A road.cc reader has said that the decision of magistrates to acquit a driver filmed making a very close pass on him at speed on a careless driving charge has left him “flabbergasted.”
We featured the video, shot by Rendel Harris while out on a bike ride with his wife in southwest London, on our Near Miss of the Day series back in February this year.
Rendel updated us on the outcome of the case after attending court as a witness on Monday.
He told us that the driver “was acquitted by the magistrates on the grounds that ‘there is insufficient evidence to prove the case of careless driving’.
“The defendant relied on a number of points to make his case, amongst them that I definitely made no checks behind me whatsoever, even though you can see from my shadow on the video (and the prosecuting solicitor pointed out) that I made at least three clear headchecks prior to signalling and carefully beginning to pull across the road (something the defendant chose to characterised as ‘veering wildly into my right of way’).
“The defendant also claimed that my (admittedly fruity, but then I get like that when people try to kill me) bad language after the incident proved that I was in ‘an aggressive state of mind and probably not fit to be riding a bicycle on the public highway’.
“But here’s the real kicker,” Rendel continued. “He claimed that he was not, as I stated, at least 40 metres behind me when I began to pull out, apparently that was ‘completely untrue’ (he should have a word with Susan, who was 40 metres behind me at the time, and he was behind her), in fact I was ‘two to three metres ahead’ when I pulled out.
“Leaving aside the fact that I rather enjoy life and I’m not in the habit of attempting suicide, he admitted to the court that he was travelling at 30 mph. At 30 mph, a car covers 13 metres per second.
“As can be seen on the video, he passes me three to four seconds after I signal and start to pull out, so had I been 2/3 metres ahead of him when I pulled out, he would’ve had no alternative but to have hit me, it’s literally a physical impossibility to (allegedly) dive in front of a car going 30 mph that is 2/3 metres behind one and for the car either to stop or evade one, he would’ve had to react in 0.25 of a second to do that.
“The fact that it took him four seconds to catch up with me and make such a ridiculous close pass proves that he was shamelessly lying. Unbelievable.”
Rendel added: “Many thanks to the Metropolitan Police traffic office for bringing the prosecution, and to the prosecuting solicitor who did a very good job of presenting the evidence, why the magistrates chose to ignore it in toto is a matter for them.
“It does make one wonder if it’s actually worth sending in any evidence if this is going to be the result; I suppose I will have to invest in a rear-facing camera as well if magistrates are so incapable of judging on the clear physical evidence placed before them!”
Clearly it’s a frustrating outcome not just for Rendel and his wife, but also for the investigating officers who deemed the close pass bad enough to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service, and for the prosecutors who took the case to court; another day, and another court, and we suspect the verdict may have been different.
Here’s our original story, published on 28 February 2021 under the heading, “Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist nearly taken out by speeding driver desperate to overtake (video includes swearing).”
*WARNING: VERY STRONG LANGUAGE*
A cyclist launches into a string of expletives after he is nearly knocked down from behind by a speeding driver desperate to overtake him before he makes a right hand turn. The strong language is perhaps understandable seeing as the rider was just centimetres away from being wiped out.
Today’s near miss video was submitted by road.cc reader Rendel Harris and shows him riding along Malden Road in Worcester Park, London with his wife.
Mr Harris explained what happened next and apologised for his choice of words but said “nearly being killed brought out some of my more robust expressions”.
He said: “As I was riding along Malden Road, I prepared to move out in order to be ready for the upcoming right hand turn into Motspur Park Road.
“As can be clearly seen on the video from my shadow on the road, I made three separate head checks to ensure there was sufficient safe space for me to move out, and made a very clear hand signal.
“At this point my wife, who was approximately 50m behind me, seeing me signal, checked behind her to see if it was safe for her to start moving out as well.
“At this point the blue Peugeot was behind her; as soon as I started to move he floored the accelerator and swerved past me well in excess of the legal speed limit, missing me by a maximum of 20cm, probably much less.
“He also clearly put the oncoming car in danger as well. Sheer stupidity and spite.
“Apologies for the language, it turns out that being nearly killed brings out some of my more robust expressions.”
Mr Harris said he reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police the same day and received a prompt reply saying the driver was being sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
However, when he tried to follow up on the outcome this month he said he was told ‘no further details will be provided whether the case is active or not’.
> 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
147 thoughts on “Updated – Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist “flabbergasted” as magistrates acquit close pass driver (video includes swearing)”
This incident shows that this
This incident shows that this drivers impatient and bullying actions threatened and put in danger Rendel’s life and wellbeing. He was not merely a witness to it, he was a victim of the motorists behavior.
As a victim of an offence he should be informed of the outcome.
The difference between seeing someone being threatened by a person with a knife or being threatened by a person with a knife.
That looked absolutely lethal
That looked absolutely lethal. Is the video sped up at all?
hawkinspeter wrote:
No, regular speed.
it looks sped up fwiw,my
it looks sped up fwiw,my footage never looks like Im riding that quickly so effortlessly, but I think its camera frame rate thing not an actual speed up, possibly a GoPro camera as that seems to be tuned to process footage in a more action style (ie make it look amazing as you descend a mountain) rather as than pure “dashcam” output.
