Northamptonshire Police’s Chief Constable has confirmed that no further action will be taken against a Range Rover driver who struck a cyclist with their car, after CCTV footage depicting the incident was “reviewed and reassessed”. In a press conference yesterday, Police Chief Nick Adderley also suggested that the reviewed footage “captures a lot more” than the 27-second clip uploaded by the cyclist to social media.
Mat, as promised, this incident has been thoroughly reviewed. Earlier this morning I too watched all the video evidence, including local authority CCTV. The decision of the force stands and no further action will be taken. Happy to take this offline, your call? https://t.co/BA2roNWukl
— Nick Adderley (@NorthantsChief) August 9, 2022
On Sunday we reported that cyclist Mat Burnham, who posted a clip to Twitter of a motorist driving into him during a confrontation at a set of traffic lights, blasted Northants Police for what he called “victim-blaming twaddle” after he was informed that no action would be taken against the Range Rover driver because the victim placed himself “in front of the car” by dismounting his bike.
Burnham told road.cc that he believes the driver “took umbrage” at him for filtering past the stationary traffic before adopting the primary position at the junction. In the clip, after the driver sounds her horn, Mat gets off his bike and appears to shout at the motorist, who then drives into him.
Sharing a letter from Northants Police after reporting the incident, Mat said the confrontation was “confirmed as an assault” but that the motorist would not be prosecuted as the officer claimed that the driver had steered “to her right to try to avoid you”, and that the cyclist had “put himself in harm’s way”.
After the clip sparked a backlash from cyclists on social media, Northants Police’s Chief Constable Nick Adderley replied to Mat on Twitter, telling him that the incident would be “reviewed and reassessed”.
Yesterday, Adderley once again responded to the cyclist using social media, writing: “Mat, as promised, this incident has been thoroughly reviewed.
“Earlier this morning I too watched all the video evidence, including local authority CCTV. The decision of the force stands and no further action will be taken. Happy to take this offline, your call?”
For those of you not on Facebook here’s the clip of @NorthantsChief taking about the incident we’ve all been talking about pic.twitter.com/KhVZENziL6
— Richard S (@Stokesy1966) August 9, 2022
In a press conference held yesterday afternoon, the police chief elaborated on the review process and the decision not to prosecute the driver.
“The clip that has been put on social media by the individual is exactly that, a very short clip,” Adderley said, referring to Burnham’s original post.
“I thought it was right and proper, given the commentary the cyclist made, that [the incident] is reviewed and reassessed.
“We’ve done that. We’ve obtained all the CCTV evidence that was available on that road – it captures footage that happened before the clip that was shown on social media. And it captures a lot more than that clip actually depicts.
“I even reviewed it this morning [9 August]… and looked through it. I can’t go into detail because it is not right, at this stage, to go into any more detail.
“But what I will say is: If that cyclist wants to take it further, make your complaint. We will take it further and if you want to give permission for me to show all of that video footage, prior, during, and after, you give me that information – I’ll share it.”
road.cc has contacted Mat Burnham for comment.
93 thoughts on “Police chief says clip of Range Rover driver hitting cyclist with car doesn’t tell full story”
So, if I interpret correctly,
So, if I interpret correctly, the police are suggesting that the cyclist filtered but then effectively “pushed in” annoying the motorist. This therefore justifies the driver assaulting the cyclist with their car. Hmm.
I am very reluctant to filter, I know I feel aggrieved when motorcycles filter, then park themselves in front, potentially stopping other people from passing through the lights, and I know a cyclist filtering is a red rag to many motorists. Filtering makes sense if it allows you to get somewhere like an otherwise blocked empty lane or to a bike lane, but filtering that is basically overtaking needs to be used with extreme caution.
So I can quite see that the police are treating this as provocation, but it seems that if cyclists are provoked into swearing by dangerous driving, many police forces threaten action against the cyclist, but here we have the other way round and the police deem it an acceptable reaction. Hmm, again.
Pretty sure filtering on a
Pretty sure filtering on a bike is entirely legal though? Although I’m sure there are exceptions and I’m ready to learn.
My simple point is filtering
My simple point is filtering is fine and dandy if you do it without hindering the traffic you are filtering around. The point where your filtering impedes the traffic you are filtering around it isn’t really filtering.
As an example, traffic is queued behind a bus at a stop, you can see passengers milling around and choose to filter, knowing cars can’t get past due to other traffic – you’ve made good progress and not delayed anyone. That they catch up sometime later, tough.
Taking an ASL outside of London will be legitimate filtering, but stick yourself in front of a car you can expect aggrieved motorists who have not signed up to the concept of ASLs (much like motorists haven’t really signed up to the concept of 20mph areas). Unless there are a significant group of cyclists forming to be able to assert themselves, it is a brave cyclist that attempts to assert the priority granted by the ASL. Legal, following the design, but not safe considering the standards and attitudes of drivers.
