*UPDATE 12/03/2022* The road.cc reader who sent us this video complained to Thames Valley Police…
“I have just got off the phone to someone who explained that ‘due to staff absences’ my submission via their website was missed and the footage not viewed in time to send out a notice of intended prosecution (served within 2 weeks),” they told us.
“Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for, and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter. Given Covid I can understand that, I suppose.
“Next time something of that nature happens (because it will sooner or later) I think I might take my video to a police station rather than submit online.”
Just days after a road.cc reader sent us some shocking footage of an incident involving a West Midlands driver repeatedly trying to ram them off their bike, we have been sent another concerning video.
This time the video comes from Berkshire, where a Land Rover driver, angered by an earlier exchange about the rider not using a cycle path, drove into the cyclist, pushing them towards the kerb.
Shockingly, the road.cc reader involved reported the incident to Thames Valley Police, who decided, after three months of waiting, to send the driver a close pass warning letter.
“It has taken Thames Valley Police the best part of three months to send a warning letter for a ‘close pass’ when the car [driver] clearly purposely hits me,” the reader told us.
“The incident starts with a close pass as the driver shouted at me out of his window about not using the rubbish cycle path. It contains some rude words, sorry.
“The driver of the car behind stopped to see if I was okay and the passenger had also videoed it so I gave the police their details too. Obviously any sort of investigation or desire to make roads safer is not important to them.
“I’d love to know what the warning letter said… ‘if it wouldn’t be too much trouble could you consider not ramming cyclists with your car please?’ or something like that!”
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
On Friday, we shared footage of a shocking road rage attack on a cyclist in Hagley, West Midlands, after they threw an arm up in frustration at a close pass.
The motorist chased after the rider, matching their speed before a series of attempts to ram the cyclist from their bike.
> Shocking footage of road rage driver repeatedly trying to ram cyclist off bike
West Mercia Police twice downgraded the report from assault to dangerous driving, finally settling on driving without due care. The driver admitted the offence and walked away with a £100 fine and three penalty points.
When we contacted West Mercia Police with the footage and outcome, the force first suggested it had not been under their jurisdiction, before later saying they had nothing new to add and the cyclist would have to contact their police point of contact directly.
103 thoughts on “Motorist drives into cyclist moments after shouting abuse for not using cycle lane”
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Also, if you are a member,
Also, if you are a member, get CyclingUK on this case, to get some semblance of justice
the little onion wrote:
Oh, I’ve had exchanges with Keir in the past. Not sure he’s managed to get anywhere with TVP either.
Deliberate assault with a 2
Deliberate assault with a 2.5T weapon and they get a letter despite a camera and third party witnesses with video.
Why can’t the police do their job ?
Rule 153
Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. **You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.**
Perhaps the police are unaware of that rule.
The problem with the Police
The problem with the Police not taking action even when the evidence of actual threat and attempt of harm is as clear cut as this case is that eventually someone gets angry enough to take direct action and then the Fire Brigade might have to get involved.
The problem with the Police
The problem with the Police not taking action even when the evidence of actual threat and attempt of harm is as clear cut as this case
The real problem is that of convincing cyclists in general that their greatest single enemy is the police.
A genuinely disgusting
A genuinely disgusting decision but not unexpected from the incompetent morons at TVP
You cannot let that lie, you need to submit a formal complaint
Have submitted a complaint,
Have submitted a complaint, they called me today but I couldn’t answer.
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
Just spotted that someone has shared this link on the Thames Valley Police Roads Policing Unit twitter feed…. apparrently they are “supporting Travel Safe Bucks who are working with Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service to encourage drivers and cyclists to share the road safely.”
TriTaxMan wrote:
— TriTaxManWell, I wonder do they mean the people taking up 99% of the road, or those taking up 1% should share more?
TriTaxMan wrote:
Just spotted that someone has shared this link on the Thames Valley Police Roads Policing Unit twitter feed…. apparrently they are “supporting Travel Safe Bucks who are working with Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service to encourage drivers and cyclists to share the road safely.”— anagallis_arvensis
Excellent! It will be interesting to see if they respond to it.
