Near Miss of the Day 8 revisited: What happened next?

The reason police may not act is often because WE allow them to be indifferent.  Categorically, when something like this happens and you have evidence (which we know the police are happy to act on in other circumstances) you must demand action is taken.  90% of the time you will initially be fobbed off as A) They are far too busy when (nothing) has physically happened to you and B) too many police forces are soft on road violence...period.

I am currently fighting with my local police authority in Northampton when a driver attempted to run me down deliberately whilst I was out running on a quiet country lane.  I had to jump into the ditch to avoid his car, his wheels on the grass verge.  He then issued a verbal death threat and drove off.  I twisted my knee and suffered scratches and bruises where I'd landed badly in the ditch.

He was driving a black mustang, not even in a white van, and the police quickly identified him from the registration I'd given.  He was known to the police for other undisclosed offences and the officer interviewing me also revealed he was a previously banned driver.  I presumed he would be sufficiently dealt with but no.  He had insurance and a current licence yet predictably denied the entire incident.  All went quiet.

I was then pushed into the Motor Insurers Bureau system to cover the physiotherapy I then needed on my leg and I didn't understand why when I'd been told the driver was insured.  Long story short is the officer dealing with the file had failed to adequately record the attack instead choosing to follow up on the death threat as quote "this seemed the more serious incident".  Yep, unbelievable.

I only recently found out the officer had failed to record the road attack aspect despite the officer knowing I'd been injured so I asked the police why they'd failed to record the crime properly instead of picking and choosing what they followed up.  As a result I'd been denied the opportunity to bill the drivers insurers and anyone who's been in the MIB system will know they are overworked and it's just...plain...crap...from start to finish.

I've told the police I expect them to cover various expenses the MIB won't cover as they failed to tie the drivers actions with his insurers and they're now doing their very best to wriggle out of it, even quoting obscure pieces of statute at me that they strangely refuse to elaborate on when I ask more.  I've passed the first stage...which is them telling me I can't make a complaint about the officers lack of actions...and am now waiting to hear back as they are trying to disapply my complaint.

So...always complain...always insist action is taken...always follow everything up...never accept the initial shit they'll try to fob you off with and remember, your life has value and they are charged with protecting the wellbeing and safety of the general public.  If a cretin tries to hurt you, yes even in their car 'by accident' and you have evidence of that use it.  Until we as a community stop accepting this shit we'll go on having it thrown at us. 

Insurer looks likely to pay up - the driver wanted to pay £10 a week. 

My understanding nature has ceased to function, but perhaps in her mind that places me further up the list of priorites than other things - higher, for example, than insurance, driving lessons, a test and a licence.

Reply to nnif.....

I made a big mistake when I allowed a neighbour to get my car repaired after she reversed into it. Pursue the matter through the insurers and the police.

The action that the police took are worse than doing nothing. So a guy is being OBVIOUSLY dangerous, he gets recorded and no punishment.

I can imagine what happened later at the pub with his mates:

-Hey guys a stupid moron on a bicycle, sent a helmetcam video at the police with me driving and nearly killing him and the police found me and just told me to be nicer.

-LOL this is cool mate, so I can drive as dangerous I want and even in the rare case somebody records us still no problem

-YES!!

-OK I am high now, do you want to threaten other people one the road by making false attacks with a baseball bat over their heads?

-Are you crazy? This assault mate, somebody could even consider it as terrorrist attack. With our BMWs it is super safe

justice served ... nice ... I'm sure he's scared $hitless about getting another one of those ... I mean, a stern telling off ... it's up there with going to jail ... 

The judge is a fucking disgrace and the system is clearly fucked. It does everything it can to alleviate blame and responsibility on those that do the most harm.

The BS about inexplicable reason why they didn't see them is all too clear, the reason he didn't see or act to avoid what was clear to see was that he didn't look/see not give a fuck he was cutting the corner and wanted to get in front of oncoming traffic, that in itself is the absolute definition of reckless/dangerous driving.

That the judge passes this off as a trivial matter and the CPS didn't go for GBH again highlights how shit it all is!

And charlie Alliston gets 18months when he wasn't even completely at fault, miscarriage of justice in both instances!

if the car was semi-autonomous like this one http://road.cc/content/news/230853-semi-autonomous-bmw-will-%E2%80%98fig... , would it have prevented the driver from doing so ? my guess is no. The signature of a cyclist a much to tiny.

The car dash cam footage would be interesting, which plod or councillors significant other did they upset?