Ah – the “effortlessness” may
Ah – the “effortlessness” may be due to the fact that I was on my ebike – had just been to visit my mother who lives in that neck of the woods and take her some stuff, so ebike was the choice for lugging a rucksac about.
Shows the importance of the
Shows the importance of the narrative when making a submission. You really have to draw the attention to the head checks to make sure the viewer can see the shadow and the time gap.
Driving like that has no
Driving like that has no place on the roads; however, if any action is taken, it will be a slap on the wrists. Driving is a privilege, not a right – this driver’s right should be taken away.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
Agreed
Agreed
You just said it isn’t a right and I agree. I think you mean privilege should be taken away, and I agree with that.
I’ve had this happen to me
I’ve had this happen to me several times – I double check for a gap, clearly indicate to turn right, and someone tries to overtake regardless whilst moving to the centre. There’s no way these drivers would do this if I was driving my car, yet somehow if you’re riding a bike, you have to beg to be allowed to make this manoeuvre, and punished if “permission” has not been granted. Appalling entitled bullying behaviour. I dread to think what the consequences would be if this happened whist actually turning right.
I have to admit that I
I have to admit that I stopped putting a flat hand out to indicate and started using my hand to point, usualy an emphatic arm movement (“I am damned well going in that direction, I’m intending to make this manoeuvre, and you are behind me so I have priority!”).
I guess the only problem there is when the following vehicle is travelling so fast and so selfishly that they have no intention of backing off (as Rendel has illustrated here).
(Who would care to wager that if Rendel had had the opportunity to actually speak to the motorist, that they wouldn’t have a clue at why he’d been swearing at them…?)
I suspect it would have been
I suspect it would have been one of the conversations I’ve had more than once: “You nearly killed me back there.” “Well you’re here aren’t you so I didn’t, stop being such a drama queen.”
I’ve had drivers pull that
I’ve had drivers pull that sort of shit on me, but not as close as that – the language is understandable. I’m happy to make Rendell an honorary Aussie for that effort, used all the necessary consonants in the correct order ?
Philh68 wrote:
Why thank you – as long as I can still support England in the Ashes! The language is a bit extra but I honestly was in total shock – been riding in London forty-odd years and am pretty used to most things, but in this case my hands were still shaking forty minutes later when we got home…
Definitely some good Anglo
Definitely some good Anglo-Saxon language there! Aussies don’t have a monopoly on swearing 😉
(Out of interest, how far over the posted speed limit do you reckon they were driving? Other than “too f-ing much!”)
brooksby wrote:
Well, I was riding around 15 mph and I think the other drivers were travelling at around the speed limit (30 mph on that road), so I would guess he was accelerating through 40-45 mph as he passed?
ETA: Being a nerd I’ve looked at Google maps and measured distance against the positions on the video – by my (admittedly slightly rough) reckoning he covers 45 metres in the two seconds after he passes me, which means a rough speed of 80kph/50 mph, and I reckon that would be about right.
I worked it out at 39 mph
I worked it out at 39 mph using the road markings (4 metre line, 2 metre gap) and counting video frames at 30fps. Quick enough to cause some serious injury. Terrible bit of impatient driving, glad you managed to avoid them.
I also don’t get this victimless crime attitude from some police forces. Hopefully this can be challenged.
We sure don’t have a monopoly
We sure don’t have a monopoly on it, but we have made swearing our native tongue with English a second language… drivers like that inspire a vocabulary more colourful than a Dulux paint chart.
Philh68 wrote:
Too bl00dy right, mate!
😉
Rendel Harris wrote:
Rendel, my sympathy, I’ve been there too, and it still affects me. If you were still shaking forty minutes later, and it has affected the way you ride and therefore your life, you are definitely a victim. Can I suggest you get statements from your wife and any friends who can attest to how it has affected you to prove that you were a victim, and then demand that the police treat you as such.
eburtthebike wrote:
Rendel, my sympathy, I’ve been there too, and it still affects me. If you were still shaking forty minutes later, and it has affected the way you ride and therefore your life, you are definitely a victim. Can I suggest you get statements from your wife and any friends who can attest to how it has affected you to prove that you were a victim, and then demand that the police treat you as such.
[/quote]
Thanks, yes – I shall be stressing that this was not a victimless incident as i pursue this. Says something about police attitudes to cyclists that we are treated in these cases as if we are simply observers with no more feelings or rights to consideration than a traffic camera!
The victim was on the bike
The victim was on the bike and others behind if they’d witnessed the disembarkment of your body parts and the impacts on no father or husband.
Vitimless fucking crime my arse!
The victim was on the bike
The victim was on the bike and others behind if they’d witnessed the disembarkment of your body parts and the impacts on no father or husband.
Vitimless f-ing crime my arse!
That’s a very nasty close
That’s a very nasty close pass. It could very easily have been a lot worse and resulted in serious injury or even be fatal. I hope the cops take action. The driver is a danger to others.
I for one would love to crowd
I for one would love to crowd fund something that brings a change in police guidance to actually treating us like the victims of close passes that we are rather than ‘witnesses’. I wonder how you would go about it?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
If you’re a CUK member, I’d start by asking them; this seems like the kind of thing they’d take on.
