(Not so) Near Miss of the Day 496: Driver deliberately slams on brakes, causing cyclist to crash

Rear-end collisions aren’t always the fault of the rear vehicle operator;

The fact that the BMW driver left the scene of an accident after the sudden braking event that caused a collision is an additional incriminating circumstance against the driver - if the braking was innocent, any reasonable person would have stopped to check on the bicycle rider and exchange details.

There is a myth that the vehicle in the rear is always at fault when they get into a crash with the vehicle that is in front of them. The reality is that either person could be at fault. If you have a dash cam with your vehicle, for example, showing the authorities that the other vehicle was stopped suddenly and for no reason could be enough to have the other party held liable for the crash.

Brake checking is a form of road rage. Road rage in itself is illegal, because it is a form of reckless driving.

Correct, at the very least the police should be asking the driver to explain their (apparent) brake check. Especially in the context of the very recent (apparent) deliberate close pass.

grOg wrote:

Rear-end collisions aren’t always the fault of the rear vehicle operator;

The fact that the BMW driver left the scene of an accident after the sudden braking event that caused a collision is an additional incriminating circumstance against the driver - if the braking was innocent, any reasonable person would have stopped to check on the bicycle rider and exchange details.

There is a myth that the vehicle in the rear is always at fault when they get into a crash with the vehicle that is in front of them. The reality is that either person could be at fault. If you have a dash cam with your vehicle, for example, showing the authorities that the other vehicle was stopped suddenly and for no reason could be enough to have the other party held liable for the crash.

Brake checking is a form of road rage. Road rage in itself is illegal, because it is a form of reckless driving.

I agree with most of what you say in principle. However this is rarely how it plays out and my point (as I have stated more than once now) is about likely outcome, not the merits of the case

Considering the attitude and diligence that you exhibit, your retirement from the force is a real loss to cyclists and pedestrians, particularly as your in-depth understanding, consideration and appreciation seems to be lacking in many of your ex-colleagues. The examples shown on this page are frequently ignored by the police, and in more than one case that I have read the victim told that they were asking for it, and even threatened with action themselves on no good rational basis.

Whereas this does not lessen the work of officers such as yourself or Andy Cox  for example, many forces are enabling crap and dangerous driving by refusing to take action on even the most egregious cases where evidence is in abundance

Unfortunately justice is not often a straightforward path. There are many cases totally unrelated to cycling where the journey and outcome for the victim has been poor.

However, it's important not to give up before you've started. I suspect there is a strong possibility that Lyndon could obtain some justice from this incident. But it will require effort on his part to drive the process and get through to an officer like grOg who is willing to take it forward.

HoarseMann wrote:

Unfortunately justice is not often a straightforward path. There are many cases totally unrelated to cycling where the journey and outcome for the victim has been poor.

Indeed, but that is the exact issue highlighted

HoarseMann wrote:

However, it's important not to give up before you've started. I suspect there is a strong possibility that Lyndon could obtain some justice from this incident. But it will require effort on his part to drive the process and get through to an officer like grOg who is willing to take it forward.

Where there is an appreciable risk of blowback the risk/benefit would need to be carefully weighed

Captain Badger wrote:

Where there is an appreciable risk of blowback the risk/benefit would need to be carefully weighed

That is a moot point in this case as the footage has already been submitted to the police.

I just think we need to get away from being so negative about the prospect of police action in these cases. It fosters a fatalistic attitude that there's no point submitting footage and the police don't care.

My experience has been that they do care, but need help in understanding how much this issue affects the victim in order to make the right priority call. They can't enforce everything and with limited resources, you need to make your voice heard - quite literally, like phone them up and talk to them, it's difficult to convey all that needs to be said in an online form.

HoarseMann wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Where there is an appreciable risk of blowback the risk/benefit would need to be carefully weighed

That is a moot point in this case as the footage has already been submitted to the police.

True, and I hope to be proved wrong

HoarseMann wrote:

I just think we need to get away from being so negative about the prospect of police action in these cases. It fosters a fatalistic attitude that there's no point submitting footage and the police don't care.

That's a bit chicken and egg. I do submit footage, however the attitude may come from experience rather than fatalism.