If I deliberately drove my car into a pedestrian who happened to be walking on the road would I get a warning letter?
PRSboy wrote:
Just checked again this morning there are a lot of people now posting links to the road.cc article or other articles asking for comment from @tvprp on twitter. Including one commentator who has asked.
“Dear @tvprp please treat this as a freedom of information request (FOI) made in good faith following information seen in this thread.
How many times in 2021 did Thames Valley Police issue a warning letter for attempted murder?”
By contrast the main Thames
By contrast the main Thames Valley Police twitter account is full of posts telling us all about the important causes they are supporting each day – it’s no surprise they don’t seem to have any time for actual police work.
When you do speak to them
When you do speak to them about the complaint, you could remind them that this was assault as well as a RTA Section 2 offence.
That’s actually frightening!
That’s actually frightening! Intentionally using a vehicle as a weapon, how on earth can TVP feel that only warranted a warnning letter!
Standard response from TVP.
Standard response from TVP. Following one particularly close pass, which resulted in such a warning, I asked:
They responded
I asked again, this time questioning what the ‘reasonable doubt’ would be that the driver passed well within the 1.5m guideline.
That’s me told, then!
Standard response from TVP.
Standard response from TVP. Following one particularly close pass, which resulted in such a warning
It’s the standard response from Bad Cops, especially Lancashire. That’s what they’ll do, if anything, about this highly aggressive pass in Garstang centre at over 40 mph today by Seat Leon FL18 WHS with a clearance of 20 cms at most. Join me in despising the b******s
Lancs police nothing done
Lancs police nothing done just wasted my. time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmvCsAyr8S4
They are usless with nearly evrthing I’ve reported.
As for this video. he has done it on pourpose he should be prosicuted.
“We don’t work for you – on
“We don’t work for you – on your bike son (unless you get knocked off”
You should lodge a formal
You should lodge a formal complaint concerning the Officer.
Wow, that is criminal.
Wow, that is criminal.
Totally.
Totally.
If he’d have responded in kind and say “damaged” the door mirror, I think we can also take a good guess at whether the rozzers would have let him off with a warning or not.
The officer that made the
The officer that made the decision not to prosectute (or whoever set the guidelines for TVP that means this doesn’t go forward for prosecution) needs to be put in that position of having a car drive at them and put their life in danger. They deserve to be treated in the way in which they obviously think is acceptable for others to be treated
But … As we’ve seen from
But … As we’ve seen from Police riders conducting close-pass operations, the car drivers are likely to get FPN or reported for prosecution.
For us mere mortals though, the outcome is completely different.
Surely that’s a easy 3 points
Surely that’s a easy 3 points and a fine at the minimum?
How many other cyclists have been endangered by this person that didn’t have a camera?
Lazy, feckless, idiots. This is what our police force is now populated by. Whoever this particular pile of uniformed shite is, I can only assume he doesn’t have any loved ones that cycle.
Interesting how many forces
Interesting how many forces seem to do either nothing or just issue a warning letter for offences reported by cyclists, but during close pass initiatives they will quite happily give out points to drivers.
.
.
Absolute and utter for ken disgrace.
.
I can imagine this individual
I can imagine this individual being quite pleased they got a warning letter for endangering a cyclist. They’ve probably framed it and maybe showed it to their mates down the pub, who will have called him a legend and bought him a pint.
Quite obviously a planned
Quite obviously a planned assault on the cyclist, both verbally and then with a deadly weapon.
Same useless response from TVP I’ve come to expect.
To me, this failure to
To me, this failure to prosecute a clear, witnessed, videod attack with a deadly weapon is dereliction of duty. Policing in this country is by the consent of the public, but if the police continually refuse to carry out their duties, that consent can, and should be withdrawn.
Might I suggest a series of public events, protests if you like, getting as many cyclists together to demand action on this force’s continual failure to ensure the safety of the public by prosecuting dangerous, life-threatening drivers.