Then we have a temporary traffic light system where it is obvious that there is no passing place through a single lane section. I probably would not cycle to the front of the queue because all those people I have filtered past are going to feel aggrieved at being stuck behind a queue-jumping cyclist (I might if I knew it was safe enough to cycle the wrong side of the cones or intended to dismount and walk through the lights, or at least past the red before remounting).
The simple point being: just because an action on the road is lawful, does not mean it is considerate riding.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Thats less interpretation and more utter speculation imo. There are a hundred different things that could have happened.
“Burnham told road.cc that he
“Burnham told road.cc that he believes the driver “took umbrage” at him for filtering past the stationary traffic before adopting the primary position at the junction.”
I think taking that comment and assuming that is also what the police have seen isn’t overly speculative. But yes, without all the facts…
However, without some serious confrontation having already occurred, the police are going to have a hard the convincing me that the driver was justified in barging the cyclist out of the way.
My impression from the clip
My impression from the clip is that she’s tooted at him for whatever reason, maybe some other arty-bargey, he’s got off his bike in a “WHAT?” posture (NB he’s in front of the car, we don’t see him going up to the driver’s door and being threatening – in daylight, in a busy street) and then she, deciding she’s bitten off more than she wants to chew, moves off, pulling to her right, but striking him in the process. That has to be bad driving, surely?
It comes back to that odd case this week from scotland with the boyfriend / girlfriend on the farm track – driving and moments of stress and anger don’t mix.
Also puts me in mind of an incident a few years ago in a very busy Tesco car park, a worker was trying to direct the traffic out – I had a clear, 90 degree view of this Merc driver driving and looking straight ahead and striking her. I spoke to the police, to the worker saying what I’d seen – no action, unless it was malicious. It was plain callous. I think they paid him a visit, but that was all – I like to think of a copper marching up to his house in full view of the neighbours, feeble though that is.
We each press our advantage –
We each press our advantage – cars are faster, but rapidly accumulate at intersections. We are compact and relatively slow, but consistent. When they’re stopped, we pass them, when we’re all moving along freely they pass us – seems fair.
So what was first submitted ?
So what was first submitted ? I have yet to come across a force where they don’t ask for footage before and after.
Why was additional cctv required? And are they going to do this as standard for every dashcam clip submitted ? If not, why not?
It was reported as an assault
It was reported as an assault so they’re going to source other evidence and possibly speak to the driver.
Had it been submitted through Operation Snap as a road traffic offence then, as you say, a single video with before and after footage should suffice to lead to a prosecution but the video as we’ve seen it would be insufficient to lead to a prosecution.
My guess is there’s
My guess is there’s potentially something that kicked off beforehand and that the police believe that the driver was fearful of the cyclist.
Just to be clear – if I’m going to play baseball and I get in to an argument with somebody I’m allowed to use the baseball bat as a weapon if I feel threatened? Or is that rule only for cars?
I think you can. It sounds
I think you can. It sounds like if you were cycling to baseball, and a car driver agressively sounded their horn, drove close to you and put you in fear of your safety, you could use that baseball bat on their car to scare them off.
Police Chief appears to be
Police Chief appears to be digging a deep hole… I wonder whether it will end up being for himself?
I doubt that very much. I
I doubt that very much. I suspect the nature of this means its charge them both or charge neither to show even handedness. This argument would be he’s exceeded his public duty by simply being involved in this incident, as its well below his pay grade.
I suspect this is a storm in a teacup from his POV.
I am struggling to understand
I am struggling to understand what could have been done before or afterward that clip that would explain away why hitting someone with your car (even if it was accidental) isn’t an issue
Exactly. I was under the
Exactly. I was under the impression that responses in a self-defence context had to be reasonable and proportionate – so if someone starts shoving and hitting you, and you beat them up, then you wont have any trouble convincing the police that your actions were reasonable. But of someone starts shoving and hitting you, and you stab them 150 times, you might have a slightly harder time explaining that.
If Mat had actully done something previous to the clip so that ramming him with a Range Rover is a reasonable and proportionate response, the Police wouldn’t be trying to humiliate him on Twitter, they’d be arresting him.
Only that isn’t “ramming” is
Only that isn’t “ramming” is it? Taking the clip at face value, it looks to be an atrocious bit of driving and would be deserving of serious.punishmemt but ram still isn’t a verb I would consider using to describe it. Taking the opposing position this time, if there has been something else going on that we don’t see that genuinely puts the driver in immediate fear for their safety then clipping the bike in an attempt to get away is arguably proportionate and reasonable if it can’t easily be avoided. I am not saying that something else has gone on, but the CC certainly seems to believe he has pretty conclusive evidence it did. Surely it would be extremely stupid of him to state this if it were not the case as it would be simple to refute by releasing the full video / CCTV?
