Update, 09/09/2023: The driver of a 4×4 who close passed a cyclist on a country lane before reversing back down the road towards him, hitting a dog in the process, has escaped punishment after North Yorkshire Police “carefully considered” footage of the shocking incident. Instead, the motorist was given road safety advice from officers “in order to prevent further incidents”, while the cyclist was allegedly advised “not to shout in future”.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident (which can be viewed below, and in our original Near Miss of the Day feature at the bottom of this update), the police told road.cc reader Peter that “no traffic offences were committed” and that the cyclist had contributed to the driver’s decision to reverse by shouting “watch out!” following the close pass, an act the officer said constituted ‘road rage’.
Following that rather unsatisfactory verdict, Peter lodged a complaint with the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, who conducted a review into the incident. According to the chief inspector, the review concluded that “the initial decision was wrong and that an investigation is in fact required.”
However, Peter has since told road.cc that “the new investigation ended disappointingly in the same place as the initial peremptory response”.
According to Peter, the blame for the motorist’s collision with the dog was pitted on the driver of the quad bike (and presumably the dog’s owner), who was found to have been driving “too fast” at the time of the incident, as well as failing to have properly secured the dog or registered his vehicle. North Yorkshire Police told road.cc that the quad bike rider has not been identified, and that it is currently unclear what happened to the dog.
Peter says that he was told by phone that no blame was placed on the 4×4 driver, with the officer allegedly telling the cyclist that the motorist was reversing because he “probably just wanted to speak” to him.
Meanwhile, Peter claims that he was also “advised not to shout in future” during similar incidents.
A spokesperson for North Yorkshire Police told road.cc: “Officers carefully considered the video footage of the incident, and spoke to the driver of the Kuga and the cyclist.
“However, despite extensive enquiries, the rider of the quad bike has not been identified, and it is not known what happened to the dog seen in the video.
“The driver of the Kuga was given advice about road safety in order to prevent further incidents.
“The safety of all road users is a priority for North Yorkshire Police. We urge anyone who witnesses driving offences on our roads to contact us. Footage from a dashcam, CCTV or a passenger’s mobile phone can be sent to us – search for ‘Op Snap’ on our website.”
You can read the original Near Miss of the Day article below:
This is one of the most shocking submissions we have had to our Near Miss of the Day series, with the driver of a 4×4 making a close pass at a cyclist on a country lane and, when the rider remonstrated, reversing back down the road towards him, forcing a quadbike rider to swerve and running over a dog that had been travelling on it.
Incredibly, North Yorkshire Police decided not to act on the footage, citing among other things that the cyclist had contributed towards the sequence events by shouting at the driver to “watch out!” The cyclist, road.cc reader Peter, has now raised a complaint with the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.
The incident happened on the morning of Tuesday 5 July 2022 on Orcaber Lane near Austwick, in the south west corner of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The incident starts at 1 minute 7 seconds into this video, shot from a rear-facing camera.
“I reported this incident to North Yorkshire Police,” Peter told us. “Their response, in a telephone call, was ‘no traffic offences were committed’ and that they would take no action.
“Briefly, they described my shouting ‘watch out’ as an oncoming wide SUV passed me at a speed I felt was too fast for a single-track country lane as ‘road rage’ and a contributory factor in the driver then reversing at speed towards me.
“I was saved from the encounter I feared by his running over a dog that fell from a quad bike that he forced off the road.”
Reversing a vehicle is covered by Rules 200-203 of the Highway Code.
Rule 202 says, among other things, that drivers should:
Look carefully before you start reversing. You should … check there are no pedestrians (particularly children), cyclists, other road users or obstructions in the road behind you … reverse slowly …
Rule 203 says:
You MUST NOT reverse your vehicle further than necessary.
“Given the police response, I am contacting the Police and Crime Commissioner with my concerns that the response indicates a worrying lack of concern with improving safety for vulnerable road users,” Peter continued.
“I think that my intuition that this driver was dangerous when he passed me was vindicated by his subsequent dangerous behaviour. I had expected that he would at least receive a warning from the police that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable.”
He added: “I pointed out to the PCC that the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership Safer Roads Strategy 2021-26 states that ‘Pedal cyclists account for a high and increasing proportion of all KSIs over the last five years’.”
As for the dog – which we suspect from the footage may be a working border collie given the prevalence of sheep farming in the area – Peter told us: “It seemed immobile but the two drivers didn’t seem to want to speak with me so I left without knowing whether it was dead or alive.”
Here’s the footage from his front-facing camera:
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
202 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 806: Driver escapes punishment after reversing at cyclist and running over dog”
Quote:
I’m about to send in my
I’m about to send in my footage that WMP appear to have failled to act on where I obviously caused the incident by vocalising my surprise the the very likely chance of a collision being caused by the van driver overtaking into oncoming traffic. Does shouting “Whoa!” count as road rage?
Not sure if others have had
Not sure if others have had any luck or if WMP don’t send updates but I’ve submitted many videos and never got a response.
Correct response: fine,
Correct response: fine, prosecute the driver, and prosecute me for road rage. Good luck with that sticking!
Well, I’m lost for words with
Well, I’m lost for words with this one…
Off duty/ex police officer
Off duty/ex police officer driving the car perhaps??
So, the words “Watch Out” are
So, the words “Watch Out” are pretty much being used in the same context as “You now have a gateway to cause (possible) bodily harm to me, with no repercussion!”
“Give him it” – we all know how that particular phrase ended up for a few people.
The police response on this
The police response on this is absolutely astonishing. That reversing manoeuvre was reckless and unjustified. Shouting ‘watch out’ in no way constitutes road rage. It’s akin to a driver sounding their horn, which would have been appropriate under the circumstances had it been another car, rather than a bike.
Institutionally anti cyclist
Institutionally anti cyclist
Who in their right mind
Who in their right mind reverses at speed down a road as narrow as that?
‘no traffic offences were committed’
Pretty high bar for an offence then.
hirsute wrote:
At speed… for a considerable distance!
I believe it would be someone who is actually enacting road rage.
Watch the video again and note how the quad rider was forced entirely off the road to avoid a very serious collision. See how far past the MPV they travel before both vehicles stop. Had that been a big verge or ditch I suspect the Police would have been forced to investigate.
To be fair, the quad was not
To be fair, the quad was not hanging around. The only road user here who used the road correctly was the cyclist.
Oh that’s rubbish, that poor
Oh that’s rubbish, that poor dog. North Yorkshire Police should hang their heads in shame.
North Yorkshire Police should
North Yorkshire Police should hang their heads in shame
Except they won’t; this is all in a Day’s Work at Perverting the Course of Justice to them. Complaining to the PCC is doomed to failure after an unconscionably long delay, if it’s anything like Lancashire.
What a joke the comments from
What a joke the comments from the police are in that instance.
The motorist deliberately drove their car in reverse at speed towards a vulnerable road user. That’s road rage as a minimum.
Had the driver not hit the dog, what was their end game? Were they just going to get close to the cyclist then stop and have a polite word with them? Or was it their intent to drive into the cyclist and knock them off their bike?
I hope that forwarding this to the PCC comes back with some action in respect of the incident.
Surely those who have not yet
Surely those who have not yet realised that the main single enemy of cyclists is The Police must now be getting the message?! The decision is already made before they even receive evidence from a cyclist that ‘we’re not going to do anything’- they then make up anything, no matter how stupid, to justify to their tiny minds that decision. The police are serious ********
Just checking I’ve understood
Just checking I’ve understood. Shouting “Watch out!” is road rage, but stopping, and then reversing at high speed, interrupting your journey to remonstrate, is perfectly acceptable driving and does not reflect any display of loss of control, regardless of whether or not any carnage being caused in its wake?
