Police chief says clip of Range Rover driver hitting cyclist with car doesn’t tell full story

Sriracha wrote:

So does this mean that when protesters glue themselves to the road, disgruntled Range Rover drivers can gently run over them?

They have to start gently, but once the non-driver lets out any kind of yelp, the driver is free to put their foot down, you know, for their own safety.

In certain parts of the USA, this is explicitly permitted by law. Doesn't need to be a Range Rover, either.

Exactly. I was under the impression that responses in a self-defence context had to be reasonable and proportionate - so if someone starts shoving and hitting you, and you beat them up, then you wont have any trouble convincing the police that your actions were reasonable. But of someone starts shoving and hitting you, and you stab them 150 times, you might have a slightly harder time explaining that.

If Mat had actully done something previous to the clip so that ramming him with a Range Rover is a reasonable and proportionate response, the Police wouldn't be trying to humiliate him on Twitter, they'd be arresting him.

Only that isn't "ramming" is it? Taking the clip at face value, it looks to be an atrocious bit of driving and would be deserving of serious.punishmemt but ram still isn't a verb I would consider using to describe it. Taking the opposing position this time, if there has been something else going on that we don't see that genuinely puts the driver in immediate fear for their safety then clipping the bike in an attempt to get away is arguably proportionate and reasonable if it can't easily be avoided. I am not saying that something else has gone on, but the CC certainly seems to believe he has pretty conclusive evidence it did. Surely it would be extremely stupid of him to state this if it were not the case as it would be simple to refute by releasing the full video / CCTV?

The cyclist is stood stationary on the opposite side of his bike to the vehicle (so as far away from it as he could be, with an object in between) apparently holding it with his hands, and the driver is in the vehicle, fitted with windows, doors and locks.

I fail to see what immediate fear or danger the driver could be in at all.  

I want to be very clear here, I have no idea what did or didn't occur and I am not willing to speculate but if you honestly think that the CC would come out on social media and a press conference and lie about the full encounter being different to the short clip shown when all that would be needed to fatally expose his untruths would be for the cyclist to ask him to release all the footage then you must believe CC Adderley is both corrupt and stupid? I don't.

LeadenSkies wrote:

I want to be very clear here, I have no idea what did or didn't occur and I am not willing to speculate but if you honestly think that the CC would come out on social media and a press conference and lie about the full encounter being different to the short clip shown when all that would be needed to fatally expose his untruths would be for the cyclist to ask him to release all the footage then you must believe CC Adderley is both corrupt and stupid? I don't.

I don't either. However, I think it's perfectly possible that he has found something in the video that the cyclist has done wrong and is hoping that he can bluff the cyclist into not continuing to press the case for fear that he might get in trouble, and therefore avoid the force having to admit it made a mistake in the first place (bear in mind the original decision not to charge was made without any of the CCTV footage the chief constable has now viewed). It is perfectly clear to everybody except the troll that an offence was committed by the driver, the original officer even admitted this himself, "there is an assault there"; if an offence was also committed by the cyclist, then by all means charge him as well, police officers should not be playing silly games of "they are but what are you?" The CC should have come out and given a proper clear explanation of the force's rationale not to charge, not made nudge and a wink statements as he has done.

Rendel Harris wrote:

LeadenSkies wrote:

I want to be very clear here, I have no idea what did or didn't occur and I am not willing to speculate but if you honestly think that the CC would come out on social media and a press conference and lie about the full encounter being different to the short clip shown when all that would be needed to fatally expose his untruths would be for the cyclist to ask him to release all the footage then you must believe CC Adderley is both corrupt and stupid? I don't.

I don't either. However, I think it's perfectly possible that he has found something in the video that the cyclist has done wrong and is hoping that he can bluff the cyclist into not continuing to press the case for fear that he might get in trouble, and therefore avoid the force having to admit it made a mistake in the first place (bear in mind the original decision not to charge was made without any of the CCTV footage the chief constable has now viewed). It is perfectly clear to everybody except the troll that an offence was committed by the driver, the original officer even admitted this himself, "there is an assault there"; if an offence was also committed by the cyclist, then by all means charge him as well, police officers should not be playing silly games of "they are but what are you?" The CC should have come out and given a proper clear explanation of the force's rationale not to charge, not made nudge and a wink statements as he has done.

