Near Miss of the Day 314: So what is “the minimum threshold of the offence”?

Judge dreadful wrote:

That wasn't all that 'close' it wasn't 3 feet, but I've had far worse than that, and just dealt with it with a raised hand and a head shake, which has had the effect of waking the next few cars drivers up, and resulted in them ( presumably) actually thinking about it, and actually giving enough space. I reckon plod wouldn't be particularly interested in that one. 

Thanks Judge for restoring my faith in human nature and people being reasonable. 
Unfortunately many of the people on this site don't appear to be reasonable at all - cyclists good, car drivers, police bad. No good car drivers or police. No bad cyclists. 
But I don't have to ride with them so I don't fucking care! 

Nemesis wrote:

Judge dreadful wrote:

That wasn't all that 'close' it wasn't 3 feet, but I've had far worse than that, and just dealt with it with a raised hand and a head shake, which has had the effect of waking the next few cars drivers up, and resulted in them ( presumably) actually thinking about it, and actually giving enough space. I reckon plod wouldn't be particularly interested in that one. 

Thanks Judge for restoring my faith in human nature and people being reasonable. 
Unfortunately many of the people on this site don't appear to be reasonable at all - cyclists good, car drivers, police bad. No good car drivers or police. No bad cyclists. 
But I don't have to ride with them so I don't fucking care! 

Okay, so you're either a troll or are projecting your own black/white view of the world in some bizarre strawman distortion of reality.

The majority of cyclists on this site are also car drivers and I daresay that some of them are also police.

hawkinspeter]</p>

<p>[quote=Nemesis wrote:

Judge dreadful wrote:

That wasn't all that 'close' it wasn't 3 feet, but I've had far worse than that, and just dealt with it with a raised hand and a head shake, which has had the effect of waking the next few cars drivers up, and resulted in them ( presumably) actually thinking about it, and actually giving enough space. I reckon plod wouldn't be particularly interested in that one. 

Thanks Judge for restoring my faith in human nature and people being reasonable. 
Unfortunately many of the people on this site don't appear to be reasonable at all - cyclists good, car drivers, police bad. No good car drivers or police. No bad cyclists. 
But I don't have to ride with them so I don't fucking care! 

Okay, so you're either a troll or are projecting your own black/white view of the world in some bizarre strawman distortion of reality.

The majority of cyclists on this site are also car drivers and I daresay that some of them are also police.

Interesting. I didn't think I was a troll but thanks for clearing that up.

I also didn't think I had a black and white view of the world - I was merely making the point that there appears to be a fair amount of binary thinking on this site where the prevailing opinion appears to be that the police & car drivers are presumed to be guilty and cyclists are presumed to be unblameworthy.

But thanks for 'schooling' me. (You might want to look that up on Wiki) 

Nemesis wrote:

Interesting. I didn't think I was a troll but thanks for clearing that up.

I also didn't think I had a black and white view of the world - I was merely making the point that there appears to be a fair amount of binary thinking on this site where the prevailing opinion appears to be that the police & car drivers are presumed to be guilty and cyclists are presumed to be unblameworthy.

But thanks for 'schooling' me. (You might want to look that up on Wiki)

You're either being a bit dim or deliberately misinterpreting what people are saying.

It's quite clear that commenters take a dim view of poor/dangerous driving and often criticising poor cycling as well (though that's invariably not as dangerous). With the police, there have been many commendations of police actions as well as criticism of police in-action.

You seem to be deliberately jumping to conclusions about what people are saying and what they are not saying.

It's quite simple really. A certain percentage of the population are nasty, self centred pieces of shit - maybe 1%? Now some of those drive, some cycle and some are police. When driving they are very dangerous, cycling less so and the police ones need to be sacked.

I would like to apply the same thinking to politicians, but it appears that the percentage may be closer to 99%.

Vlad the Impailer wrote:

leqin [295 posts] 1 hour ago
1 like  

Look seriously - how dare you besmirch our counties heroic police force for not working hard enough - do you even realise how dangerous it is to be parked up on back lanes out of sight and mind risking life and limb with a bag on donuts and hot cups of coffee... no you damn well haven't, so how dare you - HOW DARE YOU - imply that they aren't doing their jobs correctly.

quote

[Avatar]
leqin [295 posts] 1 hour ago
1 like  

And have you ever had to try washing the stains from a Big Mac jissing all over your best dress uniform? - I thought not - you ought to be ashamed of yourself [yes]

quote

 

You Tosser.  