In this case, one gust of wind, a pothole, a stone in the road, and it could have been much more serious.
Same thing happened to me
Same thing happened to me once when I elected to use the road rather than the useless cycle path on the Palmers Green -> Winchmore Hill section of Green Lanes. The car’s front wing actually made contact with my thigh. I had no video, but did have the plate. The Met didn’t care and did nothing.
srchar wrote:
In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence, you say the driver made contact, he denies he made contact. Without a couple of independant witnesses (note this does not include oither cylists apparently) there isn’t really a case.
In fairness there is nothing
In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence
In truth, there is nothing they will do with immaculate evidence except issue the ultra-worthless ‘words of advice’ or the worthless ‘warning letter’- that’s Lancashire Constabulary, your force may differ (although it probably won’t)
wtjs wrote:
Oh, I agree entirely with that, but even with highly motivated police treating endangering cyclcists as a real offence, there is nothing they can do with “xx nn yyy, passed me so closely today it made contact and I was nearly knocked off my bike, this could have resulted in a serious injury”
wycombewheeler wrote:
As others have noted there seems to be a rather flexible standard for what constitutes “sufficient evidence”. I rather thought it was part of the job of the police to collect this evidence? Obviously dealing with crime is very selective but in the case of bikes it often seems that “unless you’re a police officer and have video plus at least three other witnesses – a JP, a judge and your local MP – we’re not going to go do any investigating ourselves”.
in the case of bikes it often
in the case of bikes it often seems that “unless you’re a police officer and have video plus at least three other witnesses – a JP, a judge and your local MP – we’re not going to go do any investigating ourselves
Unduly harsh! Inspector Kevin Smith has proved that if you’re a police officer, the video is sufficient. If you’re not, you need the video and the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope in separate vehicles
wycombewheeler wrote:
JUST STOP you’re talking cobblers.
Firstly if you listen with sound on you can hear the crash.
Secondly you don’t need either an independent witness or evidence of an impact for a sucessful prosecution for careless driving.
Please stop peddling (sic) myths and making our lives harder and more depressing.
EDIT : Upon reflection this may have been satire. If so I apologise, as my blood was boiling so badly I failed to parse it.
You are mixing up the video
You are mixing up the video in the thread with srchar’s post about his experience which ww was replying to.
Although not sure how you say
Secondly you don’t need either an independent witness or evidence of an impact for a sucessful prosecution for careless driving.
With no other evidence it’s he said, they said.
The evidence of a single
The evidence of a single witness can be sufficient to prove a case.
we see it all the time – the most obvious, being single police officers.
Intentional attempted assault
Intentional attempted assault by a vehicle (x2 in video).
That driver was probably held up at thatcham station shortly after. The level crossing barriers can be down for sometimes 10mins.
Would following them at a distance & calling TVP at the time made any difference knowing the vw driver had filmed it/possibly provide a witness statement?
The cycle path along there is fragmented, improves a bit after the last roundabout.
After the station towards crookham is close pass central (narrow road, winding & a hill with 2 blind bends) – a nightmare after the level crossing barriers have lifted & the queue of cars try to pass!
I took the option of not
I took the option of not following the driver and hoping he got caught at the crossing so that I could kick his teeth in as I had videoed it all and the police could deal with it….how wrong I was!
We have seen a lot of these
We have seen a lot of these where there is clear evidence of driving offences/assaults/public order where no effective action is taken by police. I think there must be some mileage in compiling the evidence and creating a super complaint for the IOPC to review the police approach to dealing with offences where cyclists are the victims.
The message is clear.
he’d probably had a bad day.
So attempted murder is fine I guess
Sorry, your honour, it was a
Sorry, your honour, it was a momentary lapse of reason. Fine, on your way, son.
The car did it, your honour, you know how unreliable Land Rovers are. Fine, on your way, son.