"Thames Valley Police told him they…never prosecute motorists for careless driving based on third party camera footage."

It's worth noting that TVP have joint road operations with Hampshire Police. Whilst the road policing units (who are out in the field) aren't the same as the traffic processing units (who do the admin stuff, including receiving video footage) it's clearly suspicious that both tell cyclists that they don't act on video footage: in TVP's case that they don't prosecute; in Hampshire's case that they don't even look at it.

It's worth asking them why they choose not to prosecute. They can do it easily enough, they're making a conscious policy decision not to.

I wonder if Thames Valley's Police and Crime Commisioner "was provided with details of the [article] and advised to [read] this", he would be "apologetic for his actions and felt that it did not reflect well on himself that he was reported by a member of the public because of his manner of [policing]"?

“He was apologetic for his actions."

..and business as normal. The police do not give a fuck about the safety of cyclists.

So, here’s a question for you. 

Say, for example that you were riding down a cycle superhighway in London and got left-hooked by a car that didn’t indicate.  Your fingers get mashed (bleeding and bruised but no lasting damage), but you manage to stay on your feet, hopping around, cursing darkly and wondering if your fingers were broken.  The motorist, having stopped, moves off again and drives over your front wheel (£600 a pair to you, Sir) and munches assorted other components.  The driver stops again.  You exchange details.  She is Portuguese.  There are two cyclist witnesses directly behind you, one of whom has a video.  You report it to the police, but as both protagonists seem to be mostly in one piece they are not particularly interested.

A check shows the car to be taxed, insured and tested.  You write offering to settle amicably.  You hear nothing back, and so trace the insurance company and lodge your claim with them.  They confirm that the car is insured, but the driver isn’t named on the policy.  The following day, you get an agitated foreign lady on the phone.  She is not the driver, but is a friend of the driver and the insured party.  Not only does she confirm that the driver wasn’t insured, but also tells you that the driver doesn’t have a licence.  They are most keen to avoid  interaction with the police.

Do you:

-Give them a few days to get in touch with payment?
-Chase up the insurance company again and see where that gets you?
-Pass what you now know to the police, along with the address details and passport details that you have and wait for justice to take its course?
-And/or take them to small claims?
-Wonder why people keep on bleating about cyclists having to do a test on the Highway Code?

It would seem Thames Valley Police do use 3rd party video evidence when it is obtained by another driver on a dashcam.  I quote from TVP own website:

Update-Man convicted for dangerous driving in Twyford - Wokingham

Published on:
13 Oct 2017, 3:31 p.m.
 

Following an investigation by Thames Valley Police a man has sentenced following an incident of dangerous driving in Twyford.

Nicholas Anthony Spender, aged 31, of Sherwood Place, Reading, pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the road traffic act.

Spender pleaded guilty to the charge at a hearing at Reading Magistrates’ Court on 2 October.

It was in connection with an incident in which Spender drove on the wrong side of the road on Church Street, Twyford on 10 March 2017 at around 5.35pm. 

He was sentenced at the same hearing and was disqualified from driving for 12 months, and ordered to pay costs of £1,200.

Investigating officer PC Christopher Harrison, of the Twyford neighbourhood policing team, said: “In this incident Spender showed no regard for other road users or pedestrians’ safety.

“We have released footage of this incident which was provided by a member of the public.

“This evidence proved irrefutably the manner of Spender’s driving and led to him pleading guilty to the offence and I am pleased that he has received an appropriate sentence.”

Shocking driving and (sadly not surprisingly) awful response by the police. Why do they not prosecute motorists based on third-party footage? Would they for other crimes? Say I caught an assault on video on my phone - would they refuse to prosecute based on that?

I had a very similar incident riding up to Bath with a couple of others for the Exmouth Exodus earlier in the year. If anything it was even closer than this one. The car was fully on our side of the road as it passed between us and the car it was overtaking. Sadly not caught on video.

Would much rather the Police do this than just say they can't prosecute and do nothing at all!

Surely evidence is evidence? a camera is more reliable than a witness and yet courts regulary take witness statements as evidence.

Demonstrating perfectly the futility of increasing the penalties for dangerous driving when incidents like this go unpunished.

"crack on mate, we can't prosecute you"

Shocking driving.  It surely won't be long before the driver has a head on with someone or something.  

OH NO, not a warning!!!  However will the driver live with himself?!

Must be the day for police warnings only, how many laws and rules can I break...

Problem solved, well done rozzers!