
And what proof would the police have that the driver had, indeed, done that? How quickly was the decision by the police made?
the incident was 10 days ago. Given the time needed for everything to be processed, it must have been made pretty much immediately
Almost certainly not
Almost certainly not prosecuted because the driver had agreed to hand in their licence and never drive again
Maybe, but I think we/ everybody else will never find that out because of the various GDPR dodges that the police are so keen on misusing. Therefore, deterrent value of the collision: nil
eburtthebike wrote:
So when the police come round to nick me for bank robbery, if I hand over my gelignite and oxyacetylene torch and promise never to do it again I’m good?
I hope so
I hope so :-/
I was thinking the same, I
I was thinking the same, I seem to remember a fair bit of press coverage when Prince Phillip did the same and no proceedings were started against him after a crash.
EK Spinner wrote:
Didn’t one K Starmer also have some problems with driving around vulnerable road users? IIRC.
There’s no evidence of
There’s no evidence of dangerous driving because it doesn’t meet the threshold for that offence. It is clearly driving without due care and attention, though. Question is, why would police not make that charge?
And now the driver will go
And now the driver will go away thinking that this is a minor offence not worthy of further consideration. After all they merely bumped into the cyclist, which is very different to running a person over with a car
The big danger is cyclists
The big danger is cyclists cycling in pedestrian zones – they sometimes nearly hit motorists doing their shopping.
Maybe just camera angle but
Maybe just camera angle but it where is the driver driving to? (Also odd looking bit of road). It looks like they were actually turning into an exit lane / the wrong side of the road e.g. they’ve got confused about which side we drive on in the UK. If they had not kept turning in it looks like they’d have hit the stationary car instead.
Still, not surprised about the “well they’re stopping driving so we’re not taking it further”. The police are very familiar with this principle and apply this to themselves e.g. “unfortunately the officer under investigation has now retired from the force…”!
Really weird, on the face of
Really weird, on the face of it.
The oncoming cyclist is clearly visible, the motorist on the main road pulls up and stops, the motorist coming out of the side road pulls up to the line and stops, but then the motorist on the main road just pulls out and into the cyclist?!
Their angle of attack is all wrong too – if the cyclist hadn’t been in the way then they would have driven directly into the other car.
Was the motorist distracted (cough cough mobile phone cough cough) or are they cognitively impaired? The speed with which they allegedly handed in their licence, I reckon they played a medical card…
Am I missing something, or is
Am I missing something, or is there no mention in the story about a licence being handed in? The driver has to do some kind of awareness course, but no mention of the volunteering to surrender their licence.
the little onion wrote:
No, you’re not missing anything. I’ve just re-read the original article and I clearly just presumed they would hand in their licence…
Even if they weren’t hitting
Even if they weren’t hitting the red car they would have had to be going to the right of the stopped car, driving on the “wrong” side of the road.
I’m going for utter confusion, not helped by the low light level.
They are really going have to bring back their diving A game to pass the fitness to drive.
I’d suspect the motorist was
I’d suspect the motorist was aiming to enter the little driveway – and then got confused by that “highly complex” situation of another car and “flashing, blinding lights all around”…
Good, if the driver finally handed in the license. Shame it was not done ten years sooner.
But I wonder: Will we know, one day in the future, that it’s time to hand in our licenses? Without compulsory testing in place – and not even an obvious place to go to for such a test?
Whilst I was reading this I
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that’s right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and thought that it might be the best option in this case.
I have stopped cycling , West Yorkshire / Bradford Met, because frankly it’s dangerous and I want to live until I’m an old incontinent twat who calls everyone Violet.
Also I feel confident that the person knocked off can claim on the drivers insurance for any damage done.
Yep I also agree with the institutionally anti-cyclist thoughts . Let’s be honest the police seem to be institutionally everything a civilised society shouldn’t be , except when they come round and nick those scummy drug dealers ; they don’t even seem to be doing that around my end.
This is kinda what happened
This is kinda what happened to me … but in slow motion.
Circumstances are about right, except mine was an 80 year old male, in good light with a calculated impact speed of 60mph.