The sun was in my eyes so I needed to pull over urgently as I couldn’t see. Sounds exceptionally careful driving to me, you are to be commended, on your way, son.
Until there’s some provision
Until there’s some provision for admission of some measurable “standard” * in court I think we’re doomed to the folly of “each case in complete isolation” – as if this was the first instance of anyone driving. Now judging each case on merits is indeed a wonderful principle and I’m very wary of suggestions of “administrative punishments” in most circumstances. However I don’t think it’s appropriate to judge behaviour on the road in the same way as if it’s the same as behaviour in a shop, at a party, walking through the countryside etc. The road is a constrained environment. There are rules, you have to pass a test and be licenced etc. Essentially ignoring that and saying “how do you think they did?” to some people is a recipe for an ineffective system. Especially since magistrates / juries / judges (not to mention the CPS, police and barristers themselves) are much more likely to be drivers or solely have experience of driving / being driven than cycling. And lots of evidence (Highway Code drama etc.) shows that the level of driving competence / understanding of good driving is low.
You could argue this is “fair” at the society / culture level e.g. it reasonably reflects the prejudices / attitudes of society (however “wrong” and “unfair” these might be). I would hope we could aim at something better. Indeed the law frequently does conflict with prevalent attitudes – why should driving be such an exception?
* Other than the frankly wooly “Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver” (for “without due care and attention”) etc.
My daughter is in the police
My daughter is in the police and she corrected me on assault. I thought you had to make physical contact but it is sufficient for you to believe that someone is going to hit you for it to be an assault.
I think that it is wrong for police to be using careless driving legislation when there is clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to knock someone off their bike, especially in this case where the attempt was not in the moment, but sustained. If the driver got out and swung their fist, it would be assault, yet when they use their car which is a far more effective weapon… well, you get my drift.
I’d really love to crowd fund
I’d really love to crowd fund a test case on this. Find a certainly egregious case where plod couldn’t be arsed and bring a private prosecution, preferably for Assault rather than a motor offense.
I have a day dream fantasy of running a not-for-profit that goes after these type of drivers all day long…..
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Sadly, it is very easy for the CPS to adopt a private prosecution, then kill it. Still, it has been tried before: I think the Cyclist’s Defence Fund sometimes tries it.
it is very easy for the CPS
it is very easy for the CPS to adopt a private prosecution, then kill it
I’m fairly sure the CPS really does exist, and is not just a dodge by the police to excuse not doing anything about anything. However, that is the way the name is deployed by the police far too often
wtjs wrote:
It seems the ‘Five Monkeys’ experiment story is unfounded, but it tells a truth: if you [CPS] condition the participants [Police] to believe a certain action [prosecuting errant motorists] wiull fail, the participants learn behaviour that it is not worth focusing on that behaviour when other behaviour yields easier results with limited resources.
I think you can blame the police; you can blame the CPS for having too high a threshold for prosecution; you can blame government for under-resourcing them both to the point where they have to dismiss some tasks completely in favour of other priorities. You can also blame government (& PCCs) for failing to address ropad safety as a police priority. And you can blame various sources, such as populist media, for perpetuating out-group myths.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Michael Mason case? Still lost.
Win or loss of a single case
Win or loss of a single case isnt wholly the point, though it may be incredibly painful for those involved.
Creating an awareness that this stuff isnt acceptable and you will *likely* get nobbled is.
If the police refuse to
If the police refuse to protect others from dangerous drivers perhaps the insurance industry could instead?
Post this clip to the insurers social media and ask why they underwrite such aggression and what would lifetime support of a seriously injured person cost them?
Price the dangerous off the roads
Post this clip to the
Post this clip to the insurers social media and ask why they underwrite such aggression and what would lifetime support of a seriously injured person cost them?
This I could get completely behind. There would be challenges, especially in underwriting, but risk rating appalling behaviour is reasonable.
I’d also love to see the dickheads on social media denigrating* more vulnerable road users, demonstrating fuck all knowledge of road rules and/or a desire to breach road rules get priced off the roads.