Tell that to the Brave Officers that just ran into the Arndale shopping centre after a man with a knife stabbed 5 people.

The Officers in London who stood up to 3 men with knives killing everyone they could see - some even off duty with no equipment to protect themselves.

You would be the first person to call out for the Police if there was a disturbance outside your house or if your family were in danger.

Suggest that if you are so brave - you join the job and try it.... then you can talk.

And for your information - they dont get lunch brakes to sit at a nice table and eat quietly - they are always on call to people like you and many a time they dont even get to eat as they are helping people like you.

Suggest that you think before you type in future - just because you cant see the full picture.

Maybe the next time you see an Officer he might be trying to help put you back together and save your life whilst everyone else with your mindset turns and runs the other way.

And yes - I was there for 22 years and cycled for a lot longer as well and also served my Country in the Armed Forces for 15 years through the 80s and 90s.

Got the medals to prove it too.

Interesting. That's like the inverse (reverse?) of what cyclists usually experience.

Usually, we all get pilloried for the actions of a small minority of cyclists ("I saw a cyclist RLJ once so my close pass is justified ").

But you're saying that we cannot criticise or even mock the police at all because of the 'heroic' actions of a small minority of police officers during some extremely rare (though admittedly horrible) incidents.

So, logically, some motorists drive carefully so we can't criticise any motorists; and some politicians are not corrupt or incompetent so... Etc etc.

Vlad the Impailer wrote:

You Tosser.  

Tell that to the Brave Officers that just ran into the Arndale shopping centre after a man with a knife stabbed 5 people.

The Officers in London who stood up to 3 men with knives killing everyone they could see - some even off duty with no equipment to protect themselves.

You would be the first person to call out for the Police if there was a disturbance outside your house or if your family were in danger.

Suggest that if you are so brave - you join the job and try it.... then you can talk.

And for your information - they dont get lunch brakes to sit at a nice table and eat quietly - they are always on call to people like you and many a time they dont even get to eat as they are helping people like you.

Suggest that you think before you type in future - just because you cant see the full picture.

Maybe the next time you see an Officer he might be trying to help put you back together and save your life whilst everyone else with your mindset turns and runs the other way.

And yes - I was there for 22 years and cycled for a lot longer as well and also served my Country in the Armed Forces for 15 years through the 80s and 90s.

Got the medals to prove it too.

Thanks for your valuable input and even more so thank you - THANK YOU - for your service to our country.

Sorry about this but I want to do a bit of a preamble, but it is pertenant and valuable.

When I started work, which is a long time ago, the people I worked with and learned my trade from had worked during WW2 building Spitfires/Hurricanes/Lancasters - they had worked in the munitions industry at companys like Raleigh and manufacturing tanks and everything we needed to defend our island. They were fantastic people and I am glad, everyday, that I grew up in a world in which they lived and from whom I gained my work ethic....

.... buts thats a world long long ago. Today I work at a company where far to many people spend hours upon end each day doing Twitter and other pointless shyte on their phone each day. I even have to work in office with one who regularly breaks away from work and sticks his phone in front of his face for up to a hour at a time with other management and even directors walking past and nobody complains.... he even sits at his office desk manicuring his nails and nothing - the fact he's doing sod all and in a sane world he would be called a bone idle bastard - well thats the world we live in.

Thats bad enough, but the same happens with people on the shop floor and there are a few who I know beyond any shadow of a doubt spend up to a hour at a time sat on the toilet with phone in hand doing everything from answering email to taking a call and doing stupid feacesbook and twatter stuff and even playing games - don't get me wrong, because there are some incredibly hard working people, but there are also lazy shytes that shouldn't have a job.

Okay now lets move onto the police and specifically the police in Cheshire. Both those things I mentioned in a joking manner in my 2 posts above are based in fact. Along the roads that I commute each day I seem to encounter at regular intervals police persuit cars parked up, vehicles which I and you would normally expect to be on the M6 motorway doing what our taxes paid for them to do.... thats catch the idiots I work with on their mobile phones on their trip home from work.... I don't expect them to be parked up on obscure country lanes that are miles away from a place on which they can join the motorway or even see it.... I don't expect to come back a hour later and the same vehicle is still parked up in the same place with the same occupents... do you?.... does anybody? - don't forget that we are paying for these people to sit in that vehicle gawping out at tree's and this kind of shyte happens today - it didn't happen years ago, but we long ago moved on from the world we had when we had people with the work ethic of Blaster Bates (Google Derek Macintosh Bates) policing our beautiful county.