To be honest I can’t bring myself to watch the footage, but this is daily life as a cyclist. Perhaps someone would care to submit this for an Ashley Analysis while we are on and he can explain how badly the cyclist read the road?
They should have been using
They should have been using the bridleway (if above a certain age).
That is shocking a real WTF.
That is shocking a real WTF. I watched the front view first and thought that seemed a lot further up the road before he turned and saw the car,Then i watched the rear i can’t believe how far he reversed. I suspect they might have known each other (driver /4×4) possibly both work on the same farm.
Road rage excuse is crap.
Where to even begin…
Where to even begin…
I hope the PCC take an interest, but I’m pretty sure there have been other incidents on NMotD which have been escalated to the local PCC, and the PCC response was essentially “It’s not my job to tell the Police how to do their job”. Which left me rather confused as to what the PCC’s job is.
The role is a straw man to
The role is a straw man to give an impression of democratic/ civic oversight of the police force. Nothing else.
Sadly I think you’d get more
Sadly I think you’d get more response – and certainly massively more public outrage – by posting this as “driver callously runs over dog while reversing”. Animal abuse in the UK is often a trigger for people.
This is one of the more psychologically worrying incidents I’ve seen here. The guy was reversing at high speed for a distance down a country lane – and ran someone else off the road. I know some people get good at reversing and local roads but to me that could only signal “I’ve lost it, I’m now going to hit you and damn everything else”.
No doubt a contrarian will be along soon saying “maybe the driver had dropped a contact lens / thought the rider had shouted for assistance and was reversing at speed to assist them as soon as possible”.
Could anyone with more legal knowledge explain why the police felt there wasn’t enough here? Otherwise it looks like “no human blood on road, no harm” to the point of negligence. Or even “crooked cops”.
Mark Hodson
Mark Hodson:
My other take away from this
My other take away from this is this particular driver was happy to use their car as a weapon against another human being, all for expecting them to slow down a little on a narrow country road.
But after hitting the dog the driver is out of the car, sat at the side of the road full of remorse. Do you think the driver would have been showing the same remorse had he succeeded in crashing into the cyclist? I think not.
TriTaxMan wrote:
I disagree.
I’m sure their lawyer would be informing the magistrate / judge of their remorse. *
* If the police passed it to the CPS and if they decided to take it to court. And if the case actually went against the driver. If…
Pretty sure the guy sitting
Pretty sure the guy sitting at the side of the road looking forlorn is the quad bike rider / dog’s owner.
I’ve just watched the rear
I’ve just watched the rear view a second time and i reckon he’s run over his own dog.(not that it makes it better).
Looks like 2 farm workers or farmer/worker both dashing off between fields.Something you often see.
Yes, it’s quite possible the
Yes, it’s quite possible the quad rider and the driver of the car know eachother. Perhaps that’s one reason the police are taking no action, as maybe they don’t want to press charges or appear as a witness against the other for the collision with the poor dog.
It shouldn’t stop them taking action for the close pass and reversing though.
Not the brightest if they
Not the brightest if they knew their Co-worker & dog are travelling shortly behind them but still did that insane reversing manoeuvre.
I was about to make a comment
I was about to make a comment about the 4×4 drivers knowledge (or otherwise) that his mate (or otherwise) on the quad was close behind, with the intention (or otherwise) of trapping the cyclist or forcing the cyclist into a head on collision (or otherwise), but realised it might be prejudicial.
I would get this all over the Craven Herald/Yorkshire Post if the Police don’t take action.
Having said I wouldn’t watch
Having said I wouldn’t watch it, I did. I think the dog was thrown off the quad bike swerving out of the way, the dog instinctively jumped to regain its footing, unfortunately into the path of the car that caused the quad bike to leave the road. I suspect the curve in the road played a part, especially as the quad bike would have held the inside line past the cyclist.
I could only bring myself to
I could only bring myself to watch it once. I think the dog was bounced out of the quad due to it being driven at speed on uneven ground? One big bounce of the back wheels and presumably you will get thrown off the back of a quad unless you’re holding on.
Both drivers are still out there presumably doing similar things. And everyone else sees videos like this one, sees that no action is taken, and we continue on where it’s acceptable to drive like this.
bikes wrote:
I think I would get thrown off too.
Ratfink wrote:
Ah, so the old “in too much of a hurry to drive safely, but enough spare time to stop and attack a cyclist” chestnut…
That’s an appalling incident.
That’s an appalling incident. I’d suggest contacting the dog owner and showing that person the footage.
Do you think the dangerous
Do you think the dangerous driver and the dog owner know each other?
It’s hard to say, maybe,
It’s hard to say, maybe, maybe not. I don’t know what the driver said to the dog owner after the incident as an excuse either. But if I was the dog owner and saw that video, I’d be pretty angry. It’s very clear what happened from the footage. Whether or not the two people know each other, the dog owner should see the footage. It’d make for some tough talking.
Where do you begin with this?
Where do you begin with this?!
I better stop shouting “You f***ing c***” at every close pass. (Which I know I shouldn’t do, but in the moment, it’s impossible, for me).
Well done to the OP for reporting it and then taking it further. I really hope something comes out of it, but the cynic in me thinks its just a stalling tactic in the hope you’ll give up.
That was definitely a close pass. But the reversing afterwards? Holy cow!
Some people think NMOTD is making things worse for cyclists. They are almost as bad as those that commit the close passes.
I’d be tempted to put it on Facebook about the dog as has been suggested. And then hit them with the punchline at the end, that could have been me, but I’m a cyclist so it doesn’t matter about me.
Awful response by the police.
Awful response by the police.
The ‘watch out’ wasn’t a contributory factor, but a warning that their driving was dangerous which they then went on to prove without a doubt that they need some serious re-training in how to drive.
Taking this to the PCC is a
Taking this to the PCC is a waste of time, he should be making an appeal to a superior officer. Mind you, I already suspect that the driver is a member of the same lodge as the investigating officer.
If a driver can be triggered to do something so dangerous by a simple warning shout, then they are not mentally capable of driving safely and should be removed from the road.
As for shouting “Watch out” when the driver was clearly not taking care around a vulnerable road user and saying it was road rage; literally incredible. What was he supposed to do, ring his bell?
After trying several versions of the registration, it turns out to be MM18VDP, so if anyone sees it, make sure to stay well clear and under no circumstances drag your pedal along the bodywork or kick a door panel.
Taking this to the PCC is a
Taking this to the PCC is a waste of time, he should be making an appeal to a superior officer
The latter is a waste of time as well, but Lancashire PCC actually advertises : if you have reported something to the police and are dissatisfied with the response, write to the PCC. I have loads of ‘no response at all’ so I sent some in for a laugh. After 3 weeks I received the ‘we apologise for the delay, we’ll look iinto it’ letter:
I have forwarded your concerns onto a member of the Safer Roads team to look into further and provide me with some feedback. I will provide you with an update when I have received a response
This response will simply be a relaying of whatever ridiculous lies the police have conjured up.
Given the disparity in
Given the disparity in response from various police forces, with some seemingly wilfully ignoring close passes, I wonder if badgering Cyling UK to take this on – a few well placed prosecutions of chief constables for Misconduct in Public office (max sentence life imprisonment) might motivate them.