Of all the challenges though, I suspect the biggest is that a lot of terrible motorists are uninsured or would happily drive uninsured.
*the irony isn’t lost on me that I am a dickhead on social media denigrating the denigrators.
Has Road.cc ever asked for an
Has Road.cc ever asked for an interview with the relevant Government Ministers to discuss the frankly abysmal service given by the Police / Justice System?
open_roads wrote:
I for one would be fascinated to read if a Road.cc journalist took this on… its a huge topic, surely worthy of proper exploration.
I obviously don’t reccomend
I obviously don’t reccomend this as a course of action, but when I used to commute as a student through Notting Hill Gate and Kensington on my way to Hammersmith, before cycle lanes – nuts i know – I always used to get ‘nudged’ about and I found the best defensive manouvre was to dig my clawed pedals into the side of the vehicle and then take the dive – it cushioned the swipe especially if they were turning into a corner. To a man, when they came out to inspect what had happened they first went to the damaged panel before checking if I was alright/alive, etc, etc.
The greatest danger on High St Kensington were taxis which would stop sharply in the middle of the road when hailed, and once on a rainy day I ended up on the roof of a London cab. I rememeber as I slowly slid down I could see the driver looking through the mirror to see when I was clear as the passenger climbed in and he then he took off. Luvely jubbley.
This mornings task is a FOI
This mornings task is a FOI request from TVP requesting details of the number of videos submitted by cyclists, and a breakdown of the action taken by TVP, between NFA, Warning Letter, Driver Improvement Course & Penalty Points/Fine
You missed “Couldn’t be arsed
You missed “Couldn’t be arsed to even look.”
IanMSpencer wrote:
They can’t be arsed to record those …
Let us know how you get on. I
Let us know how you get on. I tried it last year and got a “Nah, this will take too much effort.”
Let us know how you get on. I
Let us know how you get on. I tried it last year and got a “Nah, this will take too much effort.”
Anything to do with the police and their institutional ‘cyclist-ist’ bias involves effort, persistence and determination. Lancashire Constabulary simply doesn’t comply with the Freedom of Information Act, describing themselves as ‘very busy’- they are… very busy covering up for all the things they’ve done wrong. In addition, even more of the same qualities are required when pursuing information the public bodies are really desperate to ‘not disclose’. NHS England is a £120 billion public body which has tried so hard to avoid disclosure over 11 years that it has now taken to just refusing to respond or comply with the Act. They have already tried the ‘vexatious request’ dodge and lost, so the Information Commissioner has now been obliged to order them to respond (ICO Decision Notice IC-149221-D4V4 14.2.22)- they haven’t done so yet. You have to be ready to go to these lengths, because public bodies- especially the police- are prepared to waste lots of time and public money acting against the public interest in thwarting requests.
It certainly seems that some
It certainly seems that some police forces are working from very odd definitions of “close pass” and “due care and attention”…
Not wanting to make to
Not wanting to make to obvious a comment because it is an ongoing case, but recently a single mother was killed near Solihull. The police have now untangled what happened.
An old driver, 82 apparently, clipped the cyclist causing her to fall. As the cyclist gathered herself up, a following motorist blinded by the low sun didn’t see her and ran her down. (I can attest that the sun would have been particularly blinding but of course that should mean that you should moderate your speed accordingly).
My point is that often people see close passes or deliberate nudges as trivial – little harm done. The reality is that on occasion the results are catastrophic. Same with people who wouldn’t see 60mph in a 40 as a big deal – until you find the Porsche driver lost control and span off the road, bringing a cyclist down underneath them.
Until you cycle, you don’t appreciate how bad driving is. Yesterday, I had half a dozen interactions I would class as dangerous with motorists. Motorists barely interact with cyclists on a daily basis, it is a novelty (I think that is why Ashley Neal was genuinely bemused to the hostile reaction to drivers sounding their horns).