HoarseMann wrote:

My experience has been that they do care, but need help in understanding how much this issue affects the victim in order to make the right priority call. They can't enforce everything and with limited resources, you need to make your voice heard - quite literally, like phone them up and talk to them, it's difficult to convey all that needs to be said in an online form.

I think it's great when you get someone who does - such as gr0g who has been contributing here. However whereas the  Met and GMP show a great record, Lincs and others not so much, and threats of action against the victim do wonders in silencing dissent

My issue here is the driver leaving the scene, which is a criminal offence. If I have to pay for the scratch to his vehicle, I'd be happy to- but I'd have needed him to remain at the scene to exchange details. 

The footage clearly shows no obstructions in the road, and the steady flow of traffic in the opposing directions says the same.

My intention, which I will rethink in the future, was to simply tell the driver at the junction ahead to just leave more room. I've been through this many times, and the police are quick to dismiss complaints. If the police won't prosecute, I figured the least I can do is try and educate. 

Hi Lyndon. My analysis is simply on likely outcome, you do have my sympathy. It wouldn't be the first time that I've chased someone down, and it was rotten luck to come off - sounded painful, hope you're ok

I'm alright, and a lesson learned. There was some damage to my bike and kit, but I will wait to see how the police proceed and decide on my next steps then.

The close pass doesn't bother me too much, its a daily occurance in Bucks and Berks. Being involved in a collison and leaving in a hurry- that's simply not right and I can only hope TVPD see it the same way.

I agree entirely, good luck old chap!

Hi Lyndon.

From my own experience I was able to trace the vehicle insurers through the Motor Insurance Bureau. Cost £4.50

https://www.mib.org.uk/check-insurance-details/check-a-vehicle-not-at-th...

I claimed for some minor damage to the bike, helmet and my bibshorts (on a MTB - I know, how do I live with myself?). The insurance company involved, Aviva Insurance, were excellent and settled very quickly without dispute.

The Police may fail you but matey boy in his BMW won't be smirking when his insurance renewal comes through and he has to declare any claims against him for the next 5 years.

Nice pursuit effort BTW.

Thanks for the advice, I will most likely go this route anyways. My handlebars, frame and shoes were all scuffed or scratched, wheel out of true and brake rotor bent. A bit of kit was ripped. What percentage of value of your items did you claim? For example, your frame cost 1000.00, light damage was 10% of that value? 

I'm conscious that I may have a battle on my hands with insurers and don't want to get taken for a ride...again.

I don't do spurious whiplash claims and I avoided any meaningful injury so it was just under £500 that I put in a claim for. A quick spreadsheet with links to replacement items and some pictures of the damage, an estimate for repairs from your local bike shop. To be honest, with the video, a Police statement, polite emails to the person assigned to your claim and a relatively trivial compensation value it's not worth the effort of the insurance company to give you the run around but they will need a few weeks to get a response from their insured driver.

When my car and house insurance came up for renewal, Aviva were top 5 competitive on price so I now insure with them based on the way they dealt with my claim.

Best of luck.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Hi Lyndon. From my own experience I was able to trace the vehicle insurers through the Motor Insurance Bureau. Cost £4.50 https://www.mib.org.uk/check-insurance-details/check-a-vehicle-not-at-th... I claimed for some minor damage to the bike, helmet and my bibshorts (on a MTB - I know, how do I live with myself?). The insurance company involved, Aviva Insurance, were excellent and settled very quickly without dispute. The Police may fail you but matey boy in his BMW won't be smirking when his insurance renewal comes through and he has to declare any claims against him for the next 5 years. Nice pursuit effort BTW.

Thanks for the advice, I will most likely go this route anyways. My handlebars, frame and shoes were all scuffed or scratched, wheel out of true and brake rotor bent. A bit of kit was ripped. What percentage of value of your items did you claim? For example, your frame cost 1000.00, light damage was 10% of that value? 

I'm conscious that I may have a battle on my hands with insurers and don't want to get taken for a ride...again.

I don't suppose you are a member of Cycling UK/British Cycling (or have other bicycle-specific insurance)? If so, both offer legal advice including support with making a claim after an incident. I would certainly be inclined to use such a service, not only because it should make life a lot easier for you but they should be able to offer advice and present the strongest possible argument given the potential for insurers to decide against you.