I have a lot of respect for
I have a lot of respect for the police, they have an unbelievably tough job at the best of times, let alone during a pandemic. Unfortunately they have to prioritise their focuses on limited resources and however serious their close pass campaigns/messages are, they constantly fail to uphold their intentions with action, accountability and follow through. We can no longer go on having the book passed, it is time that close pass offences were taken out of the hands of regional police departments and under the responsibility of a dedicated, centralised operation with the sole responsibility to review and enforce close passes.
Every time a driver gets away with such dangerous driving, it reinforces their pitiful behaviour and next time it could be a fatality. So it’s time to put pen to paper and put a compelling case to the powers that be.
I find it difficult to
I find it difficult to understand the level of victim blaming over on Facebook. I’ve had very similar turning into my road. Speeding driver, overtaking approaching a junction and failed to notice that the cyclist has looked over his shoulder several times. It’s all in the HC people. Glad you’re okay Rendel.
IanMK wrote:
like you I was perplexed by the pitchforks over on FB. The victim blaming is unreal.
There are several roads my way that even with clear signaling and shoulder checking even at extended distances the motorist stubbornly refuses to let you out and on occasion forces you to actually stop and cross by foot. On one occasion on turning into my street I actually had an offside pass as opposed to a nearside one just as I was starting to turn! This applies also to pot holes and damaged ironwork etc. It really feels like they didn’t read the part in the HC that a cyclist/motorcyclist may need to suddenly take evasive action and to allow room for that!
Like Brooksby, I a number of years ago adopted the pointing fingers to emphasise I’m going that direction so suck it up and wait for me to complete my manuevor.
Rendal. I’m really glad you’re ok and only suffered a major adrenaline rush. Hopefully the police will draw up a case and the CPS actually progress it as this very definitely falls into dangerous driving.
giff77 wrote:
Thank you kindly. I shall be pursuing with the Met next week to see if I can’t get further information!
IanMK wrote:
Thank you kindly. I didn’t realise it was on Facebook, some quite spectacular opinions on there! One guy telling me he can tell I didn’t really make a proper headcheck from my shadow!
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisMust be the same guy who could tell from the shadow that the cyclist had kicked a door mirror a few months back.
Actually looks like the
Actually looks like the driver never saw you, or your wife. Appalling.
Good to see that the Met will generate an NIP promptly.
Your wife, whilst not being independent, was ideally placed to be a witness.
zero_trooper wrote:
Yes she’s on the form as a potential witness.
Sorry to be contradictory but I know he saw me, from my observation and my wife’s evidence: he was driving along at the speed limit when I made my three headchecks and there was plenty of space and time for my manouevre. When he saw me start to move across he floored the accelerator and sped up to 50mph and gunned straight at me – basically he couldn’t stand the idea that a cyclist was pulling across him and wasnt having it. If he’d maintained the speed he was carrying when I started to move, by the time he reached me I would have been at the centre line ready to make my right turn and he could have safekly and legally undertaken me. I fear he knew exactly what he was doing, that’s what makes the whole thing so scary.
Atb!
That’s a very valid
That’s a very valid observation. Which makes it all the worse, being entirely deliberate 🙁
What I was getting at was that the speed and minute margin for error; it was like they never saw you. Like they drove past and only then thought ‘Was that a cyclist?’
That’s an horrendous piece of
That’s an horrendous piece of driving. From a personal point of view, somehow it’s even worse when it’s on a road you know well and cycle on often.
Steve K wrote:
Yes same for me, although I don’t live down that way any more I grew up there and must have made that turn a thousand times, never happened before – like finding a shark in the local park pond!
Good lord… one of the worst
Good lord… one of the worst I’ve seen, for the sheer wilfulness of it. Glad you and your wife are ok.
Hopefully a Dangerous driving charge heading their way.
Thank you, I hope so too!
Thank you, I hope so too!
Driver is guilty. I’m afraid
Driver is guilty. I’m afraid I’m repeating my usual refrain: when they won’t say what they’ve done and they’re treating the victim as merely a witness, it means they haven’t done anything.
Yes wtjs, member of public
Yes wtjs, member of public makes complaint, gets pro-forma response, in this case ‘We’ve sent an NIP’ (which is actually a good thing) and then jack shit.
What I don’t get in this example is that the Met are going to have to follow up the NIP to the driver with another action. You can’t just send out a letter warning of potential prosecution and leave it at that.
Either:
Send a further letter stating NFA
Or ‘investigate’ it and there is an outcome.
They would then have to inform the driver of the outcome.
How easy would it be to inform the complainant, the victim, at the same time?
It does give rise to the suspicion that sweet FA has been done about these type of complaints.
zero_trooper wrote:
That’s the problem right there. Many police forces consider cyclists reporting these incidents a witness to it, not a victim of it. As witnesses, the police are not required to share the outcome.
It is clear they consider a close pass with no collision, and therefore no damage/injury, to be a victimless crime.