A few years ago I was in the middle of Sandbach in the ASL at the set of traffic lights where you can turn to go through into the McDonalds car park. While I was there a car bonnet appeared alongside me and then gradually drew forward until I realised it was a police car that had pulled out of the police station a few yards away. As the lights changed the police vehicle pulled forward and then almost took me out as it swerved over to make a right hand turn across my path. It then carried on and pulled up at the front of McDonalds and a officer got out to attend to some important business in the restaurant. I locked my bike up at the front of the health centre and then decided that, really, what had happened was totally uncalled for and should never have happened. Upon pointing out that I was in the ASL and that his manouver could easily have caused a accident I was told it was my fault... I should have been in the bicycle lane (from which you cannot make that turning so go figure) and then he didn't say that roads where meant for cars or that I didn't pay road tax or any of that other stuff... basically it was phuck off because I'm wearing a uniform.... and then the officer who went in the restaurant appeared carrying all the valuable evidence which appeared to be about 10 or more Big Macs and fries and a fare few cokes and perhaps McFlurrys.... so my life had counted for nothing and even my complaint was ignored because apparantly to the police force grabbing a mid day meal means they can ignore the rules applying to ASL's and bicycle riders lives count for nothing in the face of gorging themselves on packaged obesity.

There are fantastic people all over the world Vlad. Those you listed are people we should be grateful for and I know I am. But not everyone is a Blaster Bates and our police force is nothing like the one my friend Derek served in, just like factorys today are not like those I learned my trade in.

Hamster wrote:

Complaint letter time to Chief Constable and the local PCC. Use Basildon Bond (or Conqueror as it's Cheshire) pen and a stamp/recorded delivery. Maybe a copy to the sainted Chris (Boardman) as he's also a good advocate. Don't email and definitely don't phone.

Boardman may be onside, but he’s Manchester. IF you have an incident in Cheshire East (as opposed to Cheshire West) then send details to my wife. Why? Because she is the Cycling and Walking Champion for Cheshire East Council. They work closely with Cheshire Police and the lethargy shown by Cheshire Police up to now regarding close passes etc is on her radar.

She took up the role after the local elections in May and there has been a sea change in attitude on the council regarding cycling now the Conservatives have lost overall control. The Leader is a cyclist, and the Labour, Lib Dem’s and Independent Councillors all support sustainable transport and policies are being rewritten as I type and funding will be found. Things are going to change.

I would encourage EVERYONE to give her the evidence so she can put a case together and formally meet with someone quite high up in Cheshire Police to get a change in their attitude to dealing with such incidents. She is tasked with trying to get more people active and cycling. She is looking at infrastructure changes in our towns to encourage the uptake of cycling, much like Boardman is doing in Manchester. However, if the police remain lapsadisical to close passes and the like then this is not going to encourage or support her efforts. Remember the council has great sway with the Police force as they fund them from council tax.

Email her in the first instance, give a brief summary of the incident, your details and time and date of the incident and any Police response you have received. It would be valuable to put how it made you feel - this is emotive, but if it scared the pants off you and you can put that eloquently into words, this all holds sway when looking at ‘victims’ and raising justifiable concerns even if you didn’t get hit or injured.

If you are a resident of Cheshire East all the better, but even if not still contact her if the incident happened on ‘her patch’. I don’t know if it would be acceptable for her to pursue Cheshire West incidents such as the one in this article, but Cheshire Police cover both administrative parts of the county so she may be able to use the evidence.

suzie.akers-smith [at] cheshireeast.gov.uk

PP

Nemesis wrote:

I must be weird. I didn't think it was that close.... 

But what do I know - I've only been cycling  55 years. 

You may now commence the abuse 
 

I watched it once and that was my first thought too. However, close passes feel much different than they look when watching the video evidence. I've had what I would consider a close pass whilst cycling, but then when looking at the video have subsequently decided to not bother submitting it as it didn't look too bad.

This was definitely less than 1.5m, so the police should still act, even if it's only a warning letter. My view is that the police should be encouraging submission of video close passes etc. as it's a relatively cheap way of obtaining evidence (they just need to pay for someone's time to review footage) and means that even with dwindling numbers, the police can have "eyes" everywhere.

Nemesis wrote:

I must be weird. I didn't think it was that close.... 

But what do I know - I've only been cycling  55 years. 

