[base849]

I’ve followed the forums a long while, but never needed to post…

Welcoming any opinion and advice on the following:

My 11 year old son was cycling to school last Friday along a cycle route in Southend & crossed the A127 at a recognised controlled cycle crossing.  
As he does every day, he pressed the button & once he got the green he checked that the cars had stopped (I’d previously warned him to double check people actually stopped).

He said that the car in the lane closest stopped & he started to cycle across past the car stopped in lane 1 & was hit by a driver in lane 2 of this two lane 40MPH limit road that had not slowed at all- he said he simply hadn’t seen her coming at all.  There were several witnesses that agreed that the lady driving had gone through a very solidly red light at speed , passed a stationary car in lane 1 & hit the front of my son’s bike, sending him cartwheeling down the road.  One of the witnesses said that her two children had to drag my son out of the road afterwards, which she informed me traumatised them.  The Essex air ambulance was dispatched, along with paramedics & an Ambulance Operational Commander; the police were on scene quickly & shut the road for investigation & they took statements from witnesses.  

A witness called my son’s school, who in turn called us- we got there within about 15 min.  

The lady driving maintained that she had gone through on a green light & the policeman that shut the road said it would come down to my son’s statements & those of the witnesses.  

When the (white hat) traffic collision investigator arrived he quickly explained that the course of action would be determined by the severity of my son’s injuries & that they had a unit waiting at Southend A&E for a verdict.  He swiftly told me that the lady had only passed her driving test a couple of weeks ago & that he himself had knocked a child over by accident not long after passing his test.  
They had me wait on the verdict from the hospital before they would let me take his bike, as it would be evidence if there was the possibility of a fatality resulting from his injuries.   

The woman’s car had a smashed near side head light, the entire mirror assembly had been smashed off & the almost flush indicator light had been ripped out, with marks & scratches all down the side of the nearside of the car so it was a heavy impact, but thankfully my son did not make it out onto the front of that car.  That fraction of a second saved his life.  

He was also wearing a fairly new cycle helmet & that was comprehensively trashed, with scuffs all over the left hand side of it, creases where it had deformed & a tear right through the polystyrene liner on the left side. 
The paramedics, A&E doctors & the police all emphasised that it definitely prevented him suffering serious head injuries.  

It seems that the most serious injury he suffered was a broken right wrist.  He’s got an appointment to see a consultant today to find out recovery time, but mum bought a lottery ticket for the first time in 25 years.  He has bruises & cuts all over his body, a very painful chest & ribs & he couldn’t walk unaided for a couple of days.  He has been waking up at night suddenly & he asks for his door to be left open in case he needs us, but seems happy to settle himself back to sleep.  

He’s a very keen & competent skier & we’ve got a trip in just under a month, where he was going to do a week of slalom and ski cross training.  That’s so physical that I cancelled that straight away.  
He also races motocross & he’s supposed to have his first race for his championship in just over five weeks- he’s never going to be strong enough for that with a broken throttle wrist, so he scores zero for the first one at least.  
There’s also the question of what this does to his confidence cycling to & from school- we work shifts & walking takes him about 40 minutes, compared to 10 mins gentle cycling. 
He had a really good bike that he was very proud & careful with- a Specialized Sirrus 3.0, which now has scratches all over the frame & forks & so much play in the headstock that I doubt it can be repaired. I can’t find the receipt, but I’m hoping that we can just ask the driver’s insurers to repair or replace the bike until it’s usable again.  

So the positives: he’s alive, not in a coma & actually lasted a whole day of school today, where he had to walk by himself; the driver actually had insurance & didn’t leave the scene.  

Negatives: we got a call from Essex Police today & they’ve decided to offer the woman a driver improvement course.  Apparently, faced with several witness statements contrary to her own she amended it, admitting to going through an amber light.  The police mentioned again that she had only passed her driving test a couple of weeks ago & they said that she hadn’t been drinking or been on her phone.  They reasoned that the greatest benefit would be a driver’s improvement course, rather than points.  I believe that the standard would be 6 points & as a new driver she would have to retake an extended test, which I believe would be more beneficial & appropriate.  But I also believe that Essex Police know that she’s highly likely to contest this in court, costing them time for at least two of their officiers to attend.  

I’m very unhappy at the outcome & I think it is completely inappropriate, but we feel that we are up against the system.  
My aunt that retired from being a traffic cop a good twenty years ago found out about this driver improvement course outcome & rang us up tonight saying she wanted to write a letter of complaint- that in her day it would have been 6 points, end of story.  

