London driver rams cyclist after traffic light filter turns green (+ video, includes swearing)

Between 'any doubt' and 'any reasonable doubt' is the play room where institutional discrimination happens

The driver will just deny anything and say the cyclist lost their balance.

This is not about what we can deduce but about what can be proved

hirsute wrote:

The driver will just deny anything and say the cyclist lost their balance.

This is not about what we can deduce but about what can be proved

When you see a WET PAINT sign on a park bench, I bet you're the sort of person that doesn't just touch it, just to check. I bet you'd ignore the sign entirely and moan about getting paint all over your trousers.

After all, a WET PAINT sign doesn't "prove" there's any wet paint, does it?

For some reason I often find myself wondering how the police were ever able to get any kind of conviction whatsoever when we weren't all wearing multiple cameras all the time. 

Almost as if there might be other ways of doing it ...

Jetmans Dad wrote:

For some reason I often find myself wondering how the police were ever able to get any kind of conviction whatsoever when we weren't all wearing multiple cameras all the time. 

Almost as if there might be other ways of doing it ...

Eschew the blasphemer!!!

Not quite sure why you've been especially triggered by this one?

Otherwise it seems to me like a "how it is" vs. "how it ought to be" impasse here?

Clearly some of the police are not rocking the motorists' boat - or vehicle (wtjs step forward).  Clearly we've got a giant pro-motorist bias in the police / the law.  Very often it seems there's a reluctance to put in the resources even when there is blood on the ground.

However - I think there are bigger battles than this particular hill.  Yes - there's an out-of-control driver out there.  There are lots though, and I just don't think this one would get anywhere even if the police did pull their finger out.

I certainly don't think it should be the responsibility of the cyclist not only to wrap themselves in hi-vis, mitigate injuries caused by others with PPE but also bear the burden of doing the police's work for them (cameras everywhere).  Sadly the current reality is that without ALL of those there is less chance the law may help.  Worse though - even doing all that is not sufficient.  Plenty of apparently "open goals" that the police have shockingly missed.

You might just be lucky of course and have your report land on the desk of someone like Inspector Kevin Smith - or even better *be* the good Inspector.  However even the Cycling Silk has failed to win some of these in court.

The issue I have with this, is that this video supports the cyclist's version of events - that they were hit, from behind, by a car driver whilst stationary for some time at a set of lights. And some on here are saying that the video evidence does not support that at all because it's forward facing only. I wonder if the car driver had driven over the bike, and the bike went fully horizontal on the floor (but the car was still not yet in frame of the video) whether people would still make the same argument. Perhaps they would suggest that the bike magically became horizontal, perhaps because the gravity were magnified at that location and the cyclist could no longer keep such a heavy bike upright? Who knows.

Anyway, expecting cyclists to have video evidence in all directions to get anything done by the justice system hurts us all. It increases the minimum evidence required for a cyclist to even be heard by the police.

Or society used to do something similar about rapes. Telling women that they shouldn't have walked home alone, and that there is nothing that can be done because there are no witnesses, as though a statement from the party that was raped is entirely irrelevant.

Crimes go entirely un-investigated because of this and I won't stand by while people increase the standard of evidence required and offer up stupid reasons why VIDEO evidence taken DURING a crime is irrelevant.

Also, please don't call people "triggered" for speaking up about a subject they are passionate about. It's a bit like calling women "hysterical". It's patronising and attempts to undermine people by suggesting that their response is borne from an emotional reaction, and therefore carries less merit. My argument is not borne from an emotional response and would not be undermined even if it were, thank you very much.

Clearly we've got a giant pro-motorist bias in the police / the law

I realise that people will just say 'Ah, but that's just Lancashire Constabulary...', whereas I think if's really Sheffield NW that's really the outlier, and most forces are full of officers that would like have their own 5-litre 250 kW BMW at home as well as the one at work and are reluctant to engage in the 'war on the motorist' by noticing offences instead of properly looking the other way. This is VW AK59 CCA's DVLA entry when first detected in May 22 waiting outside Garstang High School with no MOT or VED. The police refused to do anything about the MOT despite the vehicle regularly being seen around Garstang and DVLA refused to do anything about the VED. DVLA continues to do nothing about the VED, despite it being on their own database that the vehicle initially failed and later passed MOT 2 months ago on 2.11.22. I concede that the vehicle has only evaded VED for 20 months, so probably comes up as 'Good for Lancashire' on DVLA systems (if they have any)

I can only assume you are determined not to understand what at least 3 other people have written about why the police did not take action.

No doubt you will poorly and inaccurately summarise this thread in future as some sort of proof about what people think.

hirsute wrote:

I can only assume you are determined not to understand what at least 3 other people have written about why the police did not take action.

No doubt you will poorly and inaccurately summarise this thread in future as some sort of proof about what people think.

 

You're an entitled and arrogant person aren't you. Do you think that everyone that disagrees with you must be stupid and unable to understand your privileged and superior intellect?

I disagree with you and find it very disappointing that you'd agree that video evidence (albeit in only one direction, and not as you clearly prefer, a full 360 degree, 4k recording at all times) is insufficient for police action. I expect better of our police services. Clearly, you do not.

Take a look at yourself who has dismissed 3 other people's views as ridiculous and told us to get a grip.

hirsute wrote:

Take a look at yourself who has dismissed 3 other people's views as ridiculous and told us to get a grip.

Next time you or someone you know gets zero help from the police, I hope you'll think better of your current opinions.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Take a look at yourself who has dismissed 3 other people's views as ridiculous and told us to get a grip.

Next time you or someone you know gets zero help from the police, I hope you'll think better of your current opinions.

Dude, I don't think anyone on here is saying the incentive for police inaction is the way it SHOULD be*. They are pointing out, correctly, that the law in word and in practice is so skewed towards motorists that a case would almost certainly not result in a successful prosecution. And is it almost certainly not result in a prosecution, the police will be far more interested in spending time on biased stop and search. Is that shit? Sure it is. Is that the way it is? Sure it is. Chill out, your boner is with the wrong people.

*apart from Mr 3 posts of poor quality, doing a passible impression of a PBU.