- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Video: Van passenger fires pistol at cyclists in Essex
A road.cc reader has shared footage showing the moment a passenger in a van fired a weapon – possibly an airsoft pistol, colloquially known as a BB gun – at him and two friends he was cycling with in Essex. The video was submitted to police, but after an initial investigation officers closed the case due to insufficient evidence.
The incident happened near Orsett, near Grays, at 10.12am on 18 April as the three cyclists, all of whom wish to remain anonymous, were “out for a chilled 50-kilometre ride.”
On the video, the van passenger’s left hand is outside the window of the vehicle, pointing an object at the riders.
One of them told road.cc: “At the time we were riding along chatting, saw someone hanging out of the van and heard a loud crack, realised it was someone shooting a pistol.
“It was a single shot, being blue we think it might have been an airsoft gun but will never know.
“Oddly the guy on the front missed it all, he turned to say something to me and hadn’t even realised anything had happened.
“At the time we did not get the vehicle registration so did not call 999. I reviewed video footage when home and as it clearly showed the incident and the vehicle registration so I reported to the Essex Police via webform on the evening of 18 April (as phone systems were down).
“On the afternoon of 19 April I received a boiler plate ‘victims letter’ noting the offence was classified as ‘Assault without Injury’.
“On the morning of 20 April I challenged this classification via email and received a call back from Essex Police, which did not clear up the question entirely. They confirmed I could not send in the video via email as it would be too large for them to receive.
“On the morning of 21 April I emailed in screenshots of the video,” he continued. “On Friday 23 April I received a text message saying a PC was investigating and would be in contact.”
The investigating officer visited the cyclist at home on the morning of Tuesday 27 April. “He said I did not need to give them a copy but to retain it for 12 months.”
That afternoon, police sent him a text message in which the officer told him that “images will be sent via our internal system of the suspect to try [and] identify him. The address registered to the vehicle has been attended, the owner of the vehicle has denied the incident occurred and has not told me any passenger names that he had in the vehicle, so at present I am unable to ID the person responsible. The matter will be filed pending the suspect being ID’d or further evidence.”
He replied to the text message the same afternoon, “challenging the lack of action and requested a senior officer reviews the investigation. I did ask in my response if the police have concluded and therefore if I can take this to the press.
“A couple of days later the PC called me. Neither he nor his sergeant can explain it being recorded as assault. The investigation had come to a dead end and there was nothing else they could do without further evidence,” he added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 4 hours 6 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 4 hours 16 min ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
46 comments
Th passenger was clearly a w&nker. The driver, on balance of probability, was of like character. The incident to my mind is pretty strong indicator of other similar behaviour.
The driver is refusing to identify who was in the vehicle with him (not sure whether this is an offence in itself - perhaps there is someone who can clarify this?) and has denied the incident took place, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Part of this issue seems to be EPs refusal/inability to accept and archive video evidence. In addition, using SMS to relay relevant information is a massive indicator of slapdash recording - I'm a project manager, and have "colleagues" who use SMS, primarily to fudge communications - difficult to record and track, relatively unlikely to be read, but you can say " I did contact you...."
It is entirely possible and likely that the gun was a toy that fired caps; lots of noise but no danger. The police were right not to put too much time into it. That said, the attitude of the driver is puzzling, and if it was a cap gun, why not just say so.
Even if it's a toy gun, if you use it to create fear of violence, it's at least a charge of affray.
Except there is no mention of fear by the cyclists, and at least one of them didn't even notice.
It doesn't matter whether the cyclists felt fear. The test is whether a bystander of 'reasonable firmness' (lol!) would feel threatened - obvs. cyclists are tough as nails!
Would you put massive police resources into this, when such resources are in short supply and demand outstrips supply?
No, neither would I. No crime demonstrated, perfectly adequate response.
Id say a crime was definitely committed, but there was insufficient evidence without someone fessing up to it, to secure a conviction from it, so end result the same, just for differing reasons I think.
however at the very least the police should have made it clear that if any further evidence came to light either from this incident, or if it were found to have been repeated, the matter would be taken very seriously.
yep, even if you don't fire it you can get in trouble...
https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/1768741.idiot-pointed-gun-at-1...
Many years ago I was in a pub when someone flashed a gun at the landlord. Did it later to a taxi driver too - they both called 999 and the idiot got a full-on armed police arrest in the street. Turned out to be a BB gun, but they still got done for affray.
I understand the police are stretched - so I don't blame them directly. They should have the resources to be able to investigate incidents like this fully. Hopefully being paid a visit will put these morons off doing it again.