The cyclist is stood
The cyclist is stood stationary on the opposite side of his bike to the vehicle (so as far away from it as he could be, with an object in between) apparently holding it with his hands, and the driver is in the vehicle, fitted with windows, doors and locks.
I fail to see what immediate fear or danger the driver could be in at all.
I want to be very clear here,
I want to be very clear here, I have no idea what did or didn’t occur and I am not willing to speculate but if you honestly think that the CC would come out on social media and a press conference and lie about the full encounter being different to the short clip shown when all that would be needed to fatally expose his untruths would be for the cyclist to ask him to release all the footage then you must believe CC Adderley is both corrupt and stupid? I don’t.
LeadenSkies wrote:
I don’t either. However, I think it’s perfectly possible that he has found something in the video that the cyclist has done wrong and is hoping that he can bluff the cyclist into not continuing to press the case for fear that he might get in trouble, and therefore avoid the force having to admit it made a mistake in the first place (bear in mind the original decision not to charge was made without any of the CCTV footage the chief constable has now viewed). It is perfectly clear to everybody except the troll that an offence was committed by the driver, the original officer even admitted this himself, “there is an assault there”; if an offence was also committed by the cyclist, then by all means charge him as well, police officers should not be playing silly games of “they are but what are you?” The CC should have come out and given a proper clear explanation of the force’s rationale not to charge, not made nudge and a wink statements as he has done.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I don’t either. However, I think it’s perfectly possible that he has found something in the video that the cyclist has done wrong and is hoping that he can bluff the cyclist into not continuing to press the case for fear that he might get in trouble, and therefore avoid the force having to admit it made a mistake in the first place (bear in mind the original decision not to charge was made without any of the CCTV footage the chief constable has now viewed). It is perfectly clear to everybody except the troll that an offence was committed by the driver, the original officer even admitted this himself, “there is an assault there”; if an offence was also committed by the cyclist, then by all means charge him as well, police officers should not be playing silly games of “they are but what are you?” The CC should have come out and given a proper clear explanation of the force’s rationale not to charge, not made nudge and a wink statements as he has done.— LeadenSkies
If the CC is playing silly butt covering games then he is wrong to do so imho. Like you I would rather all parties were charged with the relevant offences where a reasonable chance of conviction exists. I am not at all supportive of netting off offences or other shenanigans.
I also agree (and have said as much on here) that an assault occurs. Where we differ is that I can also see the possibility (no more than that at the moment as the evidence is not conclusive either way) that that assault occurs in a situation where there is a defence indicated by the CCTV referred. It is perfectly possible in law to carry out an assault and have a defence to it that would make a conviction highly unlikely and that is not incompatible with any of the statements made so far. As I say elsewhere on here, I hope this situation is clarified by one or both sides releasing full footage of the whole incident and the build up / aftermath and Northants Police are then able to explain their decision of NFA as the current situation is in in unsatisfactory and leaves some anti-cycling trolls on social media salivating over their belief this gives them the green light to drive into any cyclists who encroach on the space in front of their car.
LeadenSkies wrote:
No, we don’t differ on that, I agree it is entirely possible. However if the cyclist did something so egregious that it justified the woman driving into him to escape then clearly he should be charged, the police shouldn’t be playing this strange game of “do you feel lucky?”
Apprantly police were ok with
Apprantly police were ok with this one;
self defence is valid if you believe you are in imminent danger, and you don’t have to wait for the other person to strike first, driver may have believed the cyclist was about to assualt them and they just wanted to escape, they did appear to be steering away from Mat and not straight into him.
Most of these internet clips are very short and come with only one persons point of view being stated, it would appear that there is additional information before and after, and I can only assume the police have sought the view of the driver and come to their conclusion on a broader set of evidence.
makadu wrote:
What concerns me is that they seem to have come to their conclusion first, and after that was questioned, they sought out further evidence.
I agree the initial response
I agree the initial response/conclusion would appear too hasty, although I can’t recall if it was stated what length of footage was submitted to the police by Mat, so difficult to say if the original investigation was improper, but following review of additional CCTV coverage I would like to think this latest position is in the public interest.
Haven’t watched the CC press response to see if he made any comment on the original investigation (i.e. was it thorough or just lucky!!)
makadu wrote:
I think it’s rightly down to Mat as to whether he wants footage of himself made public. However, if he doesn’t want it made public then we can only assume that the police made the right call.