I received a dislocated elbow, fractured ulna, 11 broken ribs, 3 fractured vertebrae, punctured lung, internal bleeding, subdermal hematoma that’s since turned fibrous, a patella that was broken in to 4 peices, and a TBH. 4 months of not being able to walk or pick up an empty teacup, and a further 12 months of physio. As a result I have some cognitive issues, arthritis, walk with a limp, and have been warned that early on-set dementia is a high possibility.
Because the 80 year old driver claimed guilt at the scene, he got 3 penalty points and a small fine for careless driving.
It took 4 years to get compensation from their insurance… and that as a court-steps agreement.
Are they still driving? I fecking hope not. I hope that the image of me, in a crumpled heap several meters down the road of the impact area, silently bleeding while getting CPR is seared permanently in their brain, and it’s sufficient to put them off driving for the rest of their lives.
But hey… its only driving.
Can someone who know more
Can someone who know more clarify something: is the driver’s license suspended until such time as they take this awareness course, or is it like a speed awareness course where you have a certain amount of time to complete it before any punishment happens, but you can freely drive up to that point? Because I’m terrified that the police might just let this driver get straight back behind the steering wheel after an incident like that!
For anyone interested here is
For anyone interested here is a link to more information on the fitness to drive assessment. It says 70% are found fit to carry on driving 30% not.
https://www.drivingmobility.org.uk/for-professionals/services/police-fitness-to-drive/
That means there is a 30% chance in this case that the driver will not be allowed to drive again. Points and a fine would allow the driver to carry on. I suppose what you think of this would depend on your view of those odds.
My argument would be that this driver has already demonstrated unfitness to drive and another assessment would be superfluous.
Thanks for the informative
Thanks for the informative link. I thought we already had a ‘fitness to drive assessment’ administered by DVLA, called an extended retest. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison. Can retests only be ordered by a court as a condition of a ban or other sentence? And what of the 70% who pass? Are they deemed fit to drive and also fit to be prosecuted for their original infraction?
The extended retest is just
The extended retest is just the same as the standard test but with half as much driving again, covering more of the manouvres (and also costing twice as much). it doesn’t attempt any sort of fitness assessment (beyond what might be revealed by chance during that hour).
The article I gave a link for
The article I gave a link for seemed to imply that the fitness to drive test is not the same as an extended retest and that it was tailored to the needs of “vulnerable drivers” whatever that means. I’m no expert and I may be wrong but it does sound like a reasonable alternative. I think @pockstone’s question about those who pass then receiving points and a fine is a good one though.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Yes – that’s what I was saying. The extended retest is just a longer (and more expensive) version of the standard test. It’s attempting to assess your knowledge and skill when it comes to driving. It doesn’t do anything to assess underlying fitness, that the fitness to drive test does.
My bad.
My bad.
surely a fitness to drive
surely a fitness to drive assesment should be in addition to not as an alternative to prosecution. this seems to put the cart before the horse.
either that or failing such a course should lead to an additional charge of sriving while unfot to do so.
And as for the surrendering your licence nonsense, have we really got to the point where you are allowed to drive into your dotage, right up to the point when it all goes totally wrong and you are caught.
I can see the Fitness to
I can see the Fitness to Drive assessment should come first to inform the approach to prosecution, but it shouldn’t be an alternative per se.
Not fit to drive? They shouldn’t have been driving, so certainly potential prosecution there – although if this outcome means they are never allowed to drive again then I’m quite content not to bother with prosecution in relatively minor cases such as this one.
Fit to drive? In that case there’s no “excuse” – they were just careless/dangerous and so should be prosecuted for the original incident in the same way as any other driver.
I agree with that approach.
I agree with that approach. If they are deemed unfit to drive then they are never driving again, and any points become irrelevant. If they somehow pass that test, then a full prosecution should proceed.
But even if they are deemed ‘unfit’ or hand in their licence there should be some formal declaration that it was dangerous. People who deep down know they are unfit to drive should know that they ought to stop driving BEFORE they almost kill someone.
I do, however, feel obliged to point out that as a society we have made it harder for older drivers to stop driving. We continue to build housing that is poorly served by public transport, and promote driving as much more convenient.
Marking one’s own homework
Marking one’s own homework will always get a result that’s convenient.