I am wondering if having a
I am wondering if having a kitty or getting a bulk enquiry account with AskMID.com would be worth it.
If you pay a tenner you can get the insurance details for MM18VDP and then call their insurer and report the incident. Not sure how much difference it would make other than possibly leading to them highering their premiums or not insuring them in the future.
Might be interesting to highlight to the insurance company how one of their customers drives.
i do wonder if there is money
i do wonder if there is money in a business bringing private prosecutions for this sort of stuff.
Where there’s blame…
Where there’s blame…
I don’t think i’d feel happy about a Saul Goodman representing me but at the same time I do feel like the response from the police is enough to illicit me seeking out legal help.
whtefram wrote:
AskMID.com should be used with care.
The free insurance check is only for owners or drivers of said vehicle and the paid service is only if you have suffered loss in an ‘accident’. You could find yourself in legal trouble if it’s used for other purposes although I think this is unlikely.
I have a friend who uses it when reporting incidents to the Police if there is no tax or MOT.
Statement to Police; “This vehicle has no MOT or tax and so I assume it has no insurance as well but I do not have access to that information so I’m sure you will check for yourselves.”
Definitely a friend though obviously as I would never dream of being that sneaky! Ahem.
Yes, from a legal standpoint
Yes, from a legal standpoint the rider in the video would need to submit the request for the info as he is the cyclist involved in the incident.
This is the terms of use:
“I confirm that I am a person or body corporate resident in the United Kingdom claiming to be entitled to compensation in respect of any loss or injury resulting from an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the above UK vehicle within the last seven years. I understand that it is an offence to wrongfully obtain information of this nature without reasonable cause and if I fail to provide true reasons for requiring information I may be committing an offence of unlawfully obtaining data contrary to section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018. I also hereby confirm that the information provided will not be used for any purposes unrelated to the purposes of this enquiry. I agree that my receipt of such information will be subject to the Terms of Use as stated on this website.”
To clarify you can check if a car is on the MID without needing to submit any info it’s the actual insurer of the reg that requires you to enter name and email address.
There has not been a loss or injury AFAIK but mental health issues arising from seeing the aftermath of a dog getting ran over could well be likely depending on the person.
Unbelievable response from N
Unbelievable response from N Y police!
This is one of the few ones I
This is one of the few ones I will not watch. However, get it to the RSPCA and the newspapers if the Police don’t want to do anything. The first might actually prosecute this, you never know, but if there is anything the Public hate, it is un-neccesary injury to animals. So get the publicity out there.
Quite incredible response
Quite incredible response from the police in this incident.
I sent some footage of three
I sent some footage of three close passes to NY Police last week and got an email saying ‘positive action’. Now we all know that means a letter, or a course, or maybe[not] points etc. The thing is the footage I sent, close passes with one at high speed, are no way near as bad as some nutter reversing at high speed in order to try and get you, let alone force another vehicle off the road and kill a dog. This shows that the procedure for evaluating footage has too much noise. Different people should not give wildly different outcomes if a proper process is followed. It really does make me think that whoever makes these decisions, or a least some of those who do, are not fit for work of any kind.
Agree but maybe you’ve some
Agree but maybe you’ve some false expectations? There are many things in the UK connected with road safety – or actually just “policing” full stop – which end up delivering a such a range of outcomes the process seems amateurish. Note – that’s not to say that those delivering it are incompetent.
Editorialising, I think at a higher level this reflects not just the actual priority given to these officially rather than the rhetoric (“delivering safer streets” / “prioritising walking and wheeling”). It’s in the broader UK culture. It’s not just “wooliness” – the UK can certainly produce world-ranking rule-obsessed officious jobsworths. We seem addicted to the model of “plucky individual / local groups” snatching a small victory though, rather than the more prosaic “getting efficient bureaucracy (if that isn’t a contradiction in terms) to achieve clearly specifed tasks as standard”. Yet we don’t expect that approach with motor transport (there is the odd exception).
Utterly appalling behaviour.
Utterly appalling behaviour.
I’d be willing to crowdfund a prosecution for dangerous driving or article 170 violation which would force the CPS to take over the case and prosecute the driver.
Then make a formal complaint asking it to be referred the police professional standards body for both the PC and their supervisors.
(disclaimer that’s how it works in my head)
Secret_squirrel wrote:
not sure why the RSPCA can’t prosecute this, after all they seem able to bring their own prosecutions if a footballer kicks a cat, so why does killing a dog in a fit of rage not cross their threshold?
wycombewheeler wrote:
The rage wasn’t directed at the dog, so the injury wasn’t intentional. The police should deal with this, not the RSPCA.
I hate to say this but give
I hate to say this but give it to the Daily Heil website.
Whilst there will be inevitably some loons who will suggest the cyclists actions killed the dog, there’s also a decent possibility that one of their psychotic readership will track down the driver……
Secret_squirrel wrote:
They’ll pick this up the second they spot it. They love cycling related stories because they generate clicks with little effort, and they can just slap a “who was at fault” headline on it.
Someone should forward it to them since this was actually help us get justice for the dog and cyclist if it gains media attention, regardless of the spin they put on it.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Or the Sun; they seem to have suddenly developed an interest in the safety of cyclists
“SILLY CYCLING Watch as cyclist with no helmet clings to HGV but falls off in front of traffic”
It’s even got a helmet survey!
“Sun Poll Do YOU wear a helmet when cycling?
Yep, safety first
No, I really should
Can’t peddle (sic) to save my life”
I wasn’t able to take part as none of the options made any sense.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/19331585/watch-as-cyclist-with-no-helmet-clings-to-hgv/
Personally I’d pick the last
Personally I’d pick the last option – sales isn’t really my thing.
eburtthebike wrote:
The article says the following
and yet the cyclist fell onto his hands and knees – his head went nowhere near the road…
Nobody, but NOBODY should be
Nobody, but NOBODY should be clinging to an HGV without the protection of a cycle helmet.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Fixed it 😀
Not quite – safety first, if
Not quite – safety first, if it saves one life:
Any mode of transport, any time.
eburtthebike wrote:
Although they do seem to be back on form with
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19344480/outraged-neighbours-house-demolished-bike-path/
Looking at this again, I
Looking at this again, I think both of these drivers are as bad as each other. The quad rider is not without fault. That dog should have been restrained on the vehicle as advised in the highway code rule 57. It needs a licence plate to be legal for use on the road, so probably uninsured too. They were travelling far too quickly for that blind bend.
As for the car driver, well, I don’t see how that wouldn’t pass the threshold for dangerous driving.
The only thing I can think is the quad rider and driver are known to each other and the police have decided that the harm caused to the dog would be seen as a mitigation in any court case. Maybe they think they’ve had punishment enough and will have learnt a lesson? I would prefer they leave that decision to a court.
Exactly what I was thinking
Exactly what I was thinking on rewatching. Off to the same job – gaffer in vehicle, worker and dog on the quad. Maybe even relatives?
Looking at this as charitably as I can it could be police saying “provocation by cyclist, ‘country standard’ driving gets a pass then it’s a really bad day for the drivers, plus no other witnesses. NFA”.
F**k off… That police
F**k off… That police response is beyond a joke. I’m relieved that the cyclist has taken further, that’s an absolute piss take.
It’s clear for all to see if it wasn’t for the innocent dogs demise, it would have been someone else under those wheels.
I’d push this as far as I could, local MP, local press… The idea that the cyclist is to blame because they said ‘watch out’… Literally f**k off.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
^all of this.