You may now commence the abuse 

You may have been cycling for 55 years, a few less than me, but perhaps you don't understand perspective as shown by most video cameras, which make close passes look rather less close.  This is a well known phenomenon and I've got lots of my own vids which might not look that close, but were quite sufficiently close for me to fear for my life.

Not sure if that counts as abuse, but if you're feeling particularly in need of masochistic satisfaction, please take it as such.

burtthebike wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I must be weird. I didn't think it was that close.... 

But what do I know - I've only been cycling  55 years. 

You may now commence the abuse 

You may have been cycling for 55 years, a few less than me, but perhaps you don't understand perspective as shown by most video cameras, which make close passes look rather less close.  This is a well known phenomenon and I've got lots of my own vids which might not look that close, but were quite sufficiently close for me to fear for my life.

Not sure if that counts as abuse, but if you're feeling particularly in need of masochistic satisfaction, please take it as such.

even with the forced perspective, thats one Id had been annoyed about at the time for sure, but I wouldnt have bothered submitting it to the police, ymmv.

thats not to take anything away from how it made the rider feel, any pass where you dont feel youve been given the space is horrible, and can cumulatively make you feel horrible about riding on the road. but I didnt think it was that close personally, I regularly get closer passes than that and I dont even bother submitting those fwiw

Nemesis wrote:

I must be weird. I didn't think it was that close.... 

But what do I know - I've only been cycling  55 years. 

You may now commence the abuse 

What you might think in this scenario isn't relevant, it's how it made the victim feel, they felt fear of harm, ergo it's an assault, it's clearly careless driving at the very least. Police doing their usual thing and then wonder why KSIs have been on the up for ages despite the new methods to count that have been introduced.

What we need is a big big money person to take the government and police to the court for human rights to force them to uphold the law as written, and do so with equality for all.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I must be weird. I didn't think it was that close.... 

But what do I know - I've only been cycling  55 years. 

You may now commence the abuse 

What you might think in this scenario isn't relevant, it's how it made the victim feel, they felt fear of harm, ergo it's an assault, it's clearly careless driving at the very least. Police doing their usual thing and then wonder why KSIs have been on the up for ages despite the new methods to count that have been introduced.

What we need is a big big money person to take the government and police to the court for human rights to force them to uphold the law as written, and do so with equality for all.

It might be an assault in your world but, legally, it's not. Otherwise, following your logic, road deaths would be charged as manslaughter, they're not as there is a more appropriate offence. So your 'assault' is a bit of a non starter. Taking the government and police to court "for human rights" is an interesting concept. How an individual driver's actions can suddenly breach another's human rights is odd. Only governments and their agents can, in law, breach an individual's human rights. 
I wonder what human rights are being breached...?

I might be boring me quoting law but that's what the police use or don't use  

Funnily enough Windsor Council banning cyclists from the Velolife cafe appears to be a breach of Article 11 of the Act ~ Freedom of Assembly and Association. I'm amazed no one's gone after the council for this. 
 

nemesis wrote:

It might be an assault in your world but, legally, it's not. Otherwise, following your logic, road deaths would be charged as manslaughter, they're not as there is a more appropriate offence. So your 'assault' is a bit of a non starter. Taking the government and police to court "for human rights" is an interesting concept. How an individual driver's actions can suddenly breach another's human rights is odd. Only governments and their agents can, in law, breach an individual's human rights. 
I wonder what human rights are being breached...?

I might be boring me quoting law but that's what the police use or don't use  

Funnily enough Windsor Council banning cyclists from the Velolife cafe appears to be a breach of Article 11 of the Act ~ Freedom of Assembly and Association. I'm amazed no one's gone after the council for this. 
 

 

 

Legally assault occurs when a person causes another to fear some form of illegal violence. So yes, it is assault. It's not charged as such presumably because it's hard to make that case, but given the legal definition it is assault. It doesn't cease to be assault just because it's often ignored or charged as something else.

And death by dangerous driving should be manslaughter, but they developed the new offences because juries didn't convict on manslaughter charges. Of course they now don't convict on dangerous driving charges, so clearly that didn't work, but that doesn't mean it isn't death by dangerous driving or indeed manslaughter.

vonhelmet wrote:

nemesis wrote:

It might be an assault in your world but, legally, it's not. Otherwise, following your logic, road deaths would be charged as manslaughter, they're not as there is a more appropriate offence. So your 'assault' is a bit of a non starter. Taking the government and police to court "for human rights" is an interesting concept. How an individual driver's actions can suddenly breach another's human rights is odd. Only governments and their agents can, in law, breach an individual's human rights. 
I wonder what human rights are being breached...?