Although, in the meantime, I
Although, in the meantime, I think that Mat should be given access to the evidence and to a full understanding of the Chief Constable’s assessment in private. Then he can assess whether or not to make the next stage public.
It seems unlikely step for a rational person to make, knowlingly to publicise and escalate a situation that shows him in bad light.
I think Mat either knows what is on the cctv and thinks that his actions are rational and he is the victim, or he was hotheaded in the moment of publishing the response and has not considered his actions.
If the former, he should be given more evidence with which to press a complaint; if the latter, he should be given the opportunity to consider his position.
GMBasix wrote:
And that’s the thing that I’ve been struggling to reconcile in my head. Why would he escalate something where he would be shown to be the one at fault?
We can only look at it from our own perspective, but if I had submitted footage where I was in any doubt about my own actions to the police and it was rejected, I can’t see any reason why I would escalate it on Social Media.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, no – we could possibly assume that there’s something there that doesn’t show him in a particularly good light. But that’s not the same as something that justifies the driver ramming him, or the police not charging the driver for it.
Of course even if the driver
Of course even if the driver believed there to be an imminent danger and hit the cycle by accident whilst trying to get away from that danger, unless she phoned the police once she felt she was safe then that would be failure to report an accident – points and a fine.
Legally only need to report
Legally only need to report within 24 hours and only if you have reason to believe damage or injury was caused. Again though the CC mentions footage after the clip – I presume he does this for a reason?
If the CC is telling porkies then I have now doubt the cyclist will publish the full footage and request CC Adderley does the same with the CCTV which presumably shows different / wider angles. At that point we can all make informed decisions on what we see.
You have to report an
You have to report an accident regardless of injury or damage, if details were not exchanged.
illegal use of horn as well.
So does this mean that when
So does this mean that when protesters glue themselves to the road, disgruntled Range Rover drivers can gently run over them?
Sriracha wrote:
They have to start gently, but once the non-driver lets out any kind of yelp, the driver is free to put their foot down, you know, for their own safety.
In certain parts of the USA,
In certain parts of the USA, this is explicitly permitted by law. Doesn’t need to be a Range Rover, either.
Quote:
Who else thinks that was going to end with “make your complaint if you think you’re hard enough“?
I think they need to release the whole footage, if it so radically changes the narrative.
Otherwise they look a bit incompetent and/or institutionally velophobic…
Way I read it it sounds like
Way I read it it sounds like they’re saying “we think you were threatening the driver / smoking crack and jumping red lights / clubbing baby seals in earlier footage and if that emerges it won’t be to your advantage”?
I was initially confident
I was initially confident that it was simply just a case of police apathy, but now I am having nagging doubts as to whether there is something more.
From the clip that was shown, and the description given by Mat, the response by the police seems entirely unwarranted. Which points towards the cyclist filtering, getting in front of the motorist, then reacting to being beeped. But when you add to that what seems to be a veiled threat by the CC to say if you want to make a complaint go ahead….. which I’m reading as “if we prosecute the driver we will be prosecuting you for an offence” its now looking like something else happened.
Was there an altercation in the run up to the incident, which could point to the police being reluctant to prosecute the motorist on the basis that the motorist was just trying to extricate themselves from a potential conflict? Or was it that there was something that happened after the clip in retaliation? Or both. We just don’t know.
If I was in that situation, given the comments made by the CC at the very least I would assume that the chance of the driver being prosecuted is now effectively zero I would be erring towards uploading the entire footage from before and after the incident online if I was confident that I had done nothing wrong to clear my name.
And social media will no doubt be asking…. if there is nothing to hide why is the footage not being shared.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Or was the driver of the Range Rover one Mrs Adderley?
brooksby wrote:
Who can tell….
From the response of Chief
From the response of Chief Constable Adderley, it certainly seems he is confident there is more to it than the clip shows. He clearly feels that the additional footage shows something that gives a clear defence to the driver. I am no lawyer but the only thing I can think that could meet this would be a defence of self defence due to an earlier confrontation or out of shot gesture / action that would be seen by a reasonable person as putting the car driver in fear of their immediate safety if they were to remain on scene. If the cyclist disagrees then it seems up to him to either agree to the release of the whole footage or offer further explanation.
I hope some further information is forthcoming as my concern is that a large number of social media posters seem to be under the impression that him blocking the carriageway is justification enough to run him down and that combined with some seeing any cyclists in front of them as blocking the road will lead to a further deterioration in cyclist / driver relations.
I’ve interacted with some of
I’ve interacted with some of those and they see no issue with driving at him as he is an obstruction. Then adding as a vulnerable user he should get out of the way.
