road.cc was sent this shocking footage by reader Greg over the weekend after it was confirmed that no police action would be taken against the driver.
Greg was cycling in Lewisham, south London, in November when he nearly collided with a driver using his phone behind the wheel of a Peugeot 107.
Challenging the driver on his actions, the cyclist shouted “get off your phone” before telling him to “pay attention to what you’re doing”.
In return the driver wound the window down to shout some expletives back, threatening to “knock you off your bike and smack your f****** head in”, and proceeded to drive at the cyclist, pushing him towards the oncoming traffic.
Stopped at temporary traffic lights a few moments later Greg again challenged the driver, asking: “What was the point of that? You weren’t paying attention.”
At this point the driver interrupted to once again threaten Greg: “What would you do if I cut your throat? Is it worth it? I’ll smash your f****** bike around your head.”
Greg explained to us how he reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police, but “it was confirmed that no further action will be taken due to lack of evidence”.
“It seems that you can nearly knock someone off their bike by not paying attention on their phones, ram them when their terrible driving is highlighted and then make threats to kill. Sadly we have to share the road with these people and have police who just don’t care to follow them up.”
The complaint was made as a traffic offence, but initially dealt with as a criminal offence by police, who subsequently judged there was insufficient evidence. Instead, the investigating officer decided it should be reported as a traffic offence.
By this point the online reporting service would not allow a new report more than 10 days after an incident, so Greg asked the officer to consider the footage as a collision — thus bypassing the time restriction.
“They said they would check but returned a call the next day to say the Lewisham traffic team reviewed it and there’s not enough evidence to proceed,” Greg explained. “It has now been left as the 14-day rule has timed it out.”
78 thoughts on “Aggressive driver tries to ram cyclist in shocking footage…but “insufficient evidence” for police action”
Insufficient??
Insufficient??
The act on camera, accompanied by a threat to actually do it.
Maybe we should try seeing it from their side…..
With this and lack of
With this and lack of evidence on a video of someone “in control of a movong vehicle” with a coffee cup in one hand and a mobile in another, it does seem the that the Met / CPS have decided phone use cannot be proven and are ignoring anything else that can be used to charge drivers with.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
some years ago I remember the outcry around someone who was done (successfully/routinely) for eating a KitKat at a traffic light.
It can be done, there just needs to be the will from teh traffic team.
This was a facking doozey. The Met hasn’t exactly crowned itself in glory here…….
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
I suspect we are the only
I suspect we are the only minority group not covered by specific hate crime legislation.
An apparent lack of
An apparent lack of professional curiosity – odds are that Mr Driver is mixed-up in something.
Bottles of wine to Downing
Bottles of wine to Downing Street. Or supplying something stronger for one of Gove’s parties?
You think this is the limit
You think this is the limit of the police action against cyclists? Lancashire Constabulary has some news for you! After 4+ days in which the video uploading website was disabled, the Lancashire Boys in Blue have come up with a new dodge to disallow any video taken by cyclists (and, as it happens, by anybody including motorists)
Thie is the new condition, never seen before today, which you are obliged to agree to before you can report an incident to Lancashire Police (remember, they won’t accept any reports without a video):
I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR
Did you think that cyclist regulation, tabards with your number on etc. were the limit of impossible anti-cyclist attacks? Now, according to LC, you have to have some kind of large sign saying you’re ‘video equipped’. Some people will be pleased with this, as I’ve seen people on here advocating the sign. It’s clearly a threat to prosecute cyclists for accepting the condition and then failing to display the sign. I am ready to be charged!
wtjs wrote:
So … does that also apply to using a handheld video camera/smartphone to film an event in a public place? Because it seems to me there is little difference between a dashcam and a video camera except for the name on the box and one being attached to a car/bicycle and one being held in the hand.
If the above is verbatim from
If the above is verbatim from the Lancashire Police website then I think they have had some rather questionable legal advice. Or none at all.
Looking at the ‘Exemptions’ page on the ICO site (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/exemptions/) clearly shows that it’s nonsense.