Unlike me swinging a sledgehammer two inches from my neighbour’s head …
What I don’t get in this
What I don’t get in this example is that the Met are going to have to follow up the NIP to the driver with another action
I wonder about this, in the sense that I don’t know the answer. Do they have to follow up are are they just forgetting to bother most of the time, reinforcing the idea in the mind of these crims that they don’t have to bother responding to an NIP, even if the police really spent the postage on sending one? We hear a lot on here about the police claiming to have sent NIPs, but very little about successful prosecutions. I have written about what seems to be in Lancashire a 2 year delay in prosecutions coming to court. My cynical view is that the police are telling the courts ‘don’t bother to much about this cyclist rubbish‘ so the courts don’t- but they can bring cases to court if they want to. We recently heard about cyclists failing to pay fines for cycling in a restricted pedestrianised street in Grimsby, and then the court case more than doubling the payment and the original fine was only given last November! A close pass case which occurred to me in September 2019 will supposedly be in court in June 2021, at the earliest. I suspect the Lancashire plan is to simply forget about a lot of cases, and advertise this as a plan to ‘free up court time’. When the police won’t even bother to send an email confirming what they have actually done, I am not the only one to believe they are reluctant to commit themselves in writing to actions which can be verified.
wtjs wrote:
And the next maiming or killing of a cyclist reported as an unfortunate accident by a driver with a perfect record…
IIRC
IIRC
Once the police issue a summons (on behalf of the Clerk to the Magistrates), then it is sort of out of police hands and any timetable thereafter is set by the Magistrates Courts.
I think that there was already a backlog (a lot of courts have closed in the last twenty years or so) and COVID has exacerbated this.
Once the police issue a
Once the police issue a summons (on behalf of the Clerk to the Magistrates), then it is sort of out of police hands and any timetable thereafter is set by the Magistrates Courts
I bet there are ways for the police to influence these cases, even at the Magistrates’ where they don’t get the obviously urgent cases. However, that’s cynicism talking not knowledge.
Nothing to do with ‘urgency’.
Nothing to do with ‘urgency’.
Some offences (usually the more serious ones) are only dealt with at Crown Court.
Lesser offences at Magistrates Court.
Then there’s ‘either way’ offences, which can be dealt with at either court.
Finally you can have cases dealt with at Magistrates Court (this might only apply to either way offences), but the sentencing takes place at Crown Court. Usually because the maximum prison sentence Magistrates can impose is (or certainly was) 6 months.
We’re really flogging this to
We’re really flogging this to death! I’m using ‘urgent’ as proxy for ‘serious’, because the ones that are serious clearly can’t wait 2 years. However, there has to be a reason (even allowing for different areas of the country having different backlogs) why a ‘cyclist failing to pay a fixed penalty notice from November 2020, in Grimsby’ has already got to court, but this close passing in Garstang, Lancashire from Sept 2019 will be heard in June 2021 at the earliest. I think the reason is official or unofficial indication of urgency (or what Lancashire Constabulary actually want to be dealt with, as opposed to what they want not to be dealt with) from the police to the court
wtjs wrote:
Seems like the other way round, when this clear case was put before the magistrates by the police and CPS and the magistrates rejected it.
Therefore you can see the reluctance of the police to pursue less dangerous incidents.
I think you will have to
I think you will have to force them to tell you what they’ve done by making a complaint. I’m doing that at the moment following the covert decision to not bother a driver about passing a traffic light 1.5 seconds after it turned red. I had to work against resistance to even determine that the NFA decision had been made several months earlier. They will try all tricks available!
Thanks, have set aside time
Thanks, have set aside time this week to pursue them!
Rendel Harris wrote:
We’re all wishing you success Rendel, if only in our own selfish interests in getting this driver off the road.
That’s horrible Rendell, what
That’s horrible Rendell, what a despicable w*nker.
Was it the Learner or the
Was it the Learner or the driver who beeped? Might be worth checking to see if you can trace the learner instructor as I would be surprised if they didn’t use dashcam and could give a view down the road as well if needed (although I expect with the amount of time passed, it has long been over written).
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Tarnation, that’s a cracking idea – wish I’d had it at the time. As you say though, bound to have been overwritten by now if they did have footage.
I can’t resist sharing this
I can’t resist sharing this one, there’s been some great abuse of me and my actions on RCC’s FB page, but this one takes the biscuit:
I just don’t believe he could see behind enough from his over shoulder glance to see the car. He was also with his wife so should have allowed enough time for them both to make the manoeuvre. Not putting her at risk as well.
Leaving aside that apparently I make head checks but don’t actually see behind me with them (!), how sexist and patronising is that! Mrs H is a skilled and experienced rider and always makes her own decisions on the road, as it should be. This guy apparently thinks she is some sort of middle-ages chattel who is bound to copy my every action!
That’s hillarious
That’s hillarious
I suggest you mention that the children were just behind her.
Really you should have left her at home doing the ironing and dusting.
I remember one one video, someone claimed the cyclist did not look behind them as the helmet camera did not show the rear view – apparently a cyclist has to swivel their head 180 to see behind !
Yes I’ve been trying to
Yes I’ve been trying to explain to some of the oxygen thieves that humans have a visual arc of 120 degrees and thus don’t actually need to swivel our heads like an owl to see behind us, but they’re not having it!
hirsute wrote:
was the cyclist an owl?