Warning letter… I didn’t
Warning letter… I didn’t get a warning letter from TVP when I was flashed doing 56 in a 50 on a quiet A34. I did not drive into anyone, deliberately or otherwise. Rather than a fine and 3p, I opted to spend a morning on a course, hearing harrowing stories about accidents and the people who died.
At the very minimum, surely this driver should be made to go on a course, to hear of the consequences of what happens when cyclists get hit by vehicles.
A warning letter in this instance is frankly an insult to the memory of any cyclist killed or injured by careless drivers and sends a clear signal to drivers that its OK to drive into a cyclist if they annoy them and they’ll only get a raised eyebrow.
I had the same thing happen
I had the same thing happen the other day – car swiping at me for not using a “cycle lane” pavement – I did confront them at the lights and held them up for a cycle – this sort of behavior is so futile especially in an urban setting – quite apart from the fact that its really bloody dangerous. Hope you are ok and keep on keeping on.
When we contacted West Mercia
When we contacted West Mercia Police with the footage and outcome, the force first suggested it had not been under their jurisdiction, before later saying they had nothing new to add and the cyclist would have to contact their police point of contact directly
And if he does, they simply won’t reply if they’re anything like Lancashire. I’ve been trying for months to obtain an admission that they did absolutely nothing about this- although the silence is as good as an admission
It’s the ironic sticker on
It’s the ironic sticker on the back that gets me…
It’s the ironic sticker on
It’s the ironic sticker on the back that gets me…
It is difficult to describe to ‘foreigners’, although nobody can say I haven’t tried, just how bad Lancashire Constabulary is and how thick the officers are. Only today I received a NFA from them over a dire close pass at speed from a Transit-based lorry where the VED hasn’t been paid for 2 years 9 months: HY66 ZZB. Grime had been allowed to accumulate on the number plate, but I got the reg and spoke it to myself. It can be seen on the photos if you lighten and enlarge them, and it’s a very distinctive vehicle. LC’s reason for NFA is that the TacOps officer has decided he can’t read the plate on the video. I have delivered the ultimatum: change the decision or the complaint begins
The sticker is obviously an
The sticker is obviously an instruction to ride in line with the right hand side of the bus, that way they will not be able to close pass you!
The sticker is obviously an
The sticker is obviously an instruction to ride in line with the right hand side of the bus, that way they will not be able to close pass you!
This is to save looking all the way down the topic: it refers to the very close pass by a Stagecoach bus on 1.10.21 shown on a photo below. I have been trying for 5 months to obtain an official admission of what is obvious: Lancashire Constabulary did absolutely nothing about it. By coincidence, only today I have received the official reply: PE01544286GJHBB – No Further Action – No offence made out.
You may wonder what that means, as I do, since there was a perfect video, a .pdf file full of stills and a lucid account of a terrifying close pass by a professional bus driver. You may think yourself lucky you don’t live in an area with a police force as bent and as crap as Lancashire
I think it would be a
I think it would be a terrible shame if contact with the kerb caused by this driver caused excessive scuffing to the OP’s Aero Carbon lovelies / Shoes / Pedals and he needed new sets from the drivers insurance……
https://www.mib.org.uk/check-insurance-details/check-a-vehicle-not-at-the-roadside-after-an-accident/
He could always put in a
They could always put in a claim for distress and mental anguish, make it a value that the driver would not be willing to simply pay you off. Might not get anywhere much but it would either force the driver to deal with a solicitor or pass it on to his insurers which would then mean he would lose his NCD. Then when he tries to switch insurers he’d have to declare it.
If a collision has ocurred
If a collision has ocurred (which it did) then AIUI the driver MUST report it to their insurance company irrespective of any claim.
I really think that a hassle
I really think that a hassle factor and making dangerous drivers a bad choose to insure is the best way forward to keep cyclists safe.
(Well, until the police and courts act on the copious video evidence already sent to them)
As an update, I put in a
As an update, I put in a complaint to TVP and have just got off the phone to someone who explained that “due to staff absences’ my submission via there website was missed and the footage not viewed in time to send out a notice of intended prosecution (served within 2 weeks). Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter. Given covid I can understand that I suppose. Next time something of that nature happens (because it will sooner or later) I think I might take my video to a police station rather than submit online.