I have been trying to call my Union’s legal team to initiate a claim for his bike & injuries, but not got through yet.  His mum’s union will also take on personal injury claims for family members, but are there other options?

I’m interested in what anyone thinks we should do?  I’m keen on not learning the hard way, having never done this before, so if anyone has experience they don’t mind sharing to avoid pitfalls, please do.
I have been really upset by the whole thing, but I do have a thick skin- if people think we need to just accept it, I’m happy to hear why.    

Topic

[HoarseMann]

yep, it’s not the norm. I had

yep, it’s not the norm. I had to do quite a lot of polite pestering.

I just can’t believe they think a driver awareness course is appropriate. If the driver really did just pass their test 2 weeks ago, they’ve literally just completed an intense period of driver training. How on earth can a ‘refresher’ course be deemed any benefit, can they really have forgotten how to drive after 2 weeks!

It makes a mockery of the 6 point limit for new drivers. People lose their licences for using a mobile phone when driving in the first 2 years, which is a serious offence, but not as bad as failing to stop (or even slow) for a pedestrian crossing.

[HoarseMann]

I’m not sure if the police

I’m not sure if the police can withdraw the offer of a driver course. I suspect they probably can if it hasn’t gone ahead yet.

[Rendel Harris]

Good result – not one I could

Good result – not one I could expect in London, where one receives notification that an NIP is being sent along with the information that this may lead to a warning letter, the offer of a course, a fine and points or court prosecution but you will not be told which of these, nor the outcome of any action, unless you are called as a witness.

[HoarseMann]

It sounded to me like the

It sounded to me like the driver course was the police’s opening gambit and there might still be time to challenge it.

When I got close passed, the police wanted to send a warning letter. I was livid! I asked to escalate and got up to an inspector, who then offered a driver course. I then spent 30mins on the phone convincing him that this warranted more than that. Eventually, it went to court, police-led careless driving and the driver got 5 points and a hefty fine.

[Rendel Harris]

Interesting, thanks. I assume

Interesting, thanks. I assume though that if the police have made the offer and it has been accepted the only sanction that will arise is on the police for not following due process, the defendant can’t then be told the police made a mistake offering you a course, even though you’ve done it we are now taking you to court, can they?

[HoarseMann]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Unfortunately, as far as I’m aware, there is no real mechanism whereby a victim can challenge a traffic penalty decision.

It’s hard to challenge a decision, but you do have the right to do so under the victims code of practice.

When considering an out-of-court disposal option, the police must ask the victim their opinion on this. If the victim is unhappy about it, then that must form part of the police’s decision making. Ultimately, the police can decide what to do, but if they don’t ask the victim and fail to consider their view or justify their actions, then they will not have followed due process and a police complaint could be raised.

[HoarseMann]

This is appalling from the

This is appalling from the police. It makes you wonder if the driver knows someone in the force. To offer a driver improvement course for this monumental failure to operate a vehicle safely, and the consequences that are every parents worst nightmare, is a dereliction of duty in my opinion.

I would try and discuss with the inspector overseeing the case the options for a charge. There is a charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. A broken wrist would meet the threshold for serious injury (GBH) and passing a car stopped on zig-zags at speed could be dangerous driving (although only momentary, it can still be considered dangerous). This would need CPS backing to proceed to court.

A lesser option would be careless driving. This can be a police led prosecution, they do not need to involve the CPS, but it will need to go to court to have a chance of the maximum 6 points (I think this warrants more than the 3 points and £100 of a FPN).

Failing that, you could contact the Essex PCC (although there’s a limit to what they might do), and also raise a complaint via IOPC (the admission of the collision investigator that he had done the same, could be seen as bias). Good luck and a speedy recovery to your son.

[Rendel Harris]

All would be good options,

All would be good options, except as I understand it the police have already offered the driver the course option; unless the driver turns that down (and if she has any sense she will grab it with both hands) I assume that some form of double jeopardy applies and she can’t be sanctioned twice for the same offence?

[wtjs]

They reasoned that the

They reasoned that the greatest benefit would be a driver’s improvement course, rather than points

Bollocks!- just like the joke online driving course which she does from home if Essex is like Lancashire. They will use any excuse they think they can get away with in order to avoid any effort. It wouldn’t have been any different if they had video proving that the light was red, they would just have changed the excuse to ‘she was distracted by something, something’ or another obvious fiction. The police are accustomed to rejecting any evidence they don’t like- such as these witness statements, but if there was just one witness saying the light was green when she crossed the line they would accept it as gospel and issue the standard monumentally insincere ‘our thoughts are with…’ 

When the police and the driver’s legal team are working together to get the driver off, justice has had it! I have shown this before, but Audi Q5 T90 JDT towing a large caravan at 50+ mph was way behind me when these lights turned red but still hammered across anyway. How much more illegal can you get?The police couldn’t dispute this so they went for the default plan: NFA by not responding at all and then refusing to tell me what the outcome was (although I knew, obviously, as I know LC’s methods well by now) for over 7 months and then claiming they were too busy to look at online incident reports

[Tom_77]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Taking the details of this case out of the equation for a second. 