Exactly my concern and why I
Exactly my concern and why I feel clarification of some kind is needed from the CC as either a statement of what generically could lead to a decision of NFA in this situation or preferably the release of the full footage with commentary. I feel the current situation is undesirable as it leaves the anti-cyclist lobby emboldened to dream about flattering any cyclists who dare to encroach on the space in front of their vehicle.
LeadenSkies wrote:
Seems a perfectly reasonable response to me.
mdavidford wrote:
Seems a perfectly reasonable response to me.— LeadenSkies
“You might be in the way of my motorised vehicle, but at least your bum looks nice”
Thanks, so kind! Don’t tell
Thanks, so kind! Don’t tell my wife you said that!
Bloody autocorrect! I meant to type “Flattening” of course.
Now this is the way to go!
Now this is the way to go! Creep out those lycra creeps!
…Except affecting the conversational style of Jimmy Savile will probably get you in far more trouble than driving into someone just at the moment.
So it’s “confirmed as an
So it’s “confirmed as an assault”, but Nick Adderley’s comments suggest that the cyclist has done something prior to the start of the clip that “justify” that driver committing assault (so, self-defense). I’m no legal expert, but there’s not a single thing that I can think of, that the cyclist could have done to “justify” that response, that wouldn’t also have the cyclist in police custody – we’re not talking about a few broken Highway Code rules here, the driver must have had genuine reason to fear for her life in order for such a disproportionate response as ramming him with a Range Rover to be considered “reasonable”.
Release the footage, I’m dying to see how they’ve justified this.
I know this road well and it
I know this road well and it’s not a route for cycling I would choose. This is a very busy road that’s four lanes wide and just before the lights they’re stopped at there is another set of lights that are heavily congested so there could have been a prior altercation at the first lights we haven’t been privy to.
Also, reporting it as an assault, rather than through Operation Snap, then the police are going to review all available evidence and it appears in this case that they feel there is additional information not included in Mat’s original report and video submission.
Of course, reporting it through Operation Snap is no guarantee of prosecution for had there been an earlier conflict this may have been included in the full video which would affect any decision to prosecute.
It’s a road I’d avoid too,
It’s a road I’d avoid too, but sometimes roads like this are unavoidable.
There’s a busy A road high street that I don’t like riding on, but a short section of it is the only reasonable option for getting to the supermarket.
It’s not illegal to ride on it or filter through stationary traffic to get the the front of the traffic lights. Yes it must be frustrating for a driver to have to wait behind a cyclist, but tough, they are driving in a town centre, they need to expect it to be busy and to get held up by people going about their daily lives.
They wouldn’t think twice about waiting a minute at a pedestrian traffic light crossing for pedestrians to cross the road, or a couple of minutes waiting for other cars to cross their path at a traffic light controlled junction. Being held up by a bike is just the same.
HoarseMann wrote:
Many would, though…
brooksby wrote:
I had a bizarre incident this morning. I was coming back from an early morning ride and was attempting to cross a busy main road to turn into my road (which happens to be no entry from that direction). I stopped at the
curbkerbside of the road to wait for a chance to cross and after 10-20 seconds or so, I spotted my chance as traffic on my side was clear and the other side was slowing down for the light-controlled junction. As I cycled across, I attempted to pass in front of a slowing Bristol City Council van (the vehicle in front of him had stopped) and the driver decided to squeeze the gap I was aiming for! As an experienced gap navigator, I managed to thread my way through safely and then heard the driver shouting “IT’S NO ENTRY!!” which to be fair was correct. As I cycled round to my back gate, there was another cyclist who had performed almost exactly the same maneouvre as me, though she only had to deal with the van being stationary – she made a comment about how the driver must be having a bad day already.I seem to recall at least one
I seem to recall at least one instance where a seriously injured cyclist had to door-knock for cctv footage as the police wouldn’t do it.
And yet in this case ….
Because Essex police are
Because Northants police are desparate for something that will cover their backs and justify the original decision?
They appear to have dropped lucky and found something.
I wonder whether the police spoke to the driver before coming to their original decision and heard a tale of woe and intimidation. If so why did they take her word for it, and not seek CCTV beforehand?
This one took place in
This one took place in Northamptonshire not Essex.
Thanks LS, was reading
Thanks LS, was reading Hirsute’s post and got a bit lost. Now edited.
pockstone wrote:
Well she was driving a Range Rover so was obviously telling the truth. Also, why would she bother lying to one of her friends in the police?
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/263185-highgate-hit-and-run-driver-who-left-cyclist-seriously-injured-jailed-20-months
I’m off to buy a Range Rover
I’m off to buy a Range Rover as it looks like they can do what they like and get away with it? For the sake of clarity the whole footage has to be published so that we are all clear on what we as cyclists need to avoid doing otherwise it looks like RR drivers can do what they like?
