Motorist drives into cyclist moments after shouting abuse for not using cycle lane

Until there's some provision for admission of some measurable "standard" * in court I think we're doomed to the folly of "each case in complete isolation" - as if this was the first instance of anyone driving.  Now judging each case on merits is indeed a wonderful principle and I'm very wary of suggestions of "administrative punishments" in most circumstances. However I don't think it's appropriate to judge behaviour on the road in the same way as if it's the same as behaviour in a shop, at a party, walking through the countryside etc.  The road is a constrained environment.  There are rules, you have to pass a test and be licenced etc.  Essentially ignoring that and saying "how do you think they did?" to some people is a recipe for an ineffective system.  Especially since magistrates / juries / judges (not to mention the CPS, police and barristers themselves) are much more likely to be drivers or solely have experience of driving / being driven than cycling.  And lots of evidence (Highway Code drama etc.) shows that the level of driving competence / understanding of good driving is low.

You could argue this is "fair" at the society / culture level e.g. it reasonably reflects the prejudices / attitudes of society (however "wrong" and "unfair" these might be).  I would hope we could aim at something better.  Indeed the law frequently does conflict with prevalent attitudes - why should driving be such an exception?

* Other than the frankly wooly "Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver" (for "without due care and attention") etc.

I took the option of not following the driver and hoping he got caught at the crossing so that I could kick his teeth in as I had videoed it all and the police could deal with it....how wrong I was!

srchar wrote:

Same thing happened to me once when I elected to use the road rather than the useless cycle path on the Palmers Green -> Winchmore Hill section of Green Lanes. The car's front wing actually made contact with my thigh. I had no video, but did have the plate. The Met didn't care and did nothing.

In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence, you say the driver made contact, he denies he made contact. Without a couple of independant witnesses (note this does not include oither cylists apparently) there isn't really a case.

In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence

In truth, there is nothing they will do with immaculate evidence except issue the ultra-worthless 'words of advice' or the worthless 'warning letter'- that's Lancashire Constabulary, your force may differ (although it probably won't)

wtjs wrote:

In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence

In truth, there is nothing they will do with immaculate evidence except issue the ultra-worthless 'words of advice' or the worthless 'warning letter'- that's Lancashire Constabulary, your force may differ (although it probably won't)

Oh, I agree entirely with that, but even with highly motivated police treating endangering cyclcists as a real offence, there is nothing they can do with "xx nn yyy, passed me so closely today it made contact and I was nearly knocked off my bike, this could have resulted in a serious injury"

wycombewheeler wrote:

srchar wrote:

Same thing happened to me once when I elected to use the road rather than the useless cycle path on the Palmers Green -> Winchmore Hill section of Green Lanes. The car's front wing actually made contact with my thigh. I had no video, but did have the plate. The Met didn't care and did nothing.

In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence, you say the driver made contact, he denies he made contact. Without a couple of independant witnesses (note this does not include oither cylists apparently) there isn't really a case.

As others have noted there seems to be a rather flexible standard for what constitutes "sufficient evidence".  I rather thought it was part of the job of the police to collect this evidence?  Obviously dealing with crime is very selective but in the case of bikes it often seems that "unless you're a police officer and have video plus at least three other witnesses - a JP, a judge and your local MP - we're not going to go do any investigating ourselves".

in the case of bikes it often seems that "unless you're a police officer and have video plus at least three other witnesses - a JP, a judge and your local MP - we're not going to go do any investigating ourselves

Unduly harsh! Inspector Kevin Smith has proved that if you're a police officer, the video is sufficient. If you're not, you need the video and the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope in separate vehicles

wycombewheeler wrote:

In fairness there is nothing they can do without evidence, you say the driver made contact, he denies he made contact. Without a couple of independant witnesses (note this does not include oither cylists apparently) there isn't really a case.

JUST STOP you're talking cobblers.

Firstly if you listen with sound on you can hear the crash.

Secondly you don't need either an independent witness or evidence of an impact for a sucessful prosecution for careless driving.

Please stop peddling (sic) myths and making our lives harder and more depressing. 

EDIT : Upon reflection this may have been satire.  If so I apologise, as my blood was boiling so badly I failed to parse it.

You are mixing up the video in the thread with srchar's post about his experience which ww was replying to.

Although not sure how you say

Secondly you don't need either an independent witness or evidence of an impact for a sucessful prosecution for careless driving.

With no other evidence it's he said, they said.

The evidence of a single witness can be sufficient to prove a case. 
 

we see it all the time - the most obvious, being single police officers. 

Quite obviously a planned assault on the cyclist, both verbally and then with a deadly weapon.
Same useless response from TVP I've come to expect.

But ... As we've seen from Police riders conducting close-pass operations, the car drivers are likely to get FPN or reported for prosecution.

For us mere mortals though, the outcome is completely different.

Totally.

If he'd have responded in kind and say "damaged" the door mirror, I think we can also take a good guess at whether the rozzers would have let him off with a warning or not.

Standard response from TVP. Following one particularly close pass, which resulted in such a warning, I asked:

Quote:

I would like to know exactly how close a motor vehicle may pass a cyclist before you consider taking further action than a warning to the registered keeper.  If a pass within 30cm (as in the case of the second vehicle) does not meet the threshold, then what is considered sufficiently dangerous? Does it take actual contact before a prosecution will be considered?  I would appreciate hearing your reasoning behind this incident not warranting further action.

They responded

Quote:

"A formal warning is always offered, in the first instance, to an erring driver and as stated in my previous letter to you if the driver thereafter commits any further offences, of a similar nature, then consideration will be given to taking further Police action, be that education or prosecution.

Please be aware that in order to bring a prosecution for any offence in the Magistrates’ Court there has to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, the evidential burden of proof being “beyond reasonable doubt”.

In this instance, it was decided that the most appropriate course of action is to officially warn the keepers of the vehicles."

I asked again, this time questioning what the 'reasonable doubt' would be that the driver passed well within the 1.5m guideline. 

Quote:

In my letter advising you of the warning issued to the erring driver I stated thus:

“The Highway Code states, you must give a cyclist as much room as another car when overtaking. It is recommended that you allow a minimum overtake distance of 1.5 metres.”

Notwithstanding the above I have explained that a formal warning is deemed appropriate in the first instance as both the evidential threshold / public interest considerations would have to be met in any decision to prosecute.

I will no longer engage in any further communications about this as the decision to warn has been made.

That's me told, then!

Standard response from TVP. Following one particularly close pass, which resulted in such a warning

It's the standard response from Bad Cops, especially Lancashire. That's what they'll do, if anything, about this highly aggressive pass in Garstang centre at over 40 mph today by Seat Leon FL18 WHS with a clearance of 20 cms at most. Join me in despising the b******s

Lancs police nothing done just wasted my. time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmvCsAyr8S4

They are usless with nearly evrthing I've reported.

As for this video. he has done it on pourpose he should be prosicuted.

"We don't work for you - on your bike son (unless you get knocked off"

You should lodge a formal complaint concerning the Officer.