Someone has been seriously injured (do the injuries warrant a serious injury title, I don’t know?), by the actions of a motorist driving without due care and attention. Is there seriously no defined charge for that? 

I’d be inclined to reach out to you local MP to make sure they are aware of this. Love to get their opinion. 

The definition for serious injury as in Causing serious injury by dangerous driving is the same as for GBH. It would be up to a jury to decide if a particular injury was serious, but typically you’d be looking at “life-changing injuries” or “significant or sustained medical treatment (for instance, intensive care or a blood transfusion)”. For injuries that don’t meet the threshold the driver could be charged with assault.

There’s no specific offence of Causing serious injury by careless driving and to Assault someone your actions have to be deliberate or reckless (i.e. dangerous).

I really can’t understand why the driver has been given a course instead of being charged with Driving Without Due Care and Attention (at the very least).

 

[Jimmy Ray Will]

Just checking my

Just checking my understanding here…

The driver drove through a red light controlling a crossing, and struck someone legally using that crossing?

Is that right?

And for that, a driver awareness course is deemed appropriate? How can anyone see that being right? Resourcing shortages have seemingly completely broken any sense of reasoned perception amongst this police force. 

Taking the details of this case out of the equation for a second. 

Someone has been seriously injured (do the injuries warrant a serious injury title, I don’t know?), by the actions of a motorist driving without due care and attention. Is there seriously no defined charge for that? 

I’d be inclined to reach out to you local MP to make sure they are aware of this. Love to get their opinion. 

[Secret_squirrel]

Seventyone wrote:

EDIT: having read your post more fully I’d go for a solicitor that specialises in these cases.

Much as it sticks in the craw to make money for ambulance chasing lawyers, this is, it seems, your only opportunity to ensure the driver doesn’t drive any more (as their insurance premiums will be so high).  

This.  I hate ambulance chaser’s having been the “victim” of one, but go after her insurers with every ounce of your ability.

[Daveyraveygravey]

srchar wrote:

What sort of dickhead turns up at a crash scene and tells the parent of a seriously-injured child that it’s not so bad because they themselves ran a child over shortly after passing their test?

Glad your boy is recovering. However, the system is very sick. Even six points sounds like a piss-take. A driver improvement course, for someone who has literally just passed their test, is a joke.

And that bit where the white hat said “the course of action would be determined by the severity of the injuries”???

The system stinks.  Drivers get away with so much, because they are drivers and everyone involved with any case is also a driver, so they are all thinking thank god it wasn’t me, mustn’t be too hard on them.

I’d complain as high as you can go with the police, and get your MP involved.  The woman should not be driving without an extended retest.  Driving should be seen as a priviledge, not a right, and she is clearly determined to wriggle out of it if she possibly can.

At least your son wasn’t too badly injured.  But I think this could drag on for you all for a long time, you may want to think long and hard about how much fight you have in you.

[Creakingcrank]

I am a parent of cycling

I am a parent of cycling children and this sort of scenario is my nightmare. I’m so sorry it happened to your son and wish him a speedy recovery. I also hope it doesn’t put him off cycling for too long.

If my understanding of your description of the collision is correct, then I think the driver’s comments about whether the lights were red, green or amber are irrelevent. It is an offence to overtake (“pass in front of the foremost part of…”) the moving or stationary vehicle nearest a crossing, regardless of the state of the lights (Highway code Rule 191, a Must rule, and The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997, Provision 24).

As many others have said below, and if you can bear the stress, I would consider getting a lawyer and pursuing a claim against the driver in the civil courts.

[Kapelmuur]

 A horrible experience for

 A horrible experience for you all, but sadly typical police reaction.

When I retired I took a job as a lollipop man, several near misses and drivers refusing to stop, including someone driving along the pavement to pass stationary vehicles, a 7 year old was clipped on the arm by a car that refused to stop.   I took statements from several witnesses but the police refused to take action.   This was in the same area where a lollipop lady had been killed and a child run over in a separate incident not so long before.

I hope you are able to achieve an appropriate conclusion.

[Author]

Replies