Cambridgeshire cyclist films driver threatening him – but police say they can’t do anything

srchar wrote:

I fail to see how this isn't at least a public order offence, which would warrant investigation.

I note that the police haven't yet responded to requests for a comment, probably because it's Christmas, but I would hope there's a valid reason for them sitting on their hands on this one.

It is, in fact it's an assault, but as we know plod are a fucking waste of time when it comes to defending the rights of people when they choose not to bother. Deliberately breaching their worn oaths/attestation should see every one of them removed as a constable, they're an utter disgrace.

gcommie wrote:

May be the cyclist should consider submitting a form V888 to the DVLA to obtain the vehicle's owner, and therefore most likely driver, details. He'll then simply needs to visit to confirm the owner was the driver and then he can start his own private prosecution for threaten behaviour.

Police can not be relied on this days to do anything. Whether it is austerity or, as I suspect, they couldn't give a fuck only they will know; but at least there is still legal options available.

Too risky; there’s a good chance that it ends up in front of magistrates, who think "we’ll, if there had been any actual crime the Police/CPS would have done something about it.  Case  dismissed."

The answer I’m holding in my back pocket is an application to the County Court for an injunction (or "restraining order" in popular parlance).  Which, when based upon video evidence, is almost bound to succeed, is almost certain to be cheaper, and is almost certain to see the defendant ordered to pay your costs of bringing the claim.  He might never pay them, and it might be a somewhat hollow victory, but the costs order can be registered like a CCJ to affect their credit rating.  Overall, much more useful than a tricky private prosecution.

Richard D wrote:

The answer I’m holding in my back pocket is an application to the County Court for an injunction (or "restraining order" in popular parlance).  Which, when based upon video evidence, is almost bound to succeed, is almost certain to be cheaper, and is almost certain to see the defendant ordered to pay your costs of bringing the claim. 

This sounded too good to be true, so I did a tiny bit of research and it might not be quite as simple as implied "In the UK, restraining orders can only be issued during criminal proceedings, so in order to get a restraining order against someone, you must take that person to court first."  Since the police have declined to prosecute, it looks like you might have to go for private prosecution anyway, and the chances of that succeeding are very low, but the restraining order can be imposed even if the defendant is found not guilty, so it could work, but you can't just apply to the court for a restraining order.

This might be an avenue to explore, but until someone's tried it, it remains unproven.  If you've really got one in your back pocket and it is against a driver to restrain them from harrassing you as a cyclist, please let us know.

Housecathst wrote:

Police not acting on a threat of serious violence by a motorist. Not surprised, if hit had been a knife rather than 2 tons of car they’d be more interested, despite the fact that cars are far more deadly than a knife 

Ask them if next time you see a PCSO on the street and you use the same kimd of threatening language will they have the same pathetic response?

Alternatively just carry a hammer.

handlebarcam wrote:

The environs of Cambridge are plagued by motorists who have been sitting frustrated in traffic jams in the city centre, watching dozens of cyclists whizz past them, and so consider the roads out of town, where they can finally get up some speed, to be "their" territory.

I think you'll find that is a UK-wide phenomenon, not just around Cambridge.

hirsute wrote:

I wish I hadn't read the comments on Cambridge live.

Go back and reply to every dodgy comment with one word : Gammon.

Uppercase and add an exclamation mark if you wanna add variety...but don't respond or otherwise reply to these people, they don't troll their hatred on random websites because they are open minded.

But they don't like being called gammon so just do that until they explode.

hirsute wrote:

I wish I hadn't read the comments on Cambridge live.

Some of the gammons have learned to type; are they evolving?

Whatever, it's the usual mix of blaming the cyclist for daring to ride legally on the road and excusing the driver for threatening the cyclist, then going on to the usual "we pay road tax" "you break the law all the time"  "you don't wear helmet" etc, etc.  A few amusing posts, but a startling number who think that the driver was fully justified. 

We need this government review of road law now.