This is a copy of the relevant bit:
Some things are not listed here as exemptions, although in practice they work a bit like an exemption. This is simply because they are not covered by the UK GDPR. Here are some examples:
Domestic purposes – personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the UK GDPR’s scope. This means that if you only use personal data for such things as writing to friends and family or taking pictures for your own enjoyment, you are not subject to the UK GDPR.
Law enforcement – the processing of personal data by competent authorities for law enforcement purposes is outside the UK GDPR’s scope (e.g. the Police investigating a crime). Instead, this type of processing is subject to the rules in Part 3 of the DPA 2018. See our Guide to Law Enforcement Processing for further information.
Perhaps pass on the link to the Lancashire Constabulary?
Agreed. Its absolute
Agreed. Its absolute bollocks.
The DPO for Lanc Rozzer is data.protection@Lancashire.police.uk
@wtjs If someone gives me a link to the text on the submission portal I’ll mail them (and attempt) to get it corrected.
On consultation with my wife,
On consultation with my wife, a solicitor specialising in, you guessed it, data protection, I have discovered that it’s not so clear cut.
What the form is stating explicitly has yet to be tested in court; in particular using personal data for a purpose it was not collected for. So, submitting personal data for the purposes of law enforcement does not neccessarily make one a data controller.
Both Lancashire and Essex police websites use the same text; it’s likely that many others do as well. They really shouldn’t be, as the UK GDPR and the 2018 DPA are apparently much more nuanced than the statements of fact laid out in the text being discussed.
Her feeling was that, as well as being very close to wrong, the wording of the text could put many people off submitting their footage, as it may be inferred from the text that:
1 – you could potentially be sued by someone shown in the footage as you were’nt fulfilling all the requirements of a data controller
or
2 – that the footage my somehow become unadmissable as evidence.
This doesn’t clear anything up I’m afraid but it’s much shorter than the answer I got from my brief!
the wording of the text could
the wording of the text could put many people off submitting their footage
Of course! That’s Lancashire Constabulary’s intention. As a new visitor to the site, you can’t be expected to know that I have been more than diligent in informing an unwilling audience on here (biker_phil excepted) just how bent LC traffic is (I have been fortunate enough to avoid any other LC departments, so far, apart from the equally bent Professional Standards), even though they’re no doubt sick of hearing it. Hard luck! If Lancashire gets away with it, they’ll all be trying it on even more and Essex appears to have joined them- anyone seen any cars with ‘I am filming you’ signs? Even I was surprised at today’s transparent dodge- I will be carrying on without any signs, because I have the advantage of a couple of years worth of ‘goods’ on LC, and I’m ready to take them on in court- guess what they did about Robinson’s of Bilsborrow 4-axle tipper lorry MV18 UJT hammering through a red light?- no prizes:
If someone gives me a link to
If someone gives me a link to the text on the submission portal I’ll mail them (and attempt) to get it corrected
Such confidence- I can see you don’t live in Lancashire! All you have to do to see it is go to:
https://unitedkingdom1cpp-portal.digital-policing.co.uk/lancashire/appeal/public-dashcam-submission
now that it’s working again, click ‘Respond to this appeal’, and ‘I’m not a robot’, and look at the bottom of the page- then look at what your own local force is writing!
Perhaps pass on the link to
Perhaps pass on the link to the Lancashire Constabulary?
Pretty much everything that comes from Lancashire Constabulary TacOps (the dramatic name for people driving round in BMWs) is crap except their own driving. I haven’t yet caught an of them close passing, red light crossing etc. This new condition that they may use to prosecute me will be crap as well, and it comes with the approval of Sgt 2459 Lavin- the man who threatened to prosecute me for being a cyclist in the way of a motorist who was then forced to cross the double white lines in a dangerous position on Wyre Bridge, Garstang. I urged him to do so, but he then disappeared for a couple of years and I heard nothing more. You should all watch out for your local forces trying this trick to disallow video evidence against motorists.
I may get my day in court now! However, I will be citing a letter dated today from Sgt. Lavin informing me that no action was taken over 6 serious red light crossing offences of Summer 2021 because they were too busy. Including this one
For the observant, there’s a
For the observant, there’s a special bonus additional red light offence visible, in addition to caravan towing Audi Q5 T90 JDT
Have you tried writing to
Have you tried writing to Nigel Evans? To be fair to him, he always replies if you contact him. List all your complaints with plod. I’m not saying he will do anything but it’s worth a letter.