Do NYP say a driver caused Road Rage if they’ve sounded their horn in response to dangerous driving? Thought not.
F**k all the way off. Twice.
Could be one of Ashley Neal’s
Could be one of Ashley Neal’s friendly toots just to let cyclists know they’re there though…
It strikes me that exactly
It strikes me that exactly the same thing could have happened to the dog if a vehicle had been simply driving down the road – and surprising that it hadn’t already happened if that was the routine way of driving the quad with the dog. Really strange and reckless behaviour by both the car driver and the quad driver.
from my observations most
from my observations most working sheep dogs are very good at being on the back of quad bikes jumping on and off as required, I think the way it jumps off is another indicator that the 2 drivers know each other as I think the dog is familiar with the car and its driver.
I think the range of
I think the range of interpretations here demonstrate that perhaps one should not jump to conclusions. Another interpretation is that the cyclist’s presence was entirely coincidental, the two guys were hurrying off somewhere, the car driver suddenly realised he had forgotten something and was going back for it, meanwhile the quad driver did not know about that and was doing his own hurrying on.
I’m not claiming that’s the real situation, merely pointing out the possibilities, and if it came to a court case, that would likely be the driver’s defence, so I can understand this as a valid reason for not prosecuting.
Except that even if that was
Except that even if that was the case, it still wouldn’t justify reversing at speed for some distance like that – it would still be clearly dangerous driving.
Yes, but without evidence of
Yes, but without evidence of malicious intent, on a small country road, it won’t be taken further. That’s the reality.
That’s not the same as it
That’s not the same as it being a valid reason, though – it just means that they’re refusing to prosecute dangerous driving despite there being no valid reason.
The accident was mainly
The accident was mainly caused by the quad going too fast round the bend, and when he saw the car he had to swerve and brake, the dog jumped off as he could not have stayed on the quad in those circumstances regardless of how agile and skillful be might be. If the car had been coming down the road forwards, the dog would have suffered the same fate anyway (and the car would have probably been going somewhat faster).
Both vehicles were on a
Both vehicles were on a single track road, both driving at more than a speed that represented half their stopping distance based on their vision, so both are culpable. The driver was reversing assuming nobody else was on the road, they clearly would have had limited visibility and were focused on
their preythe cyclist. I think the driver did brake a bit before the collision with the dog (lights not easy to see on the footage), but only as an evading manouvre and the car then dips noticably, presumably due to an emergency stop in response to the unknown object that was hit (I doubt that the driver would have seen the dog at that point due to the high rear unless they caught a glimpse out of a side mirror).I tried Googling around to see if typical car brakes were as effective in reverse – brakes are typically designed to provide the majority of braking effort to the front wheels and I find it unlikely that that arrangement will have been changed in reverse, even with electronic magic, so in the event of an emergency stop, the front wheels are likely to lock up early, ABS engaging and the rear brakes will have a lower braking capacity. Together with odd handling, and poor rear visibility, I suspect the safe reversing speed of a car is a lot lower than what was being demonstrated, unsuccessfully.
But the driver was going
But the driver was going forwards before he passed the cyclist. I’m not an accident investigator but I’d say the causes were:
1.a The driver suddenly stopping and reversing at speed in a narrow lane, round corners.
1.b. The most reasonable explanation for which is he was trying to reach the cyclist.
1.c It appears this was in reaction to the cyclist shouting as the driver passed him.
1.d The cyclist shouted because he felt the driver passed closely at a greater speed than was safe – which the video seems to confirm.
2.a The rider of the quad bike came round the bend at a speed which may have meant they did not have sufficient view ahead for safety – this isn’t clear.
2.b The quad bike rider may not have been expecting any oncoming traffic. This could be either because it was rare here, or if they knew that the driver was in front because they didn’t think it was likely anyone would have passed the driver since the road was narrow. Alternatively or in addition they may have been trying to catch up with the driver.
2.c It’s not clear why the quad bike was so far to the left – especially if the rider thought there was no chance of oncoming traffic. Had they been further right they would have had a better view round the bend.
2.d As it was the quad bike was able to avoid both the cyclist and then the reversing car – the latter possibly due to being positioned far left.
2.e The dog fell / jumped off due to the sudden swerve by the quad bike.
I think we can safely say that #1.a is the biggie here and that only happened because after 1.d the driver chose an aggressive course of action. After that they were ignoring any safe driving considerations. The quad bike rider may not have been riding sensibly or possibly even safely but *in this situation* had the car not been reversing at speed (e.g. even if it had been sat there) the probability of an accident would have been much less.
You are Mr Loophole and ICMFP
You are Mr Loophole and ICMFP.
The Partygate tone from the top to bend the truth so one key individual always gets off has been set for over two years now: lie after lie, excuse after excuse, interspersed with layers of evidence highlighting the lies or why two things claimed cannot be simultaneously true, each new lie / distortion layered on top of the last, and then more evidence to contradict.
Are you really trying to find excuses for him for doing this long high speed reverse?
There were no parties…
It makes me weep to see this
It makes me weep to see this sort of ****ing nonsense. I merely pointed out that without any proof of intent to cause harm to the cyclist, all you have in court is careless reversing which would get a minimal penalty and the driver going away laughing. So he ran over a dog that jumped right in front of him – sorry, but drivers don’t get penalised for driving over dogs that jump out right in front of them. So, my opinion is, the time and money would be better spent on close pass drivers who normally get away scot free.
And you ask what the quad driver did wrong? Like going so fast round a corner that in the event of having to take avoiding action of any sort, the dog might fall of in front of a vehicle going the other way? Try growing a few brain cells.
Didn’t this driver make a
Didn’t this driver make a close pass at the start though, that’s how it all began?
Knowing as I write this the
Knowing as I write this the baying mob will rise up with cries of traitor, the fact is that on a narrow road there won’t be 1.5m of even 1m of space available. In such cases the car driver should slow and move over – which he did. I agree that he didn’t slow enough, but it’s not a slam dunk that he would get a penalty if taken up for it.
The fact that the rider was
The fact that the rider was upset by the speed of the pass is actually a clue to the courts that the speed was inappropriate.
I ride with groups on roads similar to this, and you soon get to recognise the three basic types of passes, the considerate, the incompetent and the malicious. The incompetent would not react so badly to being called out, they realise as they do something that it was not ideal, they just don’t always have the skillset to realise what they did wrong – they might stop and be aggrieved that there was no room so what were they supposed to do, and when you suggest slowing down might be cross, but the idea that an incompetent driver would attempt to chase down a cyclist doesn’t compute. The whole scenario here screams malicious, and while the pass on its own might not merit a talking to, the fact that the driver was enraged by a reaction to his own poor decision making speaks volumes and that is what makes it actionable.
FWIW, I would not have reported the initial close pass on its own, regardless of it being possibly malicious, because if that was my standard, I’d be reporting several drivers per ride. It needs some other factor, like a tirade of abuse when they are aggrieved at my correct riding.
You construct a scenario that
You construct a scenario that can fit the observable facts. But there are various other scenarios that can fit the facts. Unless it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that your scenario was the actual scenario, it means nothing. The driver can assert another scenario that also fits the facts, for example, he could claim that the cyclist made a rude gesture and he wanted to speak to him and reprimand him for it , and had no intention of causing him any harm. In all this, in spite of what others want to believe, I’m not saying that the driver was not at fault, I’m simply saying that it’s not as clear cut that the driver would get a penalty as severe as everyone else here seems to think. That’s my opinion. Having an echo chamber where everyone sings the same song might make you all feel warm inside, but it doesn’t create facts.
