Brake-checking motorist deliberately causes crash: Hertfordshire Police tell cyclist video evidence “does not provide a realistic prospect of conviction”

Mungecrundle wrote:

Getting them to accept that I was not injured was Kafkaesque. I get that injury accidents need to be reported in person at a Police station, road traffic act requirement apparently or some nonsense, but as my nearest station would be Stevenage some 20 miles away it was neither convenient or necessary, I don't do spurious whiplash claims, but it does raise the question of how you are supposed to report an injury collision from your hospital bed?

My thinking on the "slight injury" aspect wasn't on a spurious civil damages claim, but that the police are required to complete a collision report for injury accidents and not necessarily for non-injury, so it is possibly a way to get at least enough action under way to "get it into the system", instead of being easy to dismiss.

Just spoke to my brother who's a copper and whilst he's not in traffic, he feels this is grounds for assault, however he would like to know why Herts have decided not to take this further, if they haven't given you a reason, they are duty bound to tell you if you press them for it.

He did think though that you did overtake in a dangerous spot and without signaling.

However, that's no excuse for the drivers behaviour

wingmanrob wrote:

Just spoke to my brother who's a copper and whilst he's not in traffic, he feels this is grounds for assault, however he would like to know why Herts have decided not to take this further, if they haven't given you a reason, they are duty bound to tell you if you press them for it.

He did think though that you did overtake in a dangerous spot and without signaling.

How can you tell he didn't signal?  The way the shadow is it's impossible to see whether his right arm moved or not. I don't think it's a dangerous spot either, the cyclist simply held his high position coming off the roundabout. It would have been a dangerous point for a car to overtake a bike, or indeed a car a car, but the only danger here is created by the psychopath in the car.

Well I disagreed with him about it being dangerous but both of us couldn't see his arm come off the handlebars until he'd heard the horn. 

But if he finds out the reason, I can tell you where to take it further.

No, cyclist was to the right of L1, close to L2, they simply held their line exiting the roundabout causing the motorist to be delayed by a 3 or 4 seconds. Nothing dangerous at all, apart from sharing the road with a psychopath.

I'd have thought that the initial clipping is clear enough for some kind of response, so a complaint is definitely in order. With the brake check on the roundabout, it could well be more complicated as though it certainly looks to me like the driver intended to cause a collision, they could argue that they braked to avoid hitting something on the road and that you shouldn't have been so fast that you couldn't stop in time. However, combine the brake check with the clipping/close pass and it's clear that the police need to at the very least have a word with the driver.

Well I read the article and then read the comments, then I watched the video. Bloody hell! Terrible driving!

You've told the video upload unit that you suffered 'stiffness', so that is an injury and rightly, or wrongly, they've passed you  / palmed you off onto a different department. 
I presume that you have played down your injury so the department which took your details have decided that it's non-injury and therefore not their problem. You've been fobbed off there.

I don't understand why the video upload unit didn't just accept that it's 'non-injury' and got on with it. There are two clear collisions both caused by the driver's actions, a dubious use of horn and good video evidence of both incidents and the offending vehicle. 
I have said this before, but there's nothing stopping the police from automatically generating an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) within the 14 day time limit. They can always cancel it later. If there's no timeous NIP, there's no prosecution. Which apparently is what happened here.

I think that by the time the buck has finally stopped with the video upload unit, the NIP deadline has passed and they have fobbed you off with that generic letter!

I would write a short  letter/email to the video upload unit (whatever it is called) and ask for a more detailed explanation of the decision of no further action, as you believe there is clear evidence that the driver has committed offences under the Road Traffic Act.

See how you get on and if the outcome is unsatisfactory, then make an official complaint to Hertfordshire Constabulary about how your initial complaint has been investigated.

Good luck and please keep us updated. 
 

EDIT - I've just remembered that IF it is an 'injury RTC' (and in my opinion it is), then you don't need an NIP; it's one of the exceptions to the rule. Or a 'damage only RTC'. There must have been some damage to your clothing or bike?

The irony is that it's the driver of the motor vehicle's responsibility to report to the police, otherwise it's Fail to Stop etc.

As I understand, the 14 day period to issue a NIP isnt required when a collision has taken place.  Especially when leaving the scene with giving details.

I am going through the same for a car collision where the offending driver left the scene without stopping.  I have a witness and the police has issued a NIP

A nip can be issued within the 6 month period to lay charges.

I would make a complaint and contact the local press to highlight the police failing.  

Thanks for sharing that link. I had no idea that you could get drivers details from the DVLA. I don't ride with a camera these days, but when I used to, there were a few drivers I would have liked to be able to get in touch with 🙄

Oh they are!

Nah, you can find all this stuff out via askmid.com

You then just call the insurers, and provide the policy number provided by the noted website, to bring the accident to their attention.

You could argue that, but you'd be unsuccessful. If you brake check someone you are at fault, because you're executing a maneuver that is designed to cause a collision.

Looks to me like a clear-cut case of fraud - Herts police officers drawing their pay under false pretences.