If the police actually dealt with crime in a more holistic manner then yes they should put some effort in to it, the kind of people who feel they can fire a gun (toy or not) at people are also likely the sort who will lean out and push cyclists, who will drive whilst not insured/MOT'd etc and are potentially commiting other minor offences. Rather than waiting for major incidents, if the police actually challenged minor offences more so that those commiting them at least felt like this might be taken into account in future it might stop so many incidents of people acting like entitled pricks.
New York police used a zero tolerance policy to 'minor' offences to great success.. although the lefty media hated it;
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/the-cost-of-zero-toler...
Yep.. and his arm out of the window like that should be a traffic offence.. if the driver won't give up the passenger identituy, that should be a chargeable offence as well.
I was going to say this, but someone else on fb got in first:
"James Lyon
Now imagine the response if a cyclist had fired a pistol (even an air pistol) at a driver. The hundreds of column inches in the papers, the calls for licensing, number plates etc for bikes. Not to mention the immediate police response, they'd have scrambled everything they had, brought in the air support unit, drones, armed response..."
No need to imagine. One had a knofe and that was enough.
A knofe you say? Were you able to cotch him, or did he piddle away?
Without an actual injury and crystal clear footage this was going nowhere anyway. It could have been a cap gun, probably not but could have been. If it was an actual airsoft gun that fired it's also NOT a firearm. You can't have an airsoft gun that looks like real gun unless you're skirmishing or filming or something though.
Who knows. Police probably knew this was no win.
So it not a crime to fire a soft gun at someone in Essex. Do that in Ontario Canada your going to get charged with jail time. Im really suprised people ride bikes in England Riding in Vietnam seemed safer.
There's no real evidence of what sort of gun it was. Could have been a toy one from Smyths as far as the police are concerned. Clearly they aren't concerned it was an actual firearm.
Hearing a noise and thinking it was an airsoft gun means nothing in terms of a prosecution.
Quite, could have been a table leg for all we know
oh....
So we have a firearms offence with an attempting to pervert the course of justice and Essex Police do nothing, follow it up through your PCC and MP, all offences using an airsoft, bb or air rifle/pistol come under the Firearms Act. Telling the plod "I'm not telling you" when questioned about a firearms offence is in itself an offence. See what happens when you point and fire airsoft gun at a plod. grrrrrr!
Except that no firearms offence has been shown to have occured; it is quite possible that this was a cap gun, and since no-one was killed or injured, or even felt threatened, this was a proportionate response.
How do you know that, there was no proper investigation. Until an investigation is actually completed and concludes there was no firearm involved, and the victims believed there was one, it remains a firearms offence.
"If a gun is used as a tool to threaten someone or effectuate a crime like robbery, it does not matter whether it is a bb gun or an actual firearm," District Attorney Matt Fogal said. "The key is whether it was used in such a manner to appear to be a deadly weapon from the victim's perspective."
https://www.publicopiniononline.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/18/when-fak...
That's an interesting approach to fighting crime they've got there.
I can just imagine if they were investigating a bank robbery and managed to get hold of the getaway driver - "He didn't tell us his passengers and he didn't rob the bank, so we're letting him go. Mind you, that's a smart new Ferrari he's driving there."
What crime? No crime has been shown to have been committed. It is possible, and even likely that the gun was a cap gun. No-one was injured, died or even felt threatened; the very definition of a storm in a teacup. Let's focus on real crimes eh, the police have enough to do dealing with them.
Are you the driver or the passenger here? You're going to a lot of effort to justify this - six or seven almost identical posts.
It's not immediately obvious that it's an imitation firearm; it went bang; and it was pointed at someone. So they do it again. It doesn't get the effect they expect, so they step up to throwing physical objects, or leaning out to push someone off.
I admit to being confused.
The video shows someone sitting in the passenger seat.
The cyclists say the incident happened.
I'm pretty sure that means that the owner can't just say, "Nothing to see here" and be allowed to walk with NFA.
Or so you'd think....
Reminds me of the road rage incident in Bexley in 2011.
An abundance of video evidence but the registered owner claimed the vehicle had been TWOC'd on that day and he didn't recognize the suspects in the car.
The victims had to resort to social media to identify the driver.
WTAF?!? There is evidence. It's on the video, they know who the owner (and probably driver) of the van is. That is a firearm at the end of the day. Surely if the driver refuses to give up names of passengers, then that is obstruction, which is also a criminal offence. No wonder cyclists are angry at motorists when this is the response from the Police at what is an extremely serious offence, whether the person was shooting at cyclists or not. Next time, they won't miss and someone will be shot. I wouldn't want to be the Police officer in charge of this if that happens.
Pages