Benthic wrote:
The system for elderly drivers in the UK is insane. Basically, once you hit 70 years old, you have to re-apply for your driving licence every three years. And what hurdles do you have to clear to remain operating a two-tonne potentially lethal vehicle in the public highway? Oh yes, declaring yourself fit to do so.
Even in Greece, hardly notable for its driving standards, elderly drivers have to pass a full physical, including eyesight and reflexes assessments plus a practical driving test, if they want to stay on the road.
Yes … but (just due to the
Yes … but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very … cautious … pace.
First – we haven’t even yet got the (very well evidenced) changes to “graduated licences” for younger drivers passed – who I believe numbers show are involved in far more damage, deaths and injuries. Although that’s in motion at least.
Second – as mentioned there are lots of older folks and (problem of success) their numbers keep growing. And they vote, and have time to write sternly-worded letters to media and MPs! Or know who to have a word with. And they have seen a general increase in priveledges for motorists over their lives (while absorbing “but war on the motorist!”), so are likely to be … unenthusiastic.
Third – in the UK overall there are fewer alternatives to needing a car than ever e.g. not having to travel far in the first place *, good public transport, adequate facilities for active travel (or mobility vehicles) etc.
* Technology pops up to offer support here but this is often more difficult for older people to use, and in the UK getting tech working e.g. for health services we have as good a record there as we do for building good active travel infra (but at immensely greater cost).
The grey menace strikes again
The grey menace strikes again. There are calls every year to have driving licence reviews implemented for elderly drivers, but nothing seems to change:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0gpgjdxepo
I had an elderly driver close pass me yesterday. Claimed he’d waited patiently for ages to pass me and it was my fault for ‘wobbling’ into the ‘middle of the road’. I reviewed the footage and I was in a steady primary position as he approached, then he hesitated for a second before pushing past with oncoming traffic. Unbelievable.
At least I had space to the left to swerve out of the way. Of course I caught up with him a minute later when he pulled into a parking space. He seemed confused and not with it at all. Shouldn’t probably be driving.
Probably worth submitting the
Probably worth submitting the footage to the police and DVSA so there is a record of the driver’s mental state and standard of driving.
That way, if there is a subsequent collision involving the driver (where he is at fault) then it can be shown that the authorities had prior evidence and did nothing.
It would be the Thames Valley
It would be the Thames Valley area and I’ve had a poor response from them recently. Basically, there’s not really any point reporting this. I was able to swerve out of the way and whilst the driver pushed past, it was slow enough that I had plenty of time to react.
I’ve told them their driving was terrible, they were too close and they need to leave at least 1.5m when passing. That’s more than the police are likely to do and perhaps this driver will consider whether they are competent to keep driving or at the very least, not push past a cyclist like that again.
I think TVP have improved
I think TVP have improved their response in
recent months. They definitely had a problem with staffing this time last year. I’m getting some feedback again and even had one go to court and, I am led to believe, another in progress.
Also they should be dealing with it as a priority
https://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/news/pcc-launches-plan-for-safer-roads/
Probably like everyone – I’ve
Probably like everyone – I’ve always done it so why should I change? We just don’t notice (or don’t want to notice) that we can’t do things as well as we used to.
Plus the (often justified) fear of “losing independence” or just “I can manage without but what if I need to do x”?
Unfortunately most people in this position (and indeed probably many of us not even retired) will likely be dead long before we have the better non-car options that are available to these people:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/elderly-people-on-a-cycle-tour/
Did you report the close pass
Did you report the close pass to the police? I’m not a big fan of dealing with drivers as a group, in this case old drivers, but I am a fan of the police taking action with poor driving and getting the drivers that need it to be educated, punished or even taken off the road.
I realsise reporting is often a fruitless exercise but if we don’t keep the pressure on nothing will change. Sooner or later a driver who has previously been reported will hit a cyclist and then the police who took NFA will have a good deal of explaining to do.
Will they, though? Would
Will they, though? Would there be any kind of retroactive analysis at all? Who would know about the previous NFA incident? I’m afraid I have low expectations.
In Gloucestershire I’ve been
In Gloucestershire I’ve been having an email dialogue with Robert Vestey who has recently decided that close passes will get an advisory letter rather than NFA which has been the case from when I started submitting until now. The roadcc article link is below,
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
In the comments you will see that I followed it up and sent him the link to NMOTD 674
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
He admitted that it was obviously a mistake and that training would be given.