I think that formed part of
I think that formed part of the reply !
abuse of me and my actions on
abuse of me and my actions on RCC’s FB page
I can’t be bothered to look up what these morons are saying- people who voice stupid opinions when they have the video evidence in front of them showing the driver to be at fault, can be described fairly as such!
Another example where road.cc
Another example where road.cc, British Cycling etc. could do something positive for cycle safety. Help pick up the pursuit of action against these drivers, follow up with the police force, be a fly in their ear and ensure that the police would rather take action against the drivers than be chased through their complaints process. This one was nearly a cyclist death, one where the police would ask for witnesses and dashcam footage despite having hard evidence from the video and the cyclists wife…and then put it down as an accident due to cyclist not doing/doing something.
follow up with the police
follow up with the police force
I’m doing it! I’m doing it!- as Basil says in Fawlty Towers. Make the complaint, watch them take months to come up with something really stupid (like ‘we must have video from the offending vehicle’), then take it to the PCC, then your MP. It’s the only way to fight police tactics of delay, victim blaming, pretending there aren’t loads of similar complaints from other victims etc. etc. I will report the intermediate results- could take a while
Frustrating that it’s
Frustrating that it’s difficult to spot thread updates on road.cc forum. Unless I’m missing something obvs!
Disqus (a proprietary forum software) and a lot of provincial newspapers’ forums have an ’email me any updates’ option.
We could then follow and support any updates, even if the pace is plate-tectonic 🙁
Some NMotD could be flagged as ‘live’ by road.cc until the OP has exhausted all lines of enquiry
Honestly wtjs I don’t understand why the police are so opaque about this. It just makes them look like they are not doing their job. LOL. They might even be getting some great results, but not telling anyone. Least of all the complainant.
Please keep on plugging away.
That was shocking. I have
That was shocking. I have tried to think of why any driver would do that and there is no possible reason that I can think of. It was one of the stupidest overtakes I have ever seen that could easily have had tragic consequences.
Just to update this, police
Just to update this, police and prosecutors went ahead with a charge of driving without due care and attention and I was in court as a witness last Monday. The magistrates acquitted the defendant on the grounds of “insufficient evidence” (not quite sure how much more evidence they needed). The defendant’s case was that I hadn’t made any checks behind me before pulling out (despite the fact that it’s quite clear that I did from the shadow of my head on the road, and the prosecutor pointed this out on the video) and, incredibly, that he was not at least forty metres behind me as I started to pull out as I stated (and my wife, who was just ahead of him, confirmed) but that I was “no more than three metres ahead” before I “veered wildly” into his path. Under questioning he admitted that he was travelling at 30mph when I began to move; at 30mph a car travels at 13 metres per second, so he would have had around 0.25 of a second to react, i.e. it would have been impossible not to hit me. In fact, as can be seen from the video, 3+ seconds elapse between my starting to pull out and him reaching me (and this only because he accelerated hard, if he had stayed at 30mph it would have taken him 5-6 seconds to reach me, by which time I would have been at the centre line and he could have safely and legally undertaken me). Simple maths proves that my statement of the distance between us was true and his was a blatant lie, and the prosecutor (who was excellent) took pains to point this out, yet the magistrates chose to ignore this. If the case had been lost because of a lack of, or ambiguous, evidence, that would be one thing; to lose because the offender blatantly lied about what happened and the magistrates were incapable or unwilling to accept the physical evidence of the video over his word absolutely stinks.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I guess the magistrates thought that the driver clearly was paying due care and attention – after all, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing! – hence the ‘not guilty’ on that charge (should have been a different f-ing charge, IMO).
Really sh!tty result.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Rotten luck Rendel. You were robbed, that was an open goal and the magistrate was clearly in dereliction of duty by failing to consider plain as day evidence. Shame on them.
The magistrates should be
The magistrates should be publicly named.
He wasn’t “robbed” at all.
He wasn’t “robbed” at all. There was insufficient evidence (as I’ve said time and time again) and I have no doubt that displaying a hopelessly and unnecessarily angry, aggressive and abusive attitude also went against him.
Anyway I’m off this website, you lot deserve each other.
(No subject)
You are cyberbullies wrote:
Aww, y’kay hun?
“As I’ve said time and time
“As I’ve said time and time again”
This is your first post in this thread. Or did you get muddled up with which username to login with?
Not heard of ‘fight or flight’ when confronted by a threat to person ?
He’s Nigel Garrage having
He’s Nigel Garrage having changed his username.
Thanks – I did suspect a
Thanks – I did suspect a connection but not that one !
For those who are unaware,
For those who are unaware, YAC is our Nigel who has changed his username. Suspect from the chosen name and dummy-spitting that mods have told him to wind his neck in; if that’s the case and he really doesn’t come back, well done mods, worth the price of my subscription for that alone!
Really? Seems like only
Really? Seems like only yesterday I was calling Nige out for being an attention whore. Wait, it was yesterday! I hope that wasn’t the reason, because if it was I regret not doing it months ago ?
I will reply to you finally
I will reply to you finally now I know you have left us. Especially as you didn’t keep yopur original promise of either blocking me or not replying to me.
There was quite alot of evidence in the video that supported Rendals account and disproved the drivers account.
Driver:- No check or signal and cyclist just moved out without warning.