Ah, you are falling for the
Ah, you are falling for the layman’s interpretation of beyond reasonable doubt which imagines that any old nonsense must be completely disproved. The key word is reasonable. So if the scenario is reasonable, the jury (and magistrates are effectively a jury of peers) are entitled to conclude that a scenario occurred. That others can construct other scenarios does not compel them to disprove the alternative.
So in this case, you might imagine other scenarios for the man reversing, but you are introducing unreasonable suggestions, and of course wanting to remonstrate with someone does not entitle someone to drive what was shown to be as a matter of fact, due to the resulting events, dangerously.
You already to be confusing
You already to be confusing the requirement of proof for criminal cases (such as malicious intent to cause injury) where the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and other cases where the requirement is on the balance of probabilities. There is a world of difference between “reasonable” as you describe it where you indicate this to indicate the balance of probabilities and “reasonable doubt” where if there is a reasonable level of doubt the charge is not proved. In this case if there is reasonable doubt that the driver intended to cause injury, then the case is not proved. And if all you have is speculation that he intended to cause injury, then ipso facto, there is reasonable doubt that he had such intent.
There you go, inventing stuff
There you go, inventing stuff again, having previously complained about people inventing facts. Where did intent to cause injury come in – in my post I said that wanting to remonstrate with someone doesn’t entitle them to reverse as they did.
Now, is it unreasonable to surmise the driver was chasing the cyclist – clearly the police considered that was the case, so it is not just my interpretation. He might claim he was rushing to turn off a kettle he realised he had left on. Remonstrating is not causing injury, it is a long word for having a moan. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the wild reversing was so he could apologise, so unless the driver could come up with a plausible reason to explain his driving, the magistrates would be entirely entitled to draw their own conclusions from what they saw on the video.
But you seem to have missed the point, you are allowed to have doubts, just not reasonable doubts. So, yes, you cannot be absolutely certain what is in the driver’s mind, but any reasonable person would conclude that the driving was instigated by the interaction with the cyclist and he was chasing the cyclist. You can jump through hoops to come up with other explanations, but given the video, they are going to be pretty implausible and regardless, there is nothing that justifies high speed reversing, even if there were some other justification attempted.
Still, you are entitled to your opinions, as I am entitled to think very little of them.
It’s rather strange that you
It’s rather strange that you think you should comment on my posts and expect me to not continue along the same lines as which I started – which I did. Anyway, this is getting boring.
He could claim lots of things
He could claim lots of things but he would need evidence to support this. Does he have a dash cam to show this gesture ?
Presumably you have read stories of cyclists being killed or injured where the driver says they thought it was a deer which wasn’t accepted as a scenario.
And the response to the supposed gesture needs to be proportionate and legal.
JimM777 wrote:
He was driving too close, too
He was driving too close, too fast for the conditions, met rather than passed the cyclist, got a reaction from the cyclist and then the red mist descended, he selected reverse with some level of malicious intent towards the cyclist.
He’d probably passed quad bike man a few minutes before and it was only running him off the road and running over the dog that stopped him in his tracks. We’ll never know what he was intending to do, had he managed to catch up to the cyclist.
We’ve even seen events distorted on this thread such that quad man should have anticipated the possibility of a fast-reversing rage rover coming around the corner.
perhaps it’s a bit free and easy quadding around the lanes with a loose dog on the back – just another sacrifice we’ve all had to make for cars.
Country folk can sometimes be
Country folk can sometimes be proprietary about their area – because they’re more actively involved with it or because they actually own it. (Add your disclaimers ad lib eg “the poor had no lawyers” in Scotland at least http://www.andywightman.com/poor-had-no-lawyers
).
There is – for better or worse – some more “relaxed” or nonstandard driving by urban standards. So all kinds of vehicles or as here dog on back of quad bike not in a cage. That is all debatable (I’ve no settled opinion). However I’m pretty sure the car driver here and any pals would break out their shotguns if you whizzed past their horse on a bike / in a car, then chased after them.
Apart from narrow busy A-roads I can’t think of any problems I’ve had cycling in the countyside. I bet people are pleased I’ve not come in a car to run over their sheep / get stuck in their drystone wall.
‘There is – for better or
‘There is – for better or worse -‘…Worse, no doubt about it:
To add to the anecdata I could offer:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-42661262
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-31484661
Until recently Google street view showed an example of ‘relaxed’ driving as a Land Rover (having exited from a nearby farm) veered way over the centre line very close to where Craig Armitage was sadly killed.
JimM777 wrote:
Proving an offence of careless or dangerous driving does not require the prosecution showing the driver had “malicious intent,” whatever that is.
You may wish to read up on the law before getting in a motor vehicle again.
Exactly. Indeed, it doesn’t
Exactly. Indeed, it doesn’t even require them to have specifically endangered anyone – only that there was the potential for it to cause danger. Even if the quad bike had not been there at all, it would still have been an offence of dangerous driving.
TBF, I think what Jim is
TBF, I think what Jim is saying is that driving that simply shows the features of an offence without the context of other factors isn’t likely to set the machinery of justice in motion, as we often see. Clearly though, that is not the case in this instance – but given that there are several aggravating factors, including the death of a dog, the lack of any action in this case is concerning.
Simon_MacMichael wrote:
You may wish to read comments without your blinkers on before you reply to them
Nowhere did I say or even imply that malicious intent was necessary for a prosecution for dangerous driving. I was merely pointing out that of the thousands of instances where there is evidence of dangerous driving, only a fraction of them progress to prosecution. That’s the reality.
JimM777 wrote:
That’s a plausible interpretation, but the police aren’t using it – instead they’re claiming that the insane reversing is a road rage response, but that it was a natural result of the cyclist shouting “watch out” and thus not something they can deal with.
Agreed that the police stance
Agreed that the police stance was ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean that it would be the defence’s argument in a court case.
JimM777 wrote:
If I had my way, the defence would have trouble coming up with an argument.
First question for a careless driving charge – would that driving be an insta-fail during a driving test? Yes.
Second question for a dangerous driving charge – does driving in reverse at high speed compromise control of the vehicle? Yes.
Bonus question for a driving ban – did someone or something get hit as a result of the driving? Yes.
JimM777 wrote:
You didn’t write what you meant but I think you got it right. Although it looks like we’ve recently had a (partial?) contrarian clearout I’m not seeing anyone who thinks that this was anything other than dangerous / reckless. That includes you I suspect! I agree there are always excuses and for driving these seem to be taken at face value rather more than in other cases. If this did get to court no doubt we’d see some creative lawyering by the defence.
Still bothers me that the police did nothing other than blame the cyclist. I know it’s paranoid thought but a couple of these have had the feel of “report something to the police and rather than try to track down the absent (driver) they might use the reporter to fill their quota”.
EK Spinner wrote:
The dog jumps off because the quadbike has been upended.
Possibly. However I like to
Possibly. However I like to think working dogs are smarter than that, and in this case the dog was caught out by the car behaving unusually, i.e. stopping and reversing. It seems most road traffic incidents are caused by “unusual” or unpredictable behaviour, and in this case impacts dogs also.
I’m not on twitter, but is
I’m not on twitter, but is there not some way of bringing this to the red-tops’ collective attention? It’s the sort of story they love to run (“Who was in the wrong?”).