If the CC is playing silly butt covering games then he is wrong to do so imho. Like you I would rather all parties were charged with the relevant offences where a reasonable chance of conviction exists. I am not at all supportive of netting off offences or other shenanigans.

I also agree (and have said as much on here) that an assault occurs. Where we differ is that I can also see the possibility (no more than that at the moment as the evidence is not conclusive either way) that that assault occurs in a situation where there is a defence indicated by the CCTV referred. It is perfectly possible in law to carry out an assault and have a defence to it that would make a conviction highly unlikely and that is not incompatible with any of the statements made so far. As I say elsewhere on here, I hope this situation is clarified by one or both sides releasing full footage of the whole incident and the build up / aftermath and Northants Police are then able to explain their decision of NFA as the current situation is in in unsatisfactory and leaves some anti-cycling trolls on social media salivating over their belief this gives them the green light to drive into any cyclists who encroach on the space in front of their car.

LeadenSkies wrote:

Where we differ is that I can also see the possibility (no more than that at the moment as the evidence is not conclusive either way) that that assault occurs in a situation where there is a defence indicated by the CCTV referred.

No, we don't differ on that, I agree it is entirely possible. However if the cyclist did something so egregious that it justified the woman driving into him to escape then clearly he should be charged, the police shouldn't be playing this strange game of "do you feel lucky?" 

Apprantly police were ok with this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOi68XwzeQ&ab_channel=AshleyNeal

self defence is valid if you believe you are in imminent danger, and you don't have to wait for the other person to strike first, driver may have believed the cyclist was about to assualt them and they just wanted to escape, they did appear to be steering away from Mat and not straight into him.

Most of these internet clips are very short and come with only one persons point of view being stated, it would appear that there is additional information before and after, and I can only assume the police have sought the view of the driver and come to their conclusion on a broader set of evidence.

makadu wrote:

Apprantly police were ok with this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOi68XwzeQ&ab_channel=AshleyNeal

self defence is valid if you believe you are in imminent danger, and you don't have to wait for the other person to strike first, driver may have believed the cyclist was about to assualt them and they just wanted to escape, they did appear to be steering away from Mat and not straight into him.

Most of these internet clips are very short and come with only one persons point of view being stated, it would appear that there is additional information before and after, and I can only assume the police have sought the view of the driver and come to their conclusion on a broader set of evidence.

What concerns me is that they seem to have come to their conclusion first, and after that was questioned, they sought out further evidence.

I agree the initial response/conclusion would appear too hasty, although I can't recall if it was stated what length of footage was submitted to the police by Mat, so difficult to say if the original investigation was improper, but following review of additional CCTV coverage I would like to think this latest position is in the public interest.

Haven't watched the CC press response to see if he made any comment on the original investigation (i.e. was it thorough or just lucky!!)

makadu wrote:

I agree the initial response/conclusion would appear too hasty, although I can't recall if it was stated what length of footage was submitted to the police by Mat, so difficult to say if the original investigation was improper, but following review of additional CCTV coverage I would like to think this latest position is in the public interest.

Haven't watched the CC press response to see if he made any comment on the original investigation (i.e. was it thorough or just lucky!!)

I think it's rightly down to Mat as to whether he wants footage of himself made public. However, if he doesn't want it made public then we can only assume that the police made the right call.

Although, in the meantime, I think that Mat should be given access to the evidence and to a full understanding of the Chief Constable's assessment in private. Then he can assess whether or not to make the next stage public.

It seems unlikely step for a rational person to make, knowlingly to publicise and escalate a situation that shows him in bad light.

I think Mat either knows what is on the cctv and thinks that his actions are rational and he is the victim, or he was hotheaded in the moment of publishing the response and has not considered his actions.