Video:- Several obvious shoulder checks and hand movement reflected in the shadows on the floor.
Driver:- I was just behind the cyclist less then 2 metres away and he pulled out in front of me whilst i was only at the speed limit.
Video:- Cyclist moves across and doesn’t automatically gets knocked off plus additional witness account of distance.
Still byeeee.
As shown beyond doubt by the
As shown beyond doubt by the fact the magistrates found the driver not guilty, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict (to be honest I always thought it was contempt of court to discuss a case in the way that has been here).
Don’t forget you’ve only read one side of the story by someone who went to court on the back of a video filled with vile, misogynistic insults.
Byeeee to you too, suggest you get yourself off a site where using gendered insults like “bitch”, “whore” and “cunt” is applauded.
Shortest flounce ever.
Shortest flounce ever.
Yep. Should have known it
Yep. Should have known it would be one of these “look at me” type things like most of his recent posts. Should have know as Boo was the same beforehand as well, started off nice, then got more and more like this to garner attention.
Thought you’d left 2 hours
Thought you’d left 2 hours ago. Typical snowflake can’t keep their word.
You are cyberbullies wrote:
You still here hun?
I think the moaning about
I think the moaning about vile misogynistic insults from someone who has gone out of the way to praise and defend Dick L’Orange from America who likes to “Grab them by their pussies” is a nice touch.
Captain Badger wrote:
He is – now as TT danger…….
TriTaxMan wrote:
Weren’t on-the-road TTs a big bugbear of Boos?
Bye then.
Bye then.
Thanks Cap’n!
Thanks Cap’n!
Appalling decision. If this
Appalling decision. If this person is allowed to continue driving, with such clear evidence, the roads are a free for all. I’m glad you weren’t injured or worse, Rendel.
Thank you kindly, every time
Thank you kindly, every time I see the video I feel very lucky indeed!
Shame you/ the Police couldn
Shame you/ the Police couldn’t have gotten the driver of the following Ford to be a witness. After all they would have been close enough to know actual distances involved and blown the lying twats account away.
In a lot of close passes, the
In a lot of close passes, the video doesn’t do them justice – the vehicle doesn’t look as close as they are in reality. I thought that might be the case here, and then I watched the video and physically flinched as the car went by. The quality of our justice system, and of magistrates in particular, is abysmal. I’m sorry, Rendel.
Thank you – I’ve simmered
Thank you – I’ve simmered down a bit and thought well at least I’ve given him a few sleepless nights, hopefully, and maybe next time he thinks of pulling this macho crap on a cyclist he will hold back and think hang on, maybe they’ve got a camera…
As well as being one of the
As well as being one of the worst, blatent and shocking close passes I have seen, the magistrates ruling adds insult to injury.
One would love to know what said magistrates record is/are on these kind of offenses.
Thats a bit more faith lost in the justice system.
Cases like this make me wonder if there is value in crowdfunding a non-profit or an offshoot of CyclingUK or similar to go after these idiots with a private prosecution. The concept that because no physical harm has been caused the victim can be treated as a witness needs shooting down in flames. If we cant get them through the courts directly we should go after their insurance company and price them off the road.
Sorry Rendel 🙁
+1… unbelievable. You can
+1… unbelievable. You can even see Rendel shoulder checking from the shadow before steadily moving across!
Is there an appeals process?
Unfortunately not, as a
Unfortunately not, as a witness I don’t have that right – if I did I’d exercise it for sure!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Rendel you are not only “a witness” you are the victim of the crime or is it only the defendant who has a right to an appeal?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Have you taken legal advice? I’d suggest CUK if you’re a member.
I’ve plenty of lawyers in the
I’ve plenty of lawyers in the family – the word is, sadly, there’s nothing further to be done.
Maybe the experience will
Maybe the experience will make the driver more careful in future, and if not, then at least there’s a chance that an honest magistrate will preside.
Rendel Harris wrote:
What needs to be done is to change the mistaken belief that unsafe driving is acceptable and collisions are inevitable. Then intimidating vulnerable road users must become, like drink driving, socially unacceptable.
This must start with our elected representatives then the reluctant general public.
“The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) helps to drive growth, enrich lives and promote Britain abroad”
So attitudes must be changed starting with regulation of the mainstream media to prevent hate speech and adopt best practice for responsible reporting.
If we could mobilise everyone who cycles, has cycled, or wants to cycle, there could be change…
CUK, over to you!
But mad Nad runs that
But mad Nad runs that ministry.
Thanks Squirrel!
Thanks Squirrel!
Not sure why the victim
Not sure why the victim thanks the prosecutor, if they had used your rebuttals in the article then even the car centric magistrates would have to find the driver guilty.
Milkfloat wrote:
Did you read the article?
(not sure why “Rendell added” twice)
The prosecution isn’t at fault if the magistrates are unable or unwilling to process logic.
Magistrates don’t have to do anything. Heck there was an actual judge in the high court who recently told a woman in her sentencing hearing that she would have sent her to prison if she (the convicted) were a man – she didn’t give her a custodial sentence, purely on the basis of her gender.