Have you tried writing to
Have you tried writing to Nigel Evans?
My man is Ben Wallace- North Preston and Wyre. You can safely assume I’ve done the lot! It’s now compilations of all the indisputable offences LC have ignored, another letter to Ben Wallace- then YouTube and Bad Cops- The Preston Connection
No it categorically does not.
No it categorically does not…this will be them overreacting to those video doorbell things which was all about invasion of privacy, there is no expectation of privacy in law in a public space.
And what does it mean for
And what does it mean for those police appeals for dash cam footage that no doubt Lancashire also issue? I hope Greg files a complaint with the police commissioner. I also wish Road CC would do something more productive than publishing incident number 7,000 – it’s getting nowhere fast otherwise.
I knew you were not
I knew you were not exaggerating that Lancs Plod has been very anti-Road enforcement, but either someone somewhere has loopholed to get someone off recently, especially with the two recent Met Police things, or they genuinely are just Asshats.
Any other website will state if you are a business, you need GDPR but peronal dash / bikes cams you don’t. Which is why you see some lorries mentioning cameras and cars don’t. However just order a Passpixi and say you were wearing it.
Met: enough said
Met: enough said
Maybe if Greg was killed in
Maybe if Greg was killed in the incident then the driver might have received a warning letter.
Maybe if Greg actually worked
Maybe if Greg actually worked for the police then they would have done something…
That really is crying out for
That really is crying out for a report to the IOPC, I always naively assume that though the police might not be too hot on “minor” offences they will make sure the really bad people get theirs; clearly, as you can apparently drive on your phone, try and ram a cyclist then threaten to kill them with impunity, my assumption is badly wrong.
Can British Cycling, Cycling
Can British Cycling, Cycling UK, or even Road.CC not assist with pursuing the police for action on this. It is outrageous that the Met think there is no case. This driver will undoubtedly use his car as a weapon again. Surely an example case for the £600 fine of using phone whilst driving is the minimum that could be applied, but this is also assault with a deadly weapon and death threats?
So many offences to choose
So many offences to choose from, so much evidence.
Formal complaint time. Then perhaps it will dawn on the police that dealing with the driver is less effort than dealing with a complaint.
Or crowd fund a private prosecution?
Seems to me that the primary
Seems to me that the primary problem here is not so much the police (lack of) action, but the daft rule that apparently requires them to choose between the offences in the first place. Why are they not able to pursue both the potential criminal charges and the road traffic offences at the same time, instead of having to play pass the parcel?
mdavidford wrote:
Because that would be double the admin? And having to deal with other parts of the police? And I doubt they’re ever worried about not being able to fill their road traffic crime quota…(and not simply going through as assault etc. because we all know that don’t apply to cyclists / cars, even if there’s a body…) Also I think they’re set up to do “threatening” mostly on the basis of stuff on the internet – excellent evidence ‘cos it’s already written down and you can browse twatter for a bit while collecting it!
Meanwhile the local rag
Meanwhile the local rag reports a prosecution for speeding on a 20 in Upper Thames Street London
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19852971.man-broke-20mph-speed-limit-handed-400-fine/
Meanwhile, at City Hall…
Meanwhile, at City Hall…
“So, Mr Khan, Your Worshipmayorness, after the debacle that was the last time we tried to do safety, we thought we’d run the script past you so
somebody else gets the blame next timewe get a consensus of approval before proceeding. So here’s how it goes. A driver is peacfully driving down the road, when, ‘Oh no!’ a cyclist gets in his way…… and then the driver thinks to camera, by way of a slightly echoey voiceover, “I ‘ad to run ‘im off the road and fretten to cut ‘is froat! And I would’ve had to live wivvat for the rest of ‘is life, if I ‘ad to follow froo wivvit… anyhoo…”
So what do you think Mr Khan? Do you think that gets the right balance between us and the wheelrats?”
You’ve made some very
You’ve made some very pertinent points there. You should be aware of the following though;
1) The Mayor does not oversee the day to day operational affairs of the Met Police.
2) The Mayor does not control the criminal justice system (e.g. courts, etc) in London.
Other than that, spot on.