You do realise that that
You do realise that that excuse is utter Horlicks?
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
You are more understanding than I would be!
That excuse might wash if it was a typical close pass that could reasonably be considered merely careless driving. But deliberately driving into someone is (IMHO) at the minimum dangerous driving (which ought to be prioritised regardless of any staffing issues) or assault (which also ought to be a priority and moreover is not subject to the same two-week limitation that applies to motoring offences).
OnYerBike wrote:
This. A hundred time this.
Cpmplain to the PCC?
Had this error not occurred
Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter
brooksby is right- the police are just lying. Lancashire Constabulary has tried this many times to excuse offences like HGVs crashing through red lights seconds after they turned red, or vehicles on the public road having been untaxed for almost 3 years (this is a ‘hot one’ just come through today- I have issued an ultimatum which they will probably ignore, so a proper complaint will ensue) etc. Lancashire Constabulary was last summer and autumn running a longstanding dodge where they didn’t even look at online submissions to allocate an incident reference number (this a a proxy measure for the time they ‘looked at’ the case) until after the 14 days deadline had expired. Police lying is routine for almost everything now, from lying about whether you have raped and murdered someone to deliberate dodges to obviate working and allow more time to covering up.
They still have the option of
They still have the option of viewing this as an assault, and then there is no 14 day limitation because it doesn’t fall user driving offences.
However, the reality is that the stress of persuing it further outweighs the feel good factor of getting a result.
I would want to pursue it as
I would want to pursue it as assault
Also if an accident ie
Also if an accident ie collision occurs there is no 14 day requirement either. Worth knowing.
Ride On wrote:
Not quite. The 14 day requirement (Road Traffic Offenders Act s1) applies to certain offences (listed in RTOA sched 1), not to types of incident. So it applies to Careless/Dangerous driving/cycling irrespective of collision.
It does not apply to the ‘causing serious injury / death by…’ so you’re looking at more than a slight knock (and the police charging it as such) before the 14 day limit disappears – unless they can get them on an alternative offence (assault, other motoring offence) which isn’t subject to RTOA s1.
All “lack of resources” type
All “lack of resources” type excuses are double-speak for “it was too low down our priorities to merit the allocation of resource”. Resources are [i]always[/i] limited.
TBF, having a daughter in the
TBF, having a daughter in the police, you’d be appalled at how under-resourced the police are now. Some of their cars were so old, she refused to drive them because they didn’t seem safe(!), her force had a single breathalyser unit between all the patrol cars, so any drunk driver required calling the lucky team for the night. Our neighbourhood police team was 4 people 10 years ago – so consider shifts, that’s little more than 1 person full time for about 30,000 people, but then by the time all the admin, time off for sickness, training, and so on, it ends up being nearer 0.5 people per day.
Then there are the IT systems… my daughter was compelled to use a system to write down evidence that simply would lose interview statements when save was pressed. The vendors knew it happened 10% of the time – aside from with my daughter it was 100% – and many of the interviews were reluctant witnesses. They then replaced the system with a new one which they couldn’t get fixed until the Met came sniffing around wanting to know if it was any good,so they were effectively using a live beta.
An accident – which this is –
An accident – which this is – is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that’s impossible in this case, the police are wrong.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I’d totally agree with you but the police appear to be in line with the courts – who as we’ve read are extremely disinclined to attribute awareness to motorists just because they’re driving and that would appear to be both sensible and the law. Even where the motorist managed not to crash for a long time before and after apparently we accept that they can be “not driving” or aware of their surroundings for a flexible period of time – without censure. While I can’t pronounce on the legal soundness of this unfortunately it probably accords with reality and most people’s realistic appraisal of their own driving…
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Assuming by this you are referring to the offence of “failure to stop or report an accident”, unfortunately the definition of an “accident” given for that offence requires there to be injury to a person or damage to property, which does not appear to have been the case this time.