Yes, the prosecutor made
Yes, the prosecutor made virtually all the points I’ve made and stressed the fact that it was physically impossible for me to be three metres ahead of a car doing 30 and pull out without being hit. No complaints about his work at all, couldn’t have put the case more clearly.
Whilst it’s frustrating that
Whilst it’s frustrating that this driver will not get points or a fine, hopefully the ordeal of a court case will make them think twice next time.
It’s been very useful you sharing this Rendel, as it gives good insight into the justice process and what the level of evidence needs to be.
As you say, a rear camera is probably a good idea. When I only had one camera, I put it on the rear, as I felt that was where the majority of the risk was. Most of the time I can pre-empt what’s going to happen in front of me.
It also shows how important it is to resist the reaction (understandably difficult to do sometimes). But it is something that you can train yourself to avoid doing – I yell out the numberplate, by the time I’ve done that, the urge for any expletives has hopefully subsided!
And yet another defence
And yet another defence lawyer / Police officer has decided if you don’t yell expletives, it means it wasn’t bad enough for a Prosecution (or you will be done for public disorder). It is one of those dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t cases.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Standard operating procedure on a close pass is to swerve and stop at the roadside to evidence your shock and fear. Simulation of loss of control, optional…
If there’s no evidence, there’s no crime. Public order offences not needed.
HoarseMann wrote:
It’s been very useful you sharing this Rendel, as it gives good insight into the justice process and what the level of evidence needs to be.
— HoarseMannI’m afraid the driver will take exactly the opposite lesson; I can get away with anything so I might was well drive as dangerously as I like. If they won’t convict me on damning evidence like this, I’ll never be convicted.
“justice process”? Never was the law such an ass.
“justice process”? Never was
“justice process”? Never was the law such an ass
Evidence repeatedly displayed on here shows that we have a reasonable police and legal system for punishing drivers who close-pass police officers on bikes- everyone else will have to ensure they are properly KSI’d before any attention will be taken by the same police and legal system. This is especially true in areas with REALLY Bad Cops such as, dare I say it, Lancashire
Appeal this to the crown
Appeal this to the crown court, and get a real judge. Magistrates are a law unto themselves.
Dave Dave wrote:
Yeah … that is not a thing.
Can’t be done, unfortunately,
Can’t be done, unfortunately, not guilty verdicts in any court can only be appealed on the grounds of errors in law, not errors in interpretation of the evidence. If I could I would!
Given the car he’s driving
Given the car he’s driving the last laugh is on him.
Absolutely no doubt what so
Absolutely no doubt what so ever that the magistrates are Daily Mail readers based on the video evidence!!!
chadders wrote:
The same type who froth about courts being soft on crime….
“Look at this Bob, a story of
“Look at this Bob, a story of a paedofile being sentenced, why isn’t he hung up by his balls for the entire sentence. They are soft on crime”.
Next Page
“Cor, look at this actors 15 yo daughter in her swimsuit on the beach. Says here she will be 16 next week. Cor, I would do ‘er”.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Absolutely on the button
That is a real shocker, both
That is a real shocker, both the incident and the verdict. Absolutely frustrating that the magistrates ignored the calculated poaitions. It’s a pity your Mrs wasn’t using a camera, that would have cleared things up.
The sad part about this
The sad part about this decision is that it effectively renders all front facing video footage, without rear facing footage useless. It give’s idiot drivers carte blanche to reject the NIP and take it to court in cases of close passing knowing that the magistrates seem to have their back
On a complete aside, Rendel you said that as a witness you don’t have the right, but surely as the victim you should have a right to appeal. You can be both victim and witness, no matter what a shady magistrate seems to think
One can only appeal a guilty
One can only appeal a guilty verdict as the convicted person, not guilty verdicts can’t be appealed unless there is a proveable error in law. Trust me, if I could I would!
TriTaxMan wrote:
No it doesn’t. I know this one is depressing but that’s no reason to presume that all will end badly. This isn’t a first time case and there is no precedent set by it. There have been dozens of successful prosecutions listed here, not to mention the ones from cycling Mikey and others. We mustn’t give up – bike cams are still a relatively new thing, time and weight of numbers are on our side.
Absoultely SS – I’m back in
Absoultely SS – I’m back in court at the end of the month for another case and hopefully will get more sense,, since September I’ve submitteed fourteen videos to the Met, three rejected for not clear enough evidence, seven courses, and four going to court. Not discouraged by any means, in fact more determined to keep pushing until we’re acknowledged as having equal rights on the road.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well done, and keep up the good work. I think people like you and Mikey deserve some sort of recognition; honourary traffic cop perhaps?
The number of successful cases submitted by cyclists perfectly demonstrates the monumental size of this problem, and all the government strategies on walking and cycling are doomed to failure unless they really, really tackle dangerous driving.
TriTaxMan wrote:
I was unsuccessful in reporting a close pass with only vehicle data despite the police being able to identify the car. So that showed I needed better evidence to get some action.
I got a Cyclic Fly6 rear facing camera and a few weeks later was close passed with it on. I reported that and was asked to upload the video. Driver was offered to explain the incident but didn’t attend the Police station so was referred to CPS, and got 3 points plus fine costs etc.
My conclusion: Rear facing camera does work as the hazard mostly comes from behind.