The hook for them is the obvious fallout from someone either running over their own dog in a fit of rage, or running over their mate’s dog. The only way it could be more exciting for them is if the dog had been in the process of rescuing a child from down a well at the time.
It’s on road.cc tewitter and
It’s on road.cc twitter and has been retweeted.
So I downloaded Twitter and
So I downloaded Twitter and opened an account (now I can abuse strangers! Yay!). There’s a comment from the North Yorks police complaints people that they’ve got involved as per the “online article”. Any idea which article? It’s certainly not this one!
Could be this tweet
Could be this tweet
https://twitter.com/roadcc/status/1552282247222509568
or this site news article
Or a retweet or link to this site from anywhere.
panda wrote:
All of it? Yikes!
It’s on the Suns website in
It’s on the Suns website in the motoring section.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/19346202/watch-as-crazed-driver-reverses-after-a-cyclist/
Ratfink wrote:
I wouldn’t exactly hold Mail Online up as a paragon of virtue, but at least they asked us to be put in touch with the cyclist … the S*n didn’t.
I really hope this video goes
I really hope this video goes viral, and the police are given no option other than to deal with that halfwit in the SUV. How they can realistically say there were no traffic offences commited just beggars belief!
I’ll have a stab in the dark and guess that they didn’t report running over the dog to the police. Failure to report this is in itself an offence.
The nature of his reversing was reckless and without due care, and his ultimate goal was what? To say sorry to the cyclist do you think, or was it more likely to run him off the road or assault him?
As for people saying that the dog should have been secured or in a cage; I live in the countryside and see dogs on the back of quads all the time. They’re raised from puppies doing it, and are usually happy and safe travelling like that. In the event that there’s an accident and the quad rolls, they’re safer if they can jump off than be connected to the quad.
It was also an offence. They
It was also an offence. They had no need to reverse, so they absolutely broke rule 203
nosferatu1001 wrote:
and as it is a MUST NOT, rather than should not, then presumably it is part of the legal restrictions. Or at least that is my understanding of the code. If you break a should it is not necesarily an offence, but it could be argued as part of the evidence on dangerous/careless etc. but where there is specific legislation then the words must and must not appear.
Shaun TheDiver wrote:
Not quite – you only need to report to the police if you don’t stop at the scene and give details to someone who reasonably requires them (s.170 RTA 1988). In this case the driver appears to have stopped and spoken to the quad biker who had the dog.
Alternative…and very
Alternative…and very possible… outcome: Quad driver ends up dead under wheels of SUV.
Any charges forthcoming from N. Yorks. police?
And for who?
Quad rider saved himself from
Quad rider saved himself from being hit there by totally leaving the road. Having to swerve out of the way.
Driver wasn’t looking at the rest of the road or for other road users, all he could see in his mirrors was the cyclist and I’m guessing he had violence in his mind.
Any karmic justice would have had him having the crap beaten out of him by the quad biker and owner of the dog.
Oh to be a fly on the wall
Oh to be a fly on the wall around farmer robocop’s tea table that evening as Mr. SUV & brother/cousin/son (or any combination thereof) Quad driver traded recriminations about their lost and expensive sheepdog. I expect there’d only be one party to blame and he wouldn’t have been on four wheels.
PS Emmerdale storylines are looking a bit anaemic lately, maybe drop a line to their script department?
And that’s the (so far)
And that’s the (so far) missing part of the jigsaw : the complaint from quad bike man to the police
I thought I might add a
I thought I might add a little bit here regarding prosecution in this case, emotions can sometimes lead one down the wrong path. It’s highly unlikely that the car driver or the quad driver will do similar actions in the future. They have already received a karmic penalty. The car driver will likely begrudgingly concede that is not a good idea to get into an road argument in such a manner with a cyclist. But if he were prosecuted and fined, does that actually benefit anyone? Indeed, it would be likely to push him into being yet another vehement anti cyclist – is that really what we want?
So it’s quite different to prosecuting a driver who does dangerous close passes and drives on without incurring any penalty, in such cases there is a much better argument for prosecution. That’s where taxpayer’s money should be directed.
JimM777 wrote:
You do understand that that is utter horlicks? The car driver and the quad driver will have settled their differences, and will have come to the conclusion that it was all the fault of that bl00dy cyclist…
So the next time the driver
So the next time the driver sees a cyclist, he is likely to repeat what he did the last time?
Perhaps he’s learnt his
Perhaps he’s learnt his lesson about reversing, but it doesn’t mean that he’s accepted the blame for the incident.
Worse, now it is a national story it is reasonable to expect that he has become aware of the police response, he can claim to his mates that the police agree with him that it is all the cyclist’s fault and he did nothing wrong.
JimM777 wrote:
Given how little self control he demonstrably has, I’ll be a “yes” on that.
JimM777 wrote:
Taxpayer’s money is well spent on identifying and penalising poor driving behaviour. If he has understood the nature of his mistake (emotional response to other road users), then he’ll accept the punishment and move on. If he hasn’t understood what he did wrong, then it needs to be explained to him and the appropriate punishment given so that he won’t just laugh it off and forget about it.
Also, if he subsequently gets into another argument with other road users, then his defence won’t be able to use the “previously law abiding” excuse and dismiss it as a “momentary lapse”.
There’s also the issue of his insurance premiums – do we want other drivers to be subsidising bad driving or should that piece of bad driving incur increased premiums?
I’m not seeing any clear advantage to not prosecuting him and I think that dangerous driving does need to be clamped down on whilst people are still getting injured and dying on the streets unnecessarily. Ultimately, stopping dangerous drivers is worth every penny of taxpayers’ money and will likely save healthcare/treatment spending in the long term.
Are you aware that last year,
Are you aware that last year, there were over 8000 drivers who got 12 points and yet were allowed to continue driving? Doesn’t sound like points and fines are a sure way to prevent repeat offenders.
What point are you trying to
What point are you trying to make? Are you just in the game of winning an argument on the Internet? You do seem overly keen on dancing on a pinhead. Yes, not all prosecutions are worthwhile, but trying to argue this on a case where there was a frightening chase that had a cyclist fearing for their safety, a dog was killed and another road user left the road to avoid a collision probably isn’t the context to make your case
I’m merely voicing an opinion
I’m merely voicing an opinion. You don’t like it, get over it.
You making a trolling fool of
You making a trolling fool of yourself but yes I’ll get over it. I wonder if Fido/ Bob/ Shep will?
What you are doing, in the
What you are doing, in the best-case scenario, is underestimating the ability of homo sapiens to rationalize. It is boundless. By now, the driver has almost certainly come up with a multitude of reasons that he did nothing wrong in any of this.
JimM777 wrote:
Just because a system isn’t perfect doesn’t mean that it should be abandoned and replaced with “well we think he might have learned his lesson”. Whether or not the points system is flawless has nothing to do with whether this driver should be prosecuted.
Humans voice now fitted to
Humans voice now fitted to every car: “I am sorry, Lee but your driver ID confirms you are disqualified from driving this type of vehicle.” *won’t start*
Without a proper
Without a proper investigation, it might be that this driver is sitting on 11 points – driver might not even be licensed as he might not be the owner. The response from the police hints that as they’ve seen nothing wrong, they haven’t checked to see if there is any intelligence associated with the car or owner. Without a NIP, the police haven’t tried to establish who was driving.
You miss out penalty points –
You seem very keen to minimise the driver’s culpability here. So far in your contributions to this thread, it’s been the fault of the quad biker, the cyclist, the road and maybe even the dog. Any reason why you cannot see the cause was the grossly dangerous actions of the driver?