However, he does take an
However, he does take an interest in the running of TfL and, given that the previous “See their side” campaign raise such ire, it is highly likely he would take more interest in a susequent iteration. The post is an imaginary script approval meeting, so…
Therefore, in all, it is spot on without exception. Thanks.
GMBasix wrote:
This really has little to do with Khan
Such ire? actually not much, on a population level (plenty of ire in individuals, me included). The (ill-informed) decision to run this video, which in any case was pulled on review by the relevant committee in response to informed public concern, would seem to be a case study on what a mayor might refrain from getting involved in. It was a departmental matter, and unlikely to need escalating to the top.
Captain Badger wrote:
Khan!!!
The police might not consider
The police might not consider the first offence to be sufficient (the cynic in me says insufficient = cannot be bothered) but there’s half a dozen offences after that which I think would be sufficient if it was anything other than a cyclist (including some which might IMHO land the driver in jail)?
“Lack of evidence”??
“Lack of evidence”??
So Greg got a mate to drive illegally, and then acted out a little theatrical entertainment just for the Met…?
OR he actually filmed someone driving illegally and threateningly, but the police had other priorities.
What was it the Beeb said about roads being dangerous…?
Apparently no action was
Apparently no action was taken because this was outside of the 14 day submission period, but other than using a technicality to not do their job, the MET are happy to allow an absolute nutcase and serious danger to the public continue.
The MET already have lost the trust of many of the public as a result of the long list of high profile failings. So this needs to taken through the complaints procedures and this also needs to be raised with the local MP.
I’m really not sure how any police force can see that footage, particularly with someone readily prepared to use their vehicle as a weapon to defend their illegal phone use and just let them carry on as usual. Appalling failure of policing.
Was this your footage or you
Was this your footage or you found extra details?
If the footage was submitted the day of the incident or within 24hours, then complain that the Police didn’t process it in time.
Complain that the initial ram actually was a collision and is exempt from the 14 day.
Complain that the actual threatening behaviour would have been done for something else if not in a car so why does RT Laws of submission apply?
Complain that a car is as deadly a weapon as a knife, so threatening violence whilst in control of a weapon.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Passpixi on Twitter posted an update on the video (15/01) reporting that no action has been taken and various people including ex-policeman Mark Hodson suspected this being the reason for zero action being taken.
https://twitter.com/markandcharlie/status/1482635295124303873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw“
I’m very much with you on this that when assault takes place this rule should not apply, so whichever way you look at it the inaction of The Met is indefensible. They are knowingly allowing a nutcase to continue driving and if this guy actually brings harm to anyone else, The Met by their inaction should be held partially responsible.
Mark is still a Police Man,
Mark is still a Police Man, unfortunately only on Motorway Police now though so not protecting vulnerable road users anymore. And I expect he is guessing this as even he can’t believe the result is no evidence of any faults.
Yes I thought he’d stepped
Yes I thought he’d stepped down but didn’t know he’s just changed roles. Didn’t want to take his words as gospel as he was only commenting from an outside perspective. It seems to be the only logical explanation as to how The Met can justify zero action.
At the moment holding a
At the moment holding a mobile phone is not “evidence” as Loopholes have decided that driving one handed whilst looking at another device screen and not the road is not an offence, and even though that is the definition of Not Paying Due Care and Attention, the Police have decided not to even go the easier route.
I suspect the order has come down from above not to accept any footage of any event as they need all the man power to investigate these parties at certain places being as it seems the Government had one each day now.
So … send the footage to
So … send the footage to the PCC, local MP and Grant Shapps?
What a goon. Checked his MOT
What a goon. Checked his MOT status, it ran out on the 12th. Only seems to do about a thousand miles a year, he was probably googling how to get into second gear.
HoarseMann wrote:
That’s a thousand hours per year behind the wheel, in London.
Ab solute four ken dis grace.
Ab solute four ken dis grace.
If our man can be bothered, I
If our man can be bothered, I’d say this is grounds for complaint.
Dangerous drivers like these need punishment and they shouldn’t be able to evade it just because of an admin cock-up.
In any case, the threatening language is a public order offence, I fail to see what other evidence is required other than a car reg, the bloke’s face and a video of him threatening the person on the bike.