The cynic in me agrees with Cap'n Badger that the insurers will be looking for any opportunity to blame this on you, thus avoiding having to pay out. Given that you did go into the back of the car, I do think you will have a battle on your hands to win this by yourself. Rightly or wrongly, insurers do very often take the stance that if you go into the back of someone, it is your fault for not providing enough stopping space.

You need a willing student in order to educate, in that moment, the chances of finding one are pretty slim.

In some ways I would be glad he drove off Lyndon. I can't imagine if he'd stopped there would have been an apology and a civil exchange of details - he might have pulled a weapon out on you.

I think Mungecrundle's suggestion of a claim via MIB is a good idea. I would think it could be done in parallel with the police submission.

It's a deliberate, unnecessary "brake-check". Which, I'm fairly sure, is an offence in itself.

And it seems highly unlikely that there was significant damage to the car, otherwise the driver wouldn't have driven off.

Seems more than worth the risk to get a dangerous, aggressive driver off the road.

kraut wrote:

It's a deliberate, unnecessary "brake-check". Which, I'm fairly sure, is an offence in itself.

And it seems highly unlikely that there was significant damage to the car, otherwise the driver wouldn't have driven off.

 

Seems more than worth the risk to get a dangerous, aggressive driver off the road.

Hello K. Like you, in my opinion I have no doubt in my mind as to the intent of the driver. However it is merely that - an opinion, which is unlikely to carry much weight with the police or even the courts.

Hopefully TVP will view the close pass in isolation and send out a NIP, but in the case of the brake check I think it's a non-starter

A cycling inclined policeman or solicitor should make mince meat of the driver with this video evidence.. the vision is clear and incriminating against the driver.

grOg wrote:

A cycling inclined policeman or solicitor should make mince meat of the driver with this video evidence.. the vision is clear and incriminating against the driver.

I'm glad to hear it. I for one would like to see more of this attitude. Sadly, from the evidence I see on these pages, that seems to happen rarely at best.   

As a former traffic cop, I can ascertain the video clearly shows that the driver braked hard for no reason.. very easy to reach the conclusion this was deliberate dangerous driving. Your conclusion that the evidence shows the cyclist to be liable for the collision is quite strange.

grOg wrote:

As a former traffic cop, I can ascertain the video clearly shows that the driver braked hard for no reason.. very easy to reach the conclusion this was deliberate dangerous driving. Your conclusion that the evidence shows the cyclist to be liable for the collision is quite strange.

In which case the force in question will have no problem chasing a prosecution. Here's hoping, but I won't hold my breath.....

And inform the police, as mentioned elsewhere.

I like this idea

I'd argue that the Police actually take a very dim view on deliberate brake checking, especially when caught on camera.

However, they will take an even dimmer view of one road user actively chasing another down following a minor altercation. This is the very definition of road rage. 

The BMW driver could easily say that they felt threatened and took defensive action, explaining both the action and failure to stop post accident. 

I don't say this to be a dick, I've seen this played out before close hand. A mate of mine did something very similar, and only escaped prosecution because the driver didn't wish to further pursue it. 

The lesson I want to stress, is don't chase cars no matter what, but especially when you already have them bang to rights on camera.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I'd argue that the Police actually take a very dim view on deliberate brake checking, especially when caught on camera.

However, they will take an even dimmer view of one road user actively chasing another down following a minor altercation. This is the very definition of road rage. 

The BMW driver could easily say that they felt threatened and took defensive action, explaining both the action and failure to stop post accident. 

I take your point but I find it hard to believe that even UK police would say oh, you felt threatened so you deliberately caused an accident, that's cool. Also, if you felt threatened in a big powerful car on a clear road against a cyclist who will max out around 30mph your obvious option is surely to drive away!

Wrong.. as a former traffic cop I have successfully prosecuted brake checkers just on the basis of independent witness evidence.. with cam vision like this, it would be even easier to convince the courts.

grOg wrote:

Wrong.. as a former traffic cop I have successfully prosecuted brake checkers just on the basis of independent witness evidence.. with cam vision like this, it would be even easier to convince the courts.

Great to have your input, it is with considerable regret that I have to advise that your former colleagues do not show the same level of enthusiam for dealing with such situations.