Yes, the people who can clearly see a person in front of them..
Given the risk, cost and uncertainty I now use Avoidance instead of cameras…
Hi Rendel
Hi Rendel
What a horrible incident, I have had a couple of these overtakes, but nothing as bad as yours.
Your video begs the question how “How could the magistrate aquit this nutter?” Clearly he lied to the court and I don’t know what arguments the defense put forward, but the balance came down in his favour. It is strange, the police clearly thought an offense had been commited, the CPS thought there was a good chance of conviction, your video was quite explicit.
There is some wiggle room in your justifications. 30mph is 44 feet per second, I usually round it up to 15 yds per second. If you were riding at 20mph and the driver was doing 30mph then it is the closing speed which is important. In this instance the driver would be coming up behind you at 10mph. 10mph = 5yards per second, so at those speeds you may have pulled out in front of the driver from his perspective. However, I think you were going slower than 20mph and the driver was going much faster than 30mph, so although you looked, signalled and moved out in good time because the drver was going so fast he decided to swerve past you into oncoming traffic rather than brake. He then blamed his terrible driving on you. After all he is entitled to drive at speed and you got in his way.
Cycloid wrote:
I might suggest it’s that it’s cos the mag was too lazy/incompetent/bigoted [delete as appropriate/necessary] to carry out their duty to a fit and proper standard….
Captain Badger wrote:
More likely the driver was a friend of a friend of the magistrate and called in a favour. I can’t think why else they would dismiss the absolutely clear evidence – there is no way that driving was careful.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Good point, missed corrupt out
However, I think you were
However, I think you were going slower than 20mph…
Unless Rendal has a chipped ebike, it sounds like the motor is on at all times so 15.5mph tops. (although the bike might make that noise whether he is above or not).
Yes I was just pootling and
Yes I was just pootling and the ebike is legally restricted to 25kmh.
I was riding an ebike
I was riding an ebike restricted to 15.5mph, so when I began to move we would have had a closing speed of 15 mph if he was on the legal speed limit, which from my checks (of which he denied the existence) he was, or 25kmh, or 7 metres a second, so it should have taken him six seconds to reach me, more than enough time for me to make my manouevre and be safely out of his way. The reason he reached me in around 3.5 seconds was because he hit the gas hard as soon as he saw me move so passed me at 40mph+.
That is what I thought
That is what I thought happened from your description and video.
The problem is that when you start playing with the numbers there are many possible answers. It’s like saying “give me two numbers which add uo to ten”
The magistrate has a duty to take everyone’s statement on trust, at least at the start of the hearing, there will always be differing accounts from witnesses who saw the incident from different perspectives. This magistrate appears to have sided with the driver in the face of damning evidence, from your account, the video and the mathematical logistics.
I’m baffled!
Yep, as my Aussie friends
Yep, as my Aussie friends like to say, “Got me knackered, mate!”
That is rotten, and in the
That is rotten, and in the face of insurmountable evidence !!
I wonder if that could be taken up as a civil case by a no-win no fee solicitor?
It’s not right that the driver gets away scott free from that, at the very least their insurance should go up next year.
As there was no injuries or
As there was no injuries or damage, what would he claim for? Mental stress maybe but that would need Doctors reports etc.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Entirely feasible, and if he’s a member of one of the cycling groups, their membership benefits will cover the cost of a consultation.
I’d be lying if I said there
I’d be lying if I said there was an awful lot of mental stress – I was still shaking when we got home an hour later but as someone who rides 30k most days n central London one gets fairly hardened to this sort of thing! Still feel edgy when I approach that turn though…
Rendel Harris wrote:
So there has been a permanent effect, as well as serious temporary effects; you’re a victim.
I’m not convinced that the
I’m not convinced that the admins banned all of the trolls… (or, all of the usernames of one troll, I don’t know…).
Well not all PBU’s if that is
Well not all PBU’s if that is what you mean. Still at least we know this one is who he is now.
Seems second PBU is now CBU
Seems second PBU is now CBU as welll now.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Has Martin73 gone too? Just checked in after a long day out (92 miles on the Thames path gravel, I’m calling that equivalent to at least 130 on the road!) and doesn’t seem to be anything from him left on this thread at least. If he has been removed then well done again mods and long may this proactive approach to the sub-bridge dwellers continue!
Might be just on here. Still
Might be just on here. Still posts on the Main thread under the dog walker. The next few days will tell.
Not getting into the six
Not getting into the six pages of comments here, but that was a shockingly close pass from a car which was clearly speeding. I’m glad no-one was hurt. The driver of that car deserves bad juju for that (or a screwdriver in their tyres).
Rendal, I sympathize, that
Rendal, I sympathize, that was outrageous driving. I think that perhaps you should reconsider getting a good mirror (from a previous discussion you weren’t keen on the idea). Personally I wouldn’t have a bike without one (a good motorbike quality one, not some cheap rubbish), and in your case, you would have seen the car approaching and been able to take evasive action. It’s really not worth being in the right and 6ft under instead of taking the miniscule weight/aerodynamic hit of a good mirror.
I understand that rendal made
I understand that rendal made 3 shoulder checks.
Even better than the view in a mirror.