Cyclist punched repeatedly in the head by aggressive driver furious that group were riding two abreast

Probably would have been better not touching the car. Its seems to really wind up some car drivers and I'd usually only do that if I actually was trying to wind them up. And tbh that "punch" was a bit happy slappy really and he didnt positively drive at the bike in front of him he was just incompetent and rolled forward. All a bit handbags.

Does raise an interesting point about these growing large cycle groups and what drivers should do when they come upon them. Maybe be it should be a bit extra on driving lessons etc

OK, Wiltshire police spokesman, I can slap one of your police officers in the face, then apologize and I will only be cautioned - is that correct?

After watching so many videos like that and then hearing the laughable outcomes, if the police actually get involved, it's pretty obvious that no matter where you are in this country the police are more likely to be total fuckwitts.

I despair totally at the state of modern policing these days. A colleague used to work in Manchester police but left recently because it got to the point were only 33% of the reported crimes would be investigated. He had to triage the calls and 66% of them would be given a crime number if required and that was it.

It's not just that thousands of officers have been cut, it's the fact the ones still left in are lazy feckless idiots and the new recruits are only applying because it's become such a cushty number. Almost typical civil servant attitudes. 

I found this link. I'm not a lawyer and I may be wrong but this is the best I can come up with. It is to do with what they call simple cautions for adults which is I guess what we are talking about here.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

It does seem to back up what the police are saying with one proviso. Cautions cannot be given for any thing involving an offensive weapon. If a car were consideredd an offensive weapon then things would change dramatically. It does seem, yet again, that the police are resticted by the law and the guidance they have to follow.

Finally, a ray of hope. As far as I can make out, a caution goes on a persons criminal record and if a repeat occurs within 2 years a second caution cannot be given. Perhaps this driver will be a bit more careful around cyclists for the next 2 years and by then the behaviour may become habit.

Thanks again to road.cc for followin this up.

The Wiltshire Police spokesman responded, "in cases of common assault with no injury...then an adult caution is deemed a suitable outcome"

Sorry buddy, whatever happened to intent?  The intent was clearly to inflict injury on an innocent victim, and even if they didn't inflict it, the intent was clear, which is in itself a crime.  Wiltshire police; ffs, find your balls, ignore the fact that he's a mate of the chief constable and get this f*cking driver off the road!

If, as claimed by others on this site, a solicitor no less, a caution cannot be given in such circumstances without the agreement of the injured party, and it is clear that there has been no such agreement, so how can a caution be a suitable outcome?

A word to the wise PC Plod; when in a hole, stop digging.

The Wiltshire Police spokesman responded, "in cases of common assault with no injury...then an adult caution is deemed a suitable outcome"

But I thought people WERE injured - are they saying you need photos of the bruises?

The assault / slap part of the discussion recieving a caution might be within Police rights or not. But it is the total ignoring of all the actual driving offences including knocking down another cyclist whilst not paying attention or in control of the vehicle that does my nut and is a total dereliction of duty and should receive the main complaints. To state they couldn't take action on that for the reason stated should make us more scared on the roads of receving no justice if needing any. In Wilshire no visual of a victim means no action can be taken for harm against the victim.  

Once again, this is the perfect time to repeat Chris Boardman's ongoing assertation that what we REALLY need in Britain are the Lowlands' Presumed Liabilty Traffic Laws (which require EVERY road user to look out for those road users more vulnerable than themselves &, in the first instance, presumes that the driver/rider of the bigger vehicle is at fault unless recklessness by the other party is evident). That way ALL road users take care because they know that the Law will pile down on them if they don't.

Separate road infrastructure demands taxpayers' £investment (and can come later as a life-enhancing refinement) but new legislation requires a short period of Parliamentary time (an ongoing public expense in any event) and absolutely no other capital investment. It would have the largest possible effect as quickly as possible. Nothing else could save more lives/injuries for as little effort. 

Just Get It Done.

https://youtu.be/zq28fU2AuMU

I'm still puzzled as to why the police aren't pursuing the appalling driving. If someone drove like that during a driving test, would it still be a pass?

The police reply to road.cc says that 'In line with national policy … common assault with no injury …'

The victim, Mr Short, stated that he had a black eye. Presumably has made an allegation of assault and a crime report will have been generated. Also, the police should have preserved evidence by way of photographing the injury.

Under crime recording standards I believe that this should have been recorded as an assault with Actual Bodily Harm, which the charging standards would dilute down to a Common Assault.

If I was Mr Short I would be asking for a copy of his witness statement and crime report.

"We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime"

Let us know when you start then.