It will be a long struggle to get all police forces to deal with incompetent and aggressive drivers consistently but we have to start somewhere. This is one example of where having the near miss on record was a help. We’ll see if any more progress can be made. It is my belief that many officers want to help but are hamstrung by a combination of the law not matching the highway code, poor guidance from the CPS and poor training. Other commenters have different views.
Other commenters have
Other commenters have different views
True!
I’ve had the same discussion
I’ve had the same discussion with so many drivers at red lights after a close pass when riding primary in a narrow lane “But you were in the middle of the road!!” Preferring to risk my life rather than gently steer into the adjacent empty lane.
PS Guess who gets the blame if I get doored “Why were you cycling so close?!!”
If it doesn’t count as
If it doesn’t count as “dangerous driving” then have the police given the DVSA test examiners a new lower bar to clear to pass a learner driver who would otherwise have immediately failed their driving test by a “dangerous fault”…?
Carbon copy of what happened
Carbon copy of what happened to me a few years ago in Greater Manchester area. Police didn’t prosecute then but sent the elderly female driver on an awareness course. I didn’t expect otherwise. But it is definitely a postcode lottery and I am sure there are certain geographical areas where police forces will prosecute in those circumstances.
If it’s any consolation, the driver in the video will now find her next insurance premium will skyrocket.
That’s pretty blatant
That’s pretty blatant institutional slopey-shoulders reckless attitude by the North Yorkshire police.
It needs to be an instant suspension of licence, and could have been a child or pensioner crossing the side road.
There is currently a Parliamentary “Active Travel and Social Justice inquiry”.
Please submit evidence.
Police failure to deal with careless and dangerous drivers is one thing that needs addressing. Here the attitude of West Yorkshire Police is the issue.
https://appgcw.org/2024/11/12/active-travel-and-social-justice-inquiry/
I had a similar “accident”
I had a similar “accident” but i was in the position of the red car coming up to the junction.Massive 4*4 turned in on my side of the road and struck me more or less head on.
Police called,cctv from house adjacent showed the car turning in on the wrong side of the road.80 year old driver with Parkinsons(severe shake down one arm).
Police called me that evening after i returned home from hospital and told me that i must have been in his blindspot and no further action. They ballsed up the report by giving me the registration number for a Royal Enfield Bullet !
Massive 4*4 turned in on my
Massive 4*4 turned in on my side of the road and struck me more or less head on
The police will go to amost any lengths to forgive drivers offending like that, if the victim is a cyclist. My own headcam campaign against Lancashire Constabulary, which has had no success because the odds are so stacked in favour of the police, began after a Freelander hit me with his offside mirror while I was stationary on the Sainsbury’s exit road- he came down the wrong side of the road and ‘didn’t see’ me. I narrowly escaped a very serious injury but the police promptly NFA’d it because “it was only a momentary loss of concentration”. I realised then that they would have deployed the same labour-saving dodge if I had been left with life-wrecking disabilities like our own OFG.
To be fair to plod they are
To be fair to plod they are asking the DVSA to carry out a “Fitness to Drive” assessment on the elderly driver. This will involve a thirty-minute-ish assessment by a senior examiner and the failure rate is high. It is a distinct possibility the result will revoke the driver’s licence which is surely a better outcome for everyone than a £400 fine and a slap on the wrist?
Someone else here suggested
Someone else here suggested at 30% fail rate. Not sure if that is high or not.
Why not both – why not a fine, bucketload of points, and not being able to drive until you can prove you are safe via a practical test?
My figures are about ten
My figures are about ten years out of date but I doubt if they have changed much since I retired. The overall PASS rate at that time was 28% and diminishes with age. The driver in this case was described as elderly and is probably facing a car-less future.
Sometimes the wisdom of a copper is based on experience and turns out to be the best option.
It is quite possible that the
It is quite possible that the driver was suffering from dementia to some degree. In such cases, a sufferer may not be aware they have a problem. I think the fitness to drive assessment could prove to be the correct one in this case.But the assessment should include some reference to the accident – “What was your thought process at this junction.”