I also don’t think there is a legal excuse of being reasonably unaware – although if that were the case it might affect the public interest test for prosecution.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You may be correct, but do you have a citation? An accident is, in itself, not an offence; 14 days doesn’t apply to failure to stop/report, so they could still charge that.
If an offence has been
If an offence has been committed, then no NIP is required where there has been an accident – schedule one says when an nip is required, and an accident is not one of those to which it applies.
https://www.hickmanandrose.co.uk/what-is-an-accident-avoiding-the-service-of-a-notice-of-intended-prosecution-for-a-road-traffic-offence/
an accident absolutely occurred here.
No, nothing about it was
No, nothing about it was accidental.
A collision, that was no
A collision, that was no accident.
Sriracha wrote:
Exactly this. Although I note IanMSpencer’s reports from the front line – and I can believe it – it’s always a choice, somewhere. Of course the people higher up (senior police / politicians) are those who have more control on where the the searchlight is pointed. And whether by “a nod and a wink”, by making it clear that your career isn’t going further if you do x rather than y or simply by cutting off funds for something that’s how it gets shifted.
There used to be a police
There used to be a police station in thatcham until not that long ago, not far from those incidents it’s now residential properties.
Also not far from the police station was a great cycle shop, now a dominoes pizza.
I wonder if there is a
I wonder if there is a business opportunity for some scammy lawyers – ones in this case I would support.
Rather than using the police, you submit your footage of non-injury incidents to a claims firm who generate a £1000 claim for distress and nuisance and submit it to the driver. The official nature then puts the driver into a world of pain with threats of court, or they just pay up or they have to make a claim.
I’d be fairly sure that it would work even if there might be little payment back to the rider.
Saves the police being involved and creates a disincentive as word gets around.
You make an excellent point.
You make an excellent point. I am coming to understand that the Highway Code is there to settle civil disputes when accidents occur and damage is done, apart from the “must” clauses. Disregardng it while driving is not a crime it seems. We seem to be in the realms of “No harm, no foul” as Jack Reacher would put it. The problem facing the cyclist then is that if they capitulate (allow themselves to be bullied) no action is taken, if they don’t, while the driver may be open to civil action and financial penalty, they potentially suffer serious injury or worse.
Turning these incidents into a civil matter certainly has merit in these circumstances. We all know that these events can be traumatic and in our snowflake society claims may be successful. It may even be possible to claim that by putting a person off cycling you are endangering them (and others) due to the effects of motoring on climate change. May be worth pursuing by better brains than mine.
I’ve written to a well known
I’ve written to a well known solicitors who specialise in scammy parking claims, (I hope it is not too much trouble for them 😉 )
I’ve pointed out that the cynical business model is that most cyclists wouldn’t want a windfall, they just want to know that the motorist has suffered for their poor driving choices – so there ought to be lots of money making for them while even bring about social justice,and that I expect the police and politicians would be quite supportive of a civil process over a criminal one.
Good luck.
Good luck.
It occurred to me that the
It occurred to me that the very use of cameras is evidence of the level of anxiety about motorists.
I wonder if the Police forces
I wonder if the Police forces involved would take the same lenient view if the cyclist involved in the incidents had been Boris Johnson…?
If the drivers had attacked the cyclists with a 4 pound lump hammer they’d have had no trouble identifying it as assault with a deadly weapon but apparently two tons of metal in the form of a car wielded with intent to injure doesn’t qualify…
It’s not a driving offence –
It’s not a driving offence – it’s an assault with a weapon and should be prosecuted as such.
Twitter update on this
Twitter following the update to the story.
Staff shortage
Reply:
TRANS: Following a complaint from the reader who sent us this shocking video, Thames Valley Police insisted the driver would have been prosecuted, but “as we DGAF” the two-week deadline was missed.
https://mobile.twitter.com/roadcc/status/1502688912124297219