PS Above, you miss out penalty points – 6 or (for careless driving) a max 9 would cause at least some insurance price pain and possible behaviour modification. So screw the driver’s karma, anyone who would behave the way they did is highly likely to be dangerous to cyclists for the rest of their driving career anyway.
I feel bad for the dog but I suspect it may have prevented GBH or worse on the cyclist. Shame on North Yorks police for not prosecuting.
Really? So you cherry pick
Really? So you cherry pick and ignore what I said in an earlier comment “Really strange and reckless behaviour by both the car driver and the quad driver”.
You’re entitled to disagree with my opinion that prosecuting other drivers who do dangerous close passes without any consequence would be a better use of prosecution resources, but there’s no need to misrepresent me when you do so.
What did the quad biker do
What did the quad biker do wrong, exactly?
Utter scrotum contents.
Utter scrotum contents.
Karmic penalty my arse! The twat will be down the pub getting condolences for the terrible accident that he was involved in due to some bloody entitled cyclist who thinks he owns the road, followed by any number of anecdotes about how one time some cyclists did something to break some road law (that may or may not be an actual law, but who cares, they all go through red lights and have no insurance) or cause some unforgiveable inconvenience. Then they’ll all be off home driving over the limit and holding a grudge for the next poor sod on a bicycle who triggers their rage.
Of course they should be
Of course they should be prosecuted. How else will any other driver view such an incident where there is no prosecution ?
It’s the whole raison d’etre of Inspector Kevin of another Yorkshire force to show drivers what happens when they commit these types of infraction against vulnerable road users.
Don’t read the comments on
Don’t read the comments on the daily mail’s site, even though the editorial blamed the crazed driving. At least with the video on that and the Sun’s pages, there’s some chance that his wife and kids will find out the truth of what a clock-head he is.
Curious to reflect that he’ll
Curious to reflect that he’ll be in more do-do socials-wise for harming the dog than a person.
Is this the same MM18VDP Ford
Is this the same MM18VDP Ford Kuga for sale by PentagonMotorGroup? (listed 28 Jul 2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkBdaqz-XtQ
Decent cycling-related plate
Decent cycling-related plate that (MvdP)
Car velocity killed the dog.
Car velocity killed the dog. Such a strange situation in any case, look at the driver cupping his face in his hands, someone who only seconds earlier was more than happy to perform a manoeuvre in order to leave someone’s son/father/partner injured or dead in the gutter. Sickening.
Taking away this idiots
Taking away this idiots licence for good is the only way the messgae will get across that a car cannot be used as a weapon and a weapon in the hands of an odiot is dangerous
steaders1 wrote:
I had to Google ‘odiot’
YEStotheEU.
YEStotheEU.
Not fussed.
Not fussed.
MEHtotheEU?
MEHtotheEU?
Meh/ no to the massive right
Meh/ no to the massive right-wing coup that’s been pulled off in plain sight, of which Brexit is just the start, and is now helping to fuel the types of aggression seen in the video. Ew-Kay.
Anyway, because a dog is involved, the prohibition on my watching these videos has been suspended by wife who asks, what would have happened had the man and dog not been on the road?
Tough call on the cyclist whether, having turned back, to hang around at the scene, however frosty the reception/atmos was. I had a sense of the two other men concocting a “the cyclist caused this” story between them. Dial 999 at that point for a variety of reasons, I’d have thought.
My other speculation is that we’re seeing a pretty practised behaviour on the part of the rage rover driver. Not specifically the long, high-speed reverse, but the red mist, etc that causes this reaction. Someone, probably multiple people, in a weaker position than him will have been on the receiving end for a quite a time.
EtotheUtotheR-O-P-E
EtotheUtotheR-O-P-E
Well if you are anything to
Well if you are anything to do with Spa Cycles, you’ve just lost a customer with that stupid remark.
Thought it was only
Thought it was only snowflakes who did cancel culture.
Have I lost a customer too,
Have I lost a customer too, biker phil? If you look down the thread you’ll find I’m far more strident than HarrogateSpa.
Firstly thanks to Peter for
Firstly thanks to Peter for taking the time and effort to submit the footage in the first place and then to chase it up.
Secondly it seems that not all PCCs are a waste of time if it was indeed the PCC that got this reviewed.
I look forward to reading the result of the investigation..
If it is anything like the
If it is anything like the previous time a CI got involved, they will state after review of all available CCTV, the current ruling strands AND come and make a complaint if you are hard enough.
Last one was a Chief Vagina
Last one was a Chief Vagina stubble. CI’s are a dime a dozen in comparison.
“I look forward to reading
“I look forward to reading the result of the investigation..”
Oh dear, I never imagined the outcome of the review would be this bad. Blaming the cyclist for shouting at the driver. Words fail me.
Re the PCC. I think the PCC can only determine priorities and has no say in the operational aspects of policing. If I’m right then the PCC has done all thay can getting the review done. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Hugely disappointing. Is it any wonder that more and more cyclists (and none cyclists) think it’s too dangerous to ride on our roads.
And about time too.
And about time too.
I have to wonder if this
I have to wonder if this decision would have ever been changed if the media hadn’t kicked up a fuss over this. The Daily Mail did pick this up and publicise it a few days after NMOTD.
According to the chief
According to the chief inspector, the review concluded that “the initial decision was wrong and that an investigation is in fact required.”
I have seen these ‘shut this complaint down with a pretend investigation’ dodge before. I think that the ‘review’ will result in no action whatsoever against anybody, but there will be some bollocks about lessons being learned for the future. I await being corrected for undue pessimism- after the ‘result’ has been released
wtjs wrote:
Pretty impressive prescience from me a year ago. Pretend investigation by the PCC, resulting in support of the original police decision. Blaming the victim because shouting ‘watch out’ is road rage. If you’re not all disgusted, although not surprised, by the police and PCC, you should be!
Damn, and at the time I
Damn, and at the time I thought you were a little too cynical.
TBH I thought this might get somewhere mostly because of the dog, not the cyclist. Not even that.
Looks like your findings about the pointlessness of PCCs and the hopelessness of expecting the police to police themselves are pretty general sadly.
Looks like your findings
Looks like your findings about the pointlessness of PCCs and the hopelessness of expecting the police to police themselves are pretty general sadly
The utter stupidity of responses by the police themselves and the PCC to complaints about the police may be imagined even if you have not experienced it yourself. I have mentioned previously such a complaint where the police claimed that they had to have confirmatory video (needless to say, my video was perfect) from the offending vehicle, but there was none so they couldn’t do anything
wtjs wrote:
You called that right, sadly.
Touche wtjs, touche.
Touche wtjs, touche.
Any further news on this –
Any further news on this – one of the most concerning stories of driver behaviour we’ve had in a while?
I’ve had it on good authority
I’ve had it on good authority that the cyclist is due in crown court next month, facing road rage charges.
Additionaly, the cyclist is now fighting two civil claims, one from the quad driver, who is looking to recover damages relating to the death of the dog. The driver of the 4×4 is also claiming compensation for the mental anguish of being forced to run over the dog in the first place.
All in all, on this occasion it looks as though justice will thankfully be done. B@$+A7d, rat faced, tax dodging, fetishist paedo cyclists!
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
??? Seriously??
Oh I sincerely hope not!
Oh I sincerely hope not!