Leaving aside the assault part, this is clearly a case of dangerous driving as defined in law: 

"The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous – section 2A of the RTA 1988.

Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:

racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;"

I am astonished that this wasn’t considered by the police.

The driver is clearly not fit to be in charge of a car and should be disqualified and have to pass a test to ensure they understand the standards required of a competent driver.

The sentencing guidelines are here and seem highly appropriate: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dan...

A caution may or may not be appropriate for the assault but cannot be appropriate for the driving offence.

“We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime,....."

Add lying to the list of Wiltshire police's failings.

We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime

Wiltshire is looking similar to Lancashire. I have seen language like this from Lancashire, where they think that saying is better than doing and where the sentiment bears no relation to the actual actions of the force. I am presently enduring an alliance between the defence and Lancashire Constabulary, which seems intent on sabotaging its own prosecution of a BMW driver who committed the same white line crossing offence in the same place twice in 2 days, both on video. There's no doubt about the guilt, or my speed which is over 20 mph when he overtook extremely closely. The offence was 18 months ago, and all the statements were signed over a year ago. The hearing is due on 1st October- I only heard about that by a detailed enquiry, and the police said I didn't need to attend. Therefore, I decided to attend and as soon as I told them a spate of dodging and diving began: I was told the case 'may be taken out of area'; the defence began demanding evidence which doesn't exist (rear camera- they'll be demanding overhead drone video next) and then they demanded video without the GPS (this also doesn't exist- the GPS was burned on) and claimed they 'couldn't submit the video for 'independent' (a misnomer- they mean defence) expert opinion with the GPS attached! The police then claimed the evidence could be thrown out or the case thrown out because of the absence of non-GPS video. This is all complete tripe as it makes no difference to the video, being all on the left side. The obvious aim is to rubbish the highly accurate GPS speedometer showing my speed, even though the video makes it obvious that I'm going much faster than 10. It's quite difficult to battle the defence and the prosecution at the same time! I have made it very clear that I intend to be present at the hearing...

If I was Mrs Short I would put a claim in against the driver's motor insurance company. I'm sure that the video evidence would be 'interesting' to say the least

So next insurance renewal this guy will have a previous conviction (the caution for assault) and a blameworthy accident to disclose. Expensive!

It looked to me like one of the riders tried to 'adjust' the wing mirror. I'm reliably informed that isn't the way it's done.

Did any of you see the Facebook post from "Idiot U.K. Drivers Exposed" group? You only have to read a few comments to understand how depressingly bad the attitudes are with the embarrassing abundance of morons willingly defending the drivers actions. You'd have thought the group name might have helped them work it out! Ignorance in all it's glory.

Now imagine the country meltdown if it was a cyclist that punched the driver. Utter contempt for cyclists shown by the police, it smacks of "well I can understand why this person might have got aggressive". The driver should be charged with a criminal offence. Road. cc should continue to assist with applying pressure. If the driver gets off with a "a little chat", it will send a clear message to all the other Clarksonite cunts that its ok bully and be aggressive to cyclists because the Police will do nothing.

This might be my Scots blood emoting here but if that had been me getting punched by the driver, I wouldn't be bothering with a police report, I'd be giving the driver as good, likely better, than I got..

When the sticky bottle goes wrong....

The Beeb have just picked up this Wiltshire rozzer fail :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-wiltshire-58558802

Grab your popcorn.

It's unbelievable that the Police didn't at least issue a fixed penalty CD10 for driving without due care and attention in addition to the Police caution for assault.

I've used the link at the bottom of this article to complain to the Wiltsire Police. It's not good enough to let this type of behaviour go. 

If it makes any of you feel slightly better, a ‘caution’ is a formal admission of guilt leading to the scally in question getting a criminal record. It’s not an off-the-record ticking off - the euphemism for that is ‘providing advice’.

He will have to disclose this if he applies to most jobs, and it will actively cause him problems if he works, or wants to work, in healthcare, education, government, or any area of law/legal services. It may also restrict his ability to travel abroad.

(Not a lawyer)

Still fuming regarding police inaction about life threatening dangerous driving, and assault often when supported by video evidence I spotted the attached article. It contains a video of a violent moron kicking his dog.
Needless to say the Police are now investigating.
Makes you realise that as cyclists we're less important than domestic animals.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sickening-footage-captu...

Uh oh!!........the video and story have appeared on the Daily Mail website

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9997733/VIDEO-Swindon-cyclist-p...

I'm curious, but pessimistic -  Anyone seen a sniff of a new reply from the PCC or Wiltshire fuzz?