I might be boring me quoting law but that's what the police use or don't use  

Funnily enough Windsor Council banning cyclists from the Velolife cafe appears to be a breach of Article 11 of the Act ~ Freedom of Assembly and Association. I'm amazed no one's gone after the council for this. 
 

 

 

Legally assault occurs when a person causes another to fear some form of illegal violence. So yes, it is assault. It's not charged as such presumably because it's hard to make that case, but given the legal definition it is assault. It doesn't cease to be assault just because it's often ignored or charged as something else. And death by dangerous driving should be manslaughter, but they developed the new offences because juries didn't convict on manslaughter charges. Of course they now don't convict on dangerous driving charges, so clearly that didn't work, but that doesn't mean it isn't death by dangerous driving or indeed manslaughter.

I think you'll find that an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. So how on earth does a close pass qualify as an assault? - it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels. So you appear to have got the definition wrong but don't let that stop you.... It's not ignored or charged as something else as it isn't the assault offence in the first place.

You're correct on the manslaughter/death by dangerous/careless driving though  

Nemesis wrote:

I think you'll find that an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. So how on earth does a close pass qualify as an assault? - it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels. So you appear to have got the definition wrong but don't let that stop you.... It's not ignored or charged as something else as it isn't the assault offence in the first place.

You're correct on the manslaughter/death by dangerous/careless driving though  

You're a bit confused/misinformed.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

Quote:

Actus reus

Both in the common law and under statute, the actus reus of a common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury. There must be some quality of reasonableness to the apprehension on the part of the victim. If the physical contact is everyday social behaviour such as a handshake or friendly pat on the back, this is acceptable even though the victim may have a phobia although, if the defendant is aware of the psychological difficulty, this may be converted into an assault if the intention is to exploit the condition and embarrass the victim. More generally, if the defendant threatens injury tomorrow, the victim has the opportunity to take avoiding action. Thus, what is threatened must be capable of being carried out immediately. This would exclude a conditional threat. For example, if the defendant says that he would beat the living daylights out of you but for the presence of a police officer watching them both, the victim is supposed to understand that there is no immediate danger (cf. Tuberville v Savage's "If it were not assize time I would not take such language from you"). But inequality in size can be disregarded so if a very small person threatens a very large person and it is obvious that the risk of any real injury from this attack is remote, the large person may nevertheless feel some degree of apprehension. Normally, both the one making the threat and the victim must be physically present because, otherwise, there would be no immediate danger. However, if a mobile phone is used to transmit the threat (whether orally or by SMS) and, from the words used, the victim reasonably understands that an attack is imminent, this may constitute an assault.

hawkinspeter]</p>

<p>[quote=Nemesis wrote:

I think you'll find that an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. So how on earth does a close pass qualify as an assault? - it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels. So you appear to have got the definition wrong but don't let that stop you.... It's not ignored or charged as something else as it isn't the assault offence in the first place.

You're correct on the manslaughter/death by dangerous/careless driving though  

You're a bit confused/misinformed.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

Quote:

Actus reus

Both in the common law and under statute, the actus reus of a common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury. There must be some quality of reasonableness to the apprehension on the part of the victim. If the physical contact is everyday social behaviour such as a handshake or friendly pat on the back, this is acceptable even though the victim may have a phobia although, if the defendant is aware of the psychological difficulty, this may be converted into an assault if the intention is to exploit the condition and embarrass the victim. More generally, if the defendant threatens injury tomorrow, the victim has the opportunity to take avoiding action. Thus, what is threatened must be capable of being carried out immediately. This would exclude a conditional threat. For example, if the defendant says that he would beat the living daylights out of you but for the presence of a police officer watching them both, the victim is supposed to understand that there is no immediate danger (cf. Tuberville v Savage's "If it were not assize time I would not take such language from you"). But inequality in size can be disregarded so if a very small person threatens a very large person and it is obvious that the risk of any real injury from this attack is remote, the large person may nevertheless feel some degree of apprehension. Normally, both the one making the threat and the victim must be physically present because, otherwise, there would be no immediate danger. However, if a mobile phone is used to transmit the threat (whether orally or by SMS) and, from the words used, the victim reasonably understands that an attack is imminent, this may constitute an assault.

I quoted from the Offences Against the Person Act you quoted from Wiki but I'm confused/misinformed?! Hilarious!!