But as my old mother always says, ‘many a true word is spoken in jest’
(No subject)
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
How on earth can the cyclist be held responsible for the death of the dog?
If you recall JRW’s earlier
If you recall JRW’s earlier comments in this thread, I think you will conclude he is being ironic here.
I really hope you are right.
I really hope you are right. Sad indictment of our justice system that I wasn’t sure.
I came to the same conclusion
I came to the same conclusion although it did take 3 reads of the post. The last sentence gives it away I think.
(Also aren’t all the criminal courts barely functioning so ‘next month’ is not going to be true)
Correct
Correct
Sriracha wrote:
Maybe I need to recalibrate my irony meter. It seemed entirely believable because a civil case can be brought for almost anything.
They almost hooked me too!
They almost hooked me too! Particularly because another Jim was on here with a counterintuitive take on this…
Short answer – because….
Short answer – because…. cyclist, innit?
In all seriousness, I’d imagine that if the quad driver did look to make a claim, the cyclist would be named as a contributory factor. Utterly ridiculous I know, but the facts remain the only reason the 4×4 was driving the way it was, was because the cyclist was fleeing the scene.
The only reason the 4×4 was wanting to – seemingly – mow down and kill the cyclist, was because the cyclist had made an inflammatory comment (as highlighted in the police response no less), so they could be (and again accordingly to the police response they actually were) considered the instigator.
From there its not beyond the realms of possibility that a proportion of blame and culpability would be deemed to rest on the cyclist. That is unlikely to happen, but what is far more likely is that the cyclist is dragged into court and made to demonstrate that they were an innocent party.
You really couldn’t make it up… although I just sort of did.
I hope the law doesn’t work
I hope the law doesn’t work that way. As I understand it, you may use your emotional state as a mitigation (e.g. I flew into a rage and lost control of myself), but I don’t think you can hold someone else materially responsible for your own lack of emotional maturity that leads to loss of life.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I offer an irony meter repair service…
Karlt wrote:
Finally! I’ve been waiting a year for it to be repaired and all I can do is keep listening to Alanis Morrissette
hawkinspeter wrote:
Finally! I’ve been waiting a year for it to be repaired and all I can do is keep listening to Alanis Morrissette— Karlt
If you find it doesn’t go off when listening to Alanis Morrissette, it doesn’t mean the meter is faulty.
Quote:
Bizarre. How does the reason (wanting to speak to the cyclist) suspend the authority of the Highway Code, and indeed the law, as regards reversing a motor vehicle. Driver could have got out and walked, no?
It seems the police are
It seems the police are blaming the cyclist for abiding by the Highway Code, which expressly stated that you should call out to other road users to let them know you are there, there is no specified form of words, but “Watch out” seems the most suitable form I can think of, polite, measured, but urgent – 66.
be considerate of other road users… … . Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by calling out
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Institutionally biased.
Institutionally biased.
staggering stuff – the police
staggering stuff – the police are tying themselves up in knots to not take any action against Mr High Speed/ long-distance reverse and to place blame on innocent parties. And why too has Mr Quad Bike / dog owner disappeared from view?
I’m not usually given to conspiracy stuff, but this all absolutely stinks – there is something pretty significant being covered up here.
David9694 wrote:
My pet theory.
4×4 driver was the farmer, & Quad rider was farmhand or relation.
Dog was 4×4 drivers, carked it, and police quietly decided that “justice” had been done.
Filthy decision in my book. Clear case of road rage and dangerous driving.
This is the sort of egregious failure to enforce the law that I’d love to follow up with a private prosecution.
Some sort of relationship
Some sort of relationship there, either pre-existing or possibly forged on the spot maybe also with money changing hands.
Unregistered quad and
Unregistered quad and unsecured dog, and also driving it fast enough that they couldn’t safely stop in time. And they might work with the driver that ran over the dog. Presumably they replaced the dog (dealing with the maimed/dead one and buying a new one filed as business expenses) and both are driving in the same ways as before having been given the thumbs up from the police.
Probably safer for the dog to
Probably safer for the dog to be unsecured as on uneven ground it can jump to safety rather than be squashed when things go wrong.
That would seem to make sense
That would seem to make sense to me when driving in bumpy or steep fields etc where the biggest risk is from tipping over. Not sure about on the road though? If the biggest risk is coming from people texting or driving straight at you in a fit of rage without looking, maybe a dog would be better off secured (or partially secured eg an open basket) so that they can stay on when you need to swerve or brake suddenly.
I’ve read that three times
I’ve read that three times and it’s still not quite sinking in.
How utterly ridiculous. Even if you were to accept that the driver just wanted a chat, there’s no need for them to reverse in such a manner. They could just turn around at the next opportunity and easily catch up with the cyclist.
For this to get lost in
For this to get lost in beaurocracy is criminal in itself – that police had the Reg. so he should’ve been prosecuted for injury to the dog and probable injury to the cyclist as they’re what he reversed at speed to do…who in the right mind does that! Guy needs banning from driving
Fucking ridiculous, shame on
Fucking ridiculous, shame on you Yorkshire Police. This stinks of Freemasonry or maybe it’s just the only legal hate crime allowed and haters will be haters.
Because nothing says “I want
Because nothing says “I want to chat” like reversing 2 tons of metal at speed towards someone who has nowhere to escape to.
I for one can’t believe that
I for one can’t believe that it would only be cyclists who are confused, disappointed, disgusted, by the police findings on this one.
Has the update of the investigation and the police response been pushed out to wider social media channels? This could be potentially very embarrassing for the boys in blue.
To blame everyone but the driver is absurd, and the line ‘just wanting to chat’ is patently ridiculous. This needs trial by media… get the pitch forks out!
Never underestimate dog
Never underestimate dog lovers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn377v8e2m0o
I don’t pretend to understand this love affair, only that it exists.
This could be potentially
This could be potentially very embarrassing for the boys in blue
I doubt if the really duff anti-cyclist forces ever experience such a sentiment! As in this case, the PCC is often just an ineffectual rubber-stamp for the police, sitting hidden away in some council office, so they can be relied upon to fail to confront police malpractice
Isn’t this exactly the type
Isn’t this exactly the type of case the All Party Cycling Group are talking about in their report? In any rational analysis by an objective person (like me for instance) this would be dangerous driving, and the fact that the cyclist shouted a warning would not be extenuating circumstances for the driver, but a clear condemnation of their attitude and hence their driving.
“According to Peter, the
“According to Peter, the blame for the motorist’s collision with the dog was pitted on the driver of the quad bike……”
Pitted on? Is that English?
EDIT: Collins dictionary:
verb
Word forms: pits, pitting or pitted
17. (transitive; often foll by against) to match in opposition, esp as antagonists
18. to mark or become marked with pits
19. (transitive) to place or bury in a pit
eburtthebike wrote:
Typo for “pinned”, maybe?
So in the view of the police,
So in the view of the police, telling someone they are drving dangerously is in fact the cause when they continue to drive dangerously.
I am baffled.
Also drivers “just wanting to speak with cyclists” often from moving vehicles driving far to closely is one of the scariest things that happen on the roads. I wonder if I barged into the police inspectors house waving a sword at him, if he would consider that “I just wanted to speak with him”
What a load of rubbish. Even
What a load of rubbish. Even IF they can’t locate the driver of the quad, they have video evidence that someone reversed at speed without due care (regardless of the reasons for doing so). That’s got to be worth a telling off letter surely..BUT no, they tell the cyclist that he caused it by shouting ‘watch out’ as the moton sped past.