Just think how bad it would
Just think how bad it would be if the average Range Rover was reliable enough to be on the road 12 months of the year instead of having to spend weeks being fixed. Thank goodness for British engineering. I think though it’s why they are so grumpy, they’ve got to get back home before the next breakdown.
https://twitter.com
https://twitter.com/binstedman/status/1552649882858426368
Local cycling group on a ride last Sunday and confrontation with a motorist who drove over a bike before speeding off.
https://twitter.com/binstedman/status/1557005395016781824
Update on a post awhile ago on one of our group that got driven at and knocked off his bike. No further action as no independent witness = the other 6 in the group might be biased against the driver.
My experiences of Essex Police are mixed to say the least. No wonder there is scepticism about police action in regions around the country.
Judging by his twitter feed,
Judging by his twitter feed, I think the Chief Constable might have underestimated Mat. I suspect an official complaint and the full footage will be forthcoming.
Lets hope so. Publicly
Lets hope so. Publicly threatening the victim is really not a good look.
I have no trust in the Police any longer.
I think we can all have
I think we can all have confidence in Inspector Kevin, Andy Cox and Mark Hodson
There is a smidgen of hope for the general forces.
“Today’s plum. Putting the false plates on your car when you’re a drunk, disqualified driver. Only putting the plates on for someone wanted on a recall to prison “
https://twitter.com/TaffMet/status/1557362909205958657
We decided to thoroughly
We decided to thoroughly investigate the incident…but then found that the driver knew someone in the force, so we didn’t have to bother doing anything else.
Come on Mat Burnham. You’ve
Come on Mat Burnham. You’ve got a naturally sympathetic audience here. Let’s see the full footage.
Everyone is very quick to
Everyone is very quick to leap to the “Police are institutionally anti-cyclist” conclusion, because … well … based on the available evidence, they are. See also: urban 4×4 drivers conforming to stereotype.
Applying a variation on Hanlon’s razor, there is an entirely plausible explanation here, which is that the driver has poor awareness of what’s going on around them, and also poor awareness of where the corners of their vehicle are. That would be consistent with the actual collision shown in the video we *can* see – i.e. the driver has actually intended to avoid the cyclist and may actually have been surprised by the collision.
So far, I’ve kept gender out of it. The driver was female, the cyclist was male and presumably visibly angry, probably with good cause, maybe the driver doesn’t realise why, maybe they do. Either way, as a female character in “True Detective” once observed, one thing women know is this: if it comes to a physical confrontation, the man can kill her with his bare hands. Let me put it another way, if it was my wife in the car and she’d inadvertently nearly killed a cyclist who was now getting aggressive, I’d want her to get away from the situation first (without causing injury) and deal with the situation when everyone has calmed down. I reckon there’s enough on the CCTV for the police to reach the conclusion that a good defence barrister would make the case well that that was what she was doing in which case they’ve done the rational thing.
So you think your wife would
So you think your wife would have the right to start a confrontation and then use whatever violence required to get out of that confrontation?
Pretty sure that’s just assault and sexism.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Pretty sure you’re attempting to twist his point with whataboutery.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
That definitely sounds like an assault.
Whatabout what?
Whatabout what? I haven’t compared it with anything..
Edit: Oh I see you’ve been confused by the fact that they misrepresented the video as “if it was my wife in the car and she’d inadvertently nearly killed a cyclist who was now getting aggressive, I’d want her to get away from the situation first (without causing injury) and deal with the situation when everyone has calmed down.” And I’m pointing out that their example has no relevance to the actual video because that’s not what’s happened. Unless you think a *man* fiddling with the zip on his bag is threatening or that a hit and run is dealing with the situation, otherwise that’s what you call whataboutery.
No I don’t. Read the post
No I don’t. Read the post carefully.
I’m saying there’s enough to suggest a female found herself in a situation – probably of her own making, but possibly accidentally – where there was a man outside her car angry enough to dismount infront of her trapping her in. From the evidence we can see, she went full lock right as soon as the traffic in the other lane cleared and got out of there.
Yes, it could be “Oh ****, the guy I just deliberately swiped has caught up with me – I’m outtahere”, but it *could* be “I don’t know what I’ve done to make this man angry but I’m just going to drive round him and get away because I don’t want to be a statistic.”
And – dear reader – if you think cycling round a city is stressful with car drivers being dickheads, get on a running forum and see how women feel about the unwanted attention they get from men when they have the temerity to go running outside, and what sort of reaction they get when they have the audacity to react to it.
How do you know he was angry
How do you know he was angry at that point ?
She wasn’t trapped in.