Nemesis]<p>[quote=hawkinspeter wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I think you'll find that an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. So how on earth does a close pass qualify as an assault? - it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels. So you appear to have got the definition wrong but don't let that stop you.... It's not ignored or charged as something else as it isn't the assault offence in the first place.

You're correct on the manslaughter/death by dangerous/careless driving though  

You're a bit confused/misinformed.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

Quote:

Actus reus

Both in the common law and under statute, the actus reus of a common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury. There must be some quality of reasonableness to the apprehension on the part of the victim. If the physical contact is everyday social behaviour such as a handshake or friendly pat on the back, this is acceptable even though the victim may have a phobia although, if the defendant is aware of the psychological difficulty, this may be converted into an assault if the intention is to exploit the condition and embarrass the victim. More generally, if the defendant threatens injury tomorrow, the victim has the opportunity to take avoiding action. Thus, what is threatened must be capable of being carried out immediately. This would exclude a conditional threat. For example, if the defendant says that he would beat the living daylights out of you but for the presence of a police officer watching them both, the victim is supposed to understand that there is no immediate danger (cf. Tuberville v Savage's "If it were not assize time I would not take such language from you"). But inequality in size can be disregarded so if a very small person threatens a very large person and it is obvious that the risk of any real injury from this attack is remote, the large person may nevertheless feel some degree of apprehension. Normally, both the one making the threat and the victim must be physically present because, otherwise, there would be no immediate danger. However, if a mobile phone is used to transmit the threat (whether orally or by SMS) and, from the words used, the victim reasonably understands that an attack is imminent, this may constitute an assault.

I quoted from the Offences Against the Person Act you quoted from Wiki but I'm confused/misinformed?! Hilarious!!

"
apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."

Perhaps you could explain what the meaning of 'apprehend' is and which person is the subject of this ?

Nemesis wrote:

I quoted from the Offences Against the Person Act you quoted from Wiki but I'm confused/misinformed?! Hilarious!!

The bit where you said:

Nemesis wrote:

- it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels

doesn't look like a quote from the act. Maybe you should put some attribution down so it's clear which bit is a quote (as I try to) and which bit is your (mis)interpretation.

Nemesis wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

nemesis wrote:

It might be an assault in your world but, legally, it's not. Otherwise, following your logic, road deaths would be charged as manslaughter, they're not as there is a more appropriate offence. So your 'assault' is a bit of a non starter. Taking the government and police to court "for human rights" is an interesting concept. How an individual driver's actions can suddenly breach another's human rights is odd. Only governments and their agents can, in law, breach an individual's human rights. 
I wonder what human rights are being breached...?

I might be boring me quoting law but that's what the police use or don't use  

Funnily enough Windsor Council banning cyclists from the Velolife cafe appears to be a breach of Article 11 of the Act ~ Freedom of Assembly and Association. I'm amazed no one's gone after the council for this. 
 

 

 

Legally assault occurs when a person causes another to fear some form of illegal violence. So yes, it is assault. It's not charged as such presumably because it's hard to make that case, but given the legal definition it is assault. It doesn't cease to be assault just because it's often ignored or charged as something else. And death by dangerous driving should be manslaughter, but they developed the new offences because juries didn't convict on manslaughter charges. Of course they now don't convict on dangerous driving charges, so clearly that didn't work, but that doesn't mean it isn't death by dangerous driving or indeed manslaughter.

 

I think you'll find that an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. So how on earth does a close pass qualify as an assault? - it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels. So you appear to have got the definition wrong but don't let that stop you.... It's not ignored or charged as something else as it isn't the assault offence in the first place.

You're correct on the manslaughter/death by dangerous/careless driving though  

 

 

 

 

 

If I "apprehend" i.e. fear the application of unlawful force i.e. the application of a driver's car to my body then the offence is committed. It even says intentionally or recklessly so the driver doesn't even need to intend to do it if they're driving recklessly.

Nemesis wrote:

I think you'll find that an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. So how on earth does a close pass qualify as an assault? - it's based on intent not what the 'victim' feels. So you appear to have got the definition wrong but don't let that stop you.... It's not ignored or charged as something else as it isn't the assault offence in the first place.

 

I don't think there's any chance of a close pass being treated like that (unless, perhaps, the victim were a police officer) but your comment is completely self-contradictory.

The word 'reckless' that you included there directly contradicts what you say about being 'based on intent'. And the reference to 'other apprehending something' further directly contradicts your claim that it's not based on 'what the victim feels'.

So I don't claim to know the law at all, but just on the face of it your comment is completely incoherent (you probably should have read it after typing it).