What about the threatening
What about the threatening behaviour? 14 days dont apply to public order offences. Send it back and ask them to try harder.
Send it back and ask them to
Send it back and ask them to try harder
Looks like you have no experience of dealing with a bent force like the Met or Lancashire- they will just refuse to reply. Then what are you going to do? Complain to Professional Standards? 6 months of delaying tactics, and a finding that the officers made their decision and that’s that. Then what? A complaint to the PCC? That body in whose elections you never voted because you thought it was a useless, ineffectual bureaucracy? Well, you were right- it is. So, write to your MP: another 6 months and he just sends you the complete tripe he was fobbed off with by the police. All that will help is publicity, most likely on YouTube. The press is no help, because the great majority of readers are drivers who think you should be run off the road. Now YOU try! Watch out for the joke non-action ‘action’, where they send you the evasive letter which indicates they have done nothing at all.
Clearly a dangerous road;
Clearly a dangerous road; should the BBC do a programme about it?
I wonder what would be
I wonder what would be considered as sufficient evidence?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Broken bones minimum, unless the cyclist was police.
This might not be popular
This might not be popular here, but I can’t help thinking that the case would have been thrown out of court anyway due to the aggressive behaviour of the cyclist – which in my opinion could be deemed as threatening.
Clearly the motorist was out of order, but would have a mitigation. I’m pretty certain a calmer head would have yielded different results.
I may also be wrong, but I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the driver for the mobile phone, as it isn’t clear that he is using it illegally for communication. This is probably what the police were referring to in their response.
troll
troll
Actually as much as it pains
Actually as much as it pains me to say it – Nige might have a point here. With the courts as backed up as they are I have a suspicion that nothing but a slam dunk will get through, and as a result anything remotely controversial gets dropped. The Met/CPS were between a rock and hard place on this one. Too much for a warning/awareness course – too risky to take to court against a soft magistrate.
FWIW I think the first interaction was clearly multiple offenses but the second *could look like* retaliation to an unbiased/ignorant observer of the cyclist.
I do think its worth complaining about it, or even trying a claim against the drivers insurance, but I could see how this got dropped. Its not right that it did mind you.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
What could he claim against the insurance? There isn’t any injury as far as I can see. Is it possible to make an insurance claim for mental trauma? If you could get compensation for drivers acting like a knobhead towards you I’d have been able to retire years ago!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Intersting question. Insurance claims do ask for details of mental effects. Not sure if they can be claimed for in isolation.
Captain Badger wrote:
I guess there are 2 reasons to attempt a claim.
claimed PTSD and asked to be
claimed PTSD and asked to be referred to a mental health councillor
Daily Mail: (other hyper-junk newspapers are available) Unidentified Nutter Cyclists Rampaging on Our Roads
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I suppose when you put it that way it might look a little, well, obsessive…..
I’d argue this was a slam
I’d argue this was a slam dunk of at least one if not several offences, it is more a tacit admission they are now considered too low level offences or low priority that they have been NFAd to alleviate backlog pressures on courts.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Not sure it’s the police’s job to seek “mitigation” as a reason not to take action.
There is none in this case anyway. Ordinary people don’t threaten violent assault when told they’ve almost knocked someone over.
I agree and thats why I said
I agree and thats why I said Met/CPS. I’m offering suggestions as to why a course of action was not followed – not saying that its right. I 100% think they should have thrown the book at him, however I can *see* a number of reasons why they might not have, given current circumstances and unconcious anti-cyclist bias in the Met/CPS/Judiciary.
unconscious anti-cyclist bias
unconscious anti-cyclist bias in the Met/CPS/Judiciary
I object. It’s completely conscious, and mainly in the police! All this tripe about ‘Oh! it was the CPS who decided not to do anything, nothing to do with the police‘ is just that. For the sort of cases we discuss here, that’s just the police phoning up some unidentifiable person at CPS and saying ‘just tell us there’s no case- you don’t have to bother looking at the details‘. The people who are binning all these cases are police officers, and I should know:
White BMW Driver of PK14 HLW executes very close pass on Cyclist on 7.8.21 and then halts in traffic queue
C: I said Don’t-come-that-close-again!