OK – if we’re going full on
OK – if we’re going full on pedantry, I can’t see his face so I dont know he was angry. I can see that he got off his bike and moved infront of the car, so I can see how a jury would accept the argument in mitigation that the driver had reason to believe he was angry.
The sound isn’t brilliant, but he doesn’t seem to be recognising her and wishing her well.
At the very end of the clip, we see a car behind her in the queue, so no reverse option. There’s a kerb to the left, curbing her movement (see what I did there?) and cars flowing to her right. I’m assuming that’s because there was also a queue there preventing her moving right during the main part of the clip. Oh, and there’s a bloke infront who has got off his bike and raised his voice. You’re right – she isn’t trapped in – she could have pressed the eject button which is fitted as standard to SUVs and parachuted to safety in a different postcode.
If there were cars flowing to
If there were cars flowing to her right she must have crashed into them then.
He was already in front of the car so he didn’t go anywhere.
Claiming someone is angry suits your narrative, it’s not pedantry to ask why you claim this.
It’s a fair challenge – if
It’s a fair challenge – if you can’t believe everything in a statement, you shouldn’t believe anything in a statement. However, the end of the video looks to me like she pulled into a gap in the traffic after waiting for it to be clear. Clumsily, I’ll give you.
My narrative doesn’t need him to be angry, it only needs her to have reason to believe he is. His having pulled perpendicular infront and dismounted gets me there. It does sound like his voice is raised. Would you disagree?
Anyway, my narrative is that – on the evidence we see – a jury may be convinced by defence counsel that the driver had reason to be afraid and that the collision at the end was a scared woman looking over her shoulder to find a gap in the outside lane and clipping the bike with the front left of her car on her way past the cyclist. On that basis I can see why the police / CPS wouldn’t want to waste time on it.
Now, that’s on the evidence we can see. The police can see something else. The other part of my narrative is that they *might* have seen an accidental infringement that started it, followed by the bloke cycling after the car trying to get her to stop. His intention may have been to give a good-natured “you cut me up there, but it was an easy mistake to make, let me educate you and we can both be on our way”. They might also have seen an egregious bit of bullying by the entitled driver and a cyclist trying to get her to stop because there was a collision and her repeatedly trying to run him off the road until being stuck at the lights with nowhere to go. We don’t know, and the poster is quiet on the subject.
The police viewed the footage and dropped it; they might have done so out of laziness, corruption or incompetence, but they might also have looked at the footage and thought with heavy heart “there’s no way a jury are convicting here”, let it go. I think some people on this forum actually want it to be the former because that suits their narrative. I hope it’s the latter because I don’t think people join the police force to make the streets less safe.
Oh, and the other other part of my narrative is that my advice to my wife would still be: whether you caused it or not, and whether he’s right to be angry or not, do not engage an* angry man – get away if you can do so without running him over and let the police deal with it.
* I used the indefinite article – just for you.
panda wrote:
They’re not:
They haven’t supported that with the video, so whether or not to believe that account is open to question, but they have given an account of it.
From what I could hear, he
From what I could hear, he was asking what was wrong with his bike – after all, using the horn while stationary is illegal but often used to indicate a problem with the person in fronts vehicle.
We’re all speculating without
We’re all speculating without the missing “what did you do last summer” video.
It does look like more than just turning your bike so you can look at someone – there’s a slight step towards also and the bike’s at right angles to the car. Equally getting behind your bike is defensive as much as challenging. You’re preparing to run away if the motorist drives into you. You don’t take up a position to move towards someone to attack them by hiding behind something.
So I’d say the reality is the chap is making some kind of challenge. However he’s also alert to the reality of the situation in that he’s actually the physically vulnerable person here. As for the driver being trapped – cars aren’t tanks but a Range Rover is going in that direction. Although it has windows those are reasonably sturdy and you can wind them up. They’re surrounded by witnesses – this isn’t down a quiet back alley at night, it’s very public.
Again I’d also imagine that a lawyer could spin this either way so wouldn’t have thought the CPS would touch it. I’m pretty sure I’d have either stayed with the bike facing forwards or moved to the ke/curb (but with bike ready) if I really wanted a chat; but that’s me.
Yeah I think that’s about
Yeah I think that’s about right.
I’d be inclined to pull up with the palms open “I’m not a threat” pose (which our boy may have done – only her dashcam, if fitted, would tell us).
Panda, your advice to your
Panda, your advice to your wife, is that your advice to all women as its been suggested I (as a man) can kill them with my bare hands. Is that not suiting a narrative?
Gold medal winning olympic boxer Nicola Adams versus a disabled man with limited movement on a recumbent bike?