If the former, he should be given more evidence with which to press a complaint; if the latter, he should be given the opportunity to consider his position.

GMBasix wrote:

It seems unlikely step for a rational person to make, knowlingly to publicise and escalate a situation that shows him in bad light.

I think Mat either knows what is on the cctv and thinks that his actions are rational and he is the victim, or he was hotheaded in the moment of publishing the response and has not considered his actions.

And that's the thing that I've been struggling to reconcile in my head.  Why would he escalate something where he would be shown to be the one at fault?

We can only look at it from our own perspective, but if I had submitted footage where I was in any doubt about my own actions to the police and it was rejected, I can't see any reason why I would escalate it on Social Media.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think it's rightly down to Mat as to whether he wants footage of himself made public. However, if he doesn't want it made public then we can only assume that the police made the right call.

Well, no - we could possibly assume that there's something there that doesn't show him in a particularly good light. But that's not the same as something that justifies the driver ramming him, or the police not charging the driver for it.

Of course even if the driver believed there to be an imminent danger and hit the cycle by accident whilst trying to get away from that danger, unless she phoned the police once she felt she was safe then that would be failure to report an accident - points and a fine.

Legally only need to report within 24 hours and only if you have reason to believe damage or injury was caused. Again though the CC mentions footage after the clip - I presume he does this for a reason?

If the CC is telling porkies then I have now doubt the cyclist will publish the full footage and request CC Adderley does the same with the CCTV which presumably shows different / wider angles. At that point we can all make informed decisions on what we see.

You have to report an accident regardless of injury or damage, if details were not exchanged.

illegal use of horn as well.

I doubt that very much. I suspect the nature of this means its charge them both or charge neither to show even handedness. This argument would be he's exceeded his public duty by simply being involved in this incident, as its well below his pay grade.

I suspect this is a storm in a teacup from his POV.

I think you can. It sounds like if you were cycling to baseball, and a car driver agressively sounded their horn, drove close to you and put you in fear of your safety, you could use that baseball bat on their car to scare them off.

It was reported as an assault so they're going to source other evidence and possibly speak to the driver.

Had it been submitted through Operation Snap as a road traffic offence then, as you say, a single video with before and after footage should suffice to lead to a prosecution but the video as we've seen it would be insufficient to lead to a prosecution.

Pretty sure filtering on a bike is entirely legal though?  Although I'm sure there are exceptions and I'm ready to learn.

My simple point is filtering is fine and dandy if you do it without hindering the traffic you are filtering around. The point where your filtering impedes the traffic you are filtering around it isn't really filtering.

As an example, traffic is queued behind a bus at a stop, you can see passengers milling around and choose to filter, knowing cars can't get past due to other traffic - you've made good progress and not delayed anyone. That they catch up sometime later, tough.

Taking an ASL outside of London will be legitimate filtering, but stick yourself in front of a car you can expect aggrieved motorists who have not signed up to the concept of ASLs (much like motorists haven't really signed up to the concept of 20mph areas). Unless there are a significant group of cyclists forming to be able to assert themselves, it is a brave cyclist that attempts to assert the priority granted by the ASL. Legal, following the design, but not safe considering the standards and attitudes of drivers.

Then we have a temporary traffic light system where it is obvious that there is no passing place through a single lane section. I probably would not cycle to the front of the queue because all those people I have filtered past are going to feel aggrieved at being stuck behind a queue-jumping cyclist (I might if I knew it was safe enough to cycle the wrong side of the cones or intended to dismount and walk through the lights, or at least past the red before remounting).

The simple point being: just because an action on the road is lawful, does not mean it is considerate riding.

IanMSpencer wrote:

So, if I interpret correctly, the police are suggesting that the cyclist filtered but then effectively "pushed in" annoying the motorist. This therefore justifies the driver assaulting the cyclist with their car.

Thats less interpretation and more utter speculation imo.  There are a hundred different things that could have happened.