D: Talk to me like that and I will fucking flatten you…
D, passing very close again: If you speak to people like that, you will get knocked off
There is no swearing by me. It took 3 months and lots of excuses before the 3rd police officer visited him with ‘words of advice’. The officer claimed the driver had apologised and claimed that him accepting the claimed apology was ‘restorative justice’. We know from this case how far the police are prepared to go in forgiving threatening words and actions against cyclists, on behalf of the whingeing cyclist
Nope, as usual Boo doesn’t
Nope, as usual Boo doesn’t have any point but to blame cyclists. Driver screams and shouts at cyclist in video. “Bravo driver, teach those cyclists in a firm and gentle manner.” Cyclist reacts to almost getting killed. “Threatening behaviour and driver was right to drive into him a second time and claim cyclist should be killed multiple ways”
He might have done it in more snidey and less inflamatory language, but he still is claiming false equivalence and victim blaming like always. I was actually happy his (diguised in this case) bile had been ignored for 13 or so hours. Just a shame Joe replied in the end.
Garage at Large wrote:
But it isn’t for the police to decide on mitigation, that is the court’s job during the trial. The police’s job is to decide whether an offence has been committed and present the evidence to the CPS.
The CPS then decides whether there is enough evidence to take it further.
The trial then decides whether (a) the evidence is strong enough to convict, taking into account (b) andy mitigation offered by the defence.
He used his car as a weapon.
He used his car as a weapon. Absolutely no different than if he had pulled a knife and tried to stab him.
Ironically, if Greg had
Ironically, if Greg had called the driver a stupid fat twat, he would probably be arrested for fat shaming or a hate crime.
When the law fails to protect
When the law fails to protect, take the law into your own hands.
Silca Tattico pump…for
Silca Tattico pump…for those occasions when you know that your video submission is just not going to cut the mustard…
Although did anyone viewing
Although did anyone viewing that think it didn’t “cut the mustard”. The phone in his hand was the minimum offence. Evidence of lots more.
The _Kaner wrote:
Thanks for that bike porn distraction, git :-)..i googled what that was, and thought “ooh that’s a quality pump!” and have now bought a new pump, when I already had about 10 minipumps in the jilted bike bits box
You could argue this is a low
You could argue this is a low-end affray. I don’t think the 14-day limit applies to this offence.
Weapon being the car, threat made then a physical action to swerve car occurred (passes the test of not merely being verbal threat).
Bystanders seemed concerned for their safety and that of others. Busy public place.
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-affray/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/affray-2/
What i always ask in these
What i always ask in these incicdents , yes had a few , is “would you have passed your Driving test doing that?” Most have been good in stopping the driver and making them think , and yes there is always the K”£$*&^% s who resort to escalating via volume or profounf language:)
Totally – but this doesn’t
Totally – but this doesn’t seem to be an effective argument anywhere (e.g. why can’t we bring that into the courts when judging driving standards etc.) I can only imagine that people see the test as some kind of artificial bureaucratic imposition getting in the way of your “right to drive”. Clearly the idea that you should continue at this standard or better is missing. People don’t even seem to see this as a benchmark let alone a baseline (that you don’t fall below).
I’d say it’s our “freedom-loving nature” in the UK but clearly we don’t excercise that – beyond the freedom to get indignant and grumble.
Like everything I think if we could just bring this in (e.g. as a standard in courts, as regular “refreshers” for all drivers – AKA retests!) there’d be howls of indignation… then after a year or two we’d just get on with it as we do the weather.
chrisonatrike wrote:
if we had all driving cases tried in front of a jury of driving examiners the conviction rate would go way up.
It’s odd that every jury will likely have at least 5 below average drivers (and at least 5 above average). So you need to convince 5 bad drivers that the driving in question was not good.
Could you imagine if we had 5 racists on a jury for race hate crimes?
There was in 2013 around 29
There was in 2013 around 29 court districts that were driving offence specific. These thoughwere for minor offences only and dependant on a guilty plea. Whether they exist still is another question
I think that any driving offence should go to a specific court regardless of the offence and be overseen by a judge/magistrate who specialises in road crime with a jury being brought in for certain serious offences. Medium level should maybe have a panel who will then decide.