As others have suggested, the ‘threat’ posed surely has to be greater than the evidence we see here. Simply suggesting she may have felt threatened would open up loopholes to all kinds of malicious behaviour!
Why couldn’t they just lock
Why couldn’t they just lock the doors on their 2 tonne mobile fortress?
The idea that a man is automatically a threat, if you suspect they’re angry, and can be treated as such is a disgusting level of sexism and victim blaming.
Please also note that the car blasted the horn and then began to close in on him as he dismounted, no wonder the poor man felt threatened by such an aggressive driver.
If the police think the full
If the police think the full video tells a different story then they need to release that video and explain their reasoning.
Right now we’re in the terrible situation where half a million people are left under the impression that a cyclist dismounting is them causing an obstruction and tantamount to assault.
Also I doubt many motorists will start ramming their fellow motorists if they feel obstructed, and I doubt the Police would take it so lightly.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
And if the video shows the cyclist doing something first? How will that improve the situation? If there is something iffy beforehand best to create some some FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt) and let it turn into tomorrows virtual chip paper.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
And if the video shows the cyclist doing something first? How will that improve the situation? If there is something iffy beforehand best to create some some FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt) and let it turn into tomorrows virtual chip paper.— Car Delenda Est
If the cyclist had done something iffy first, why go to all this trouble of publicising the incident? I know I wouldn’t…
brooksby wrote:
Because he was scared and/or fuming and reacted without thinking about it too much? I happen to believe he wasnt in a calm frame of mind that day because he f-bombed a fairly innocous comment of mine on twitter. Whether he actually was or not I have no clue – but it presented that way. Interpretation is everything unfortunately.
I know when I have even a minor incident it lives in my head disproportionately for hours – sometimes even days. Sharing it (even on twitter) can be cathartic.
Whether or not actions by the
Whether or not actions by the cyclist preceeded the incident in the video, the cyclist was not at that point threatening or endangering the car driver so there is no justification for the assault. The right action there is to call the police and let them deal with the prior crime not take vigilate action and use your car as a weapon.
The only way you could justify hitting someone deliberately with your car is in the case of a car jacking or similar where you are protecting yourself. Hitting someone with a ton of metal to avoid an inconvenience is not, under any circumstances, acceptable.
One less Police Chief, one
One less Police Chief, one more pension for the tax payer… ridiculous to say there was an assault but we are not interested.
I find three things a little
I find three things a little strange:
That Mat has not published the full footage, though I have seen claims of a 3-minute version existing.
That the police cannot simply publish without needing Mat’s consent in the circumstances of the issue being made public.
The bald statement of an assault having occurred. AIUI Common Assault requires intent to cause harm; I’m not convinced of that here.
mattw wrote:
I agree, I have asked via Twitter if he could show us the fuller version but no reply. I can only assume that he is taking legal advice regarding action against the motorist and/or Northants police and has been advised not to comment or release any more footage. If this is the case a statement from him to that effect would be helpful.
According to people on here and on Twitter who know more about these things than I, the police can’t release any more of Matt’s footage without his consent and they can’t release other CCTV footage under GDPR regs as it identifies a known individual. That’s why the CC was saying if you want to progress with your complaint and ask me to release all footage I will.
Common Assault doesn’t have to be intent to cause physical harm, it can be intent to cause fear of physical harm, so it could be argued (not saying this is the case, just it could be argued) that in knocking the bike the driver wasn’t intending physically to hurt him but was intending to frighten him, which is assault. In a less equivocal example, if you were trapped in a dead-end alleyway and I drove a car towards you at high speed then braked before I hit you, I would still be guilty of assault even if it was accepted that I actually had no intention of hitting you, I still made you think it might happen and that is assault.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes, I wouldn’t take “radio silence” here as anything other than the discussion with the police has been taken offline; which is exactly what the Chief Constable offered.
This may have also attracted a bit too much attention for him, so perhaps he’s having a bit of a twitter break.
The driver appeared to be
The driver appeared to be just trying to get away from the cyclist who was deliberately blocking the roadway; the driver may even claim that they were in fear of the cyclist who was engaging in a form of road rage at the driver.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I know more about this than most people – they could release it without Matt’s consent if it was required for them to do their job (eg were you bystander xxy) – or they decided it was in the public interest to do. However they do have a general principle of limited disclosure that this probably falls under. Its also a neat way to take some of the heat out of the equation.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Which is all fair enough, though there is surely a strong argument that as both the employers of the police and those who have to abide by their decisions there is a strong public interest in knowing the justification for not prosecuting someone who drove into a cyclist. That’s not to say there may not be justification, but that the police shouldn’t be able to make such contentious decisions without justifying them. Even if they didn’t feel able to release the video, they could surely provide a written or verbal account of their thought pocess?