How do the police respond to Dangerous Driving reports?
CycleWithCare
front of a queue of traffic, waiting for the traffic lights to turn
green to cross the single lane bridge ahead of me. I've been on this
bridge a number of times before and drivers have a dangerous tendency
to try and squeeze past and overtake if you give them opportunity.
There really isn't enough room to overtake safely, there's a blind
bend straight after, and it scares me they'll hit a bike rider that
might have jumped the lights on the other side.
Anyway, White Van Man seemed angry that I was in the primary riding
position and beeped me. I carried on without changing my position. I
could hear him weaving around on the road behind me. At the point
where the road widens again after the bridge, I made the mistake of
staying in the centre, thus giving him opportunity to come alongside
me on the left in order to shout abuse at me. I got back in front of
him and when I'd passed the queue of cars on the other side, I pulled
over to let him past so he overtook and then suddenly slammed his
brakes on in front of me.
I believe his intention was to get me to run into the back of him
whereby I'd be liable for damage to his van (it's hard to prove you're
not at fault when you're the one behind... if you can't brake in time
then you're too close). I swerved past him and took a side road to try
and prevent him from following me.
I took note of his registration number and reported it to the police.
Whilst I didn't stop for witnesses, there was a bus right behind him
who must have seen what happened. I assume that if the police were to
ask, the bus company could find out who was driving based on the time
and location.
Does anyone know what the chances of this going any further are? Are
the police likely to follow up on this or do you think it's already
been filed in the waste paper bin? It'd be nice if he at least gets a
visit from the cops, maybe then he'll get a chance to consider what he
did and drive with more respect in future.
Is there much hope of anything happening, or are cops the only ones
deemed credible witnesses in such cases?
Tom Crispin
Nil.
In a similar situation, and with 12 school children with me and
another instructor, a driver cut me up, got out of his car and thumped
me.
I took a photo of his car:
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/car.jpg
But the police, after sending me monthly updates for a year saying
that they were investigating the case, took no action.
Ian Smith
> Does anyone know what the chances of this going any further are? Are
> the police likely to follow up on this or do you think it's already
> been filed in the waste paper bin? It'd be nice if he at least gets a
> visit from the cops, maybe then he'll get a chance to consider what he
> did and drive with more respect in future.
I was physically run off the road, carted to hospital in an ambulance
and am permanently scarred and they couldn't be bothered. Personally,
having reported it so it might establish a pattern of uncorroborated
reports, I don't think there's any expectation that anything else will
happen.
In my case they wouldn't even record it as a crime - apparently it was
an accident, even though the driver matched my speed and drove
alongside for several hundred yards, shouted abuse at me and made
threatening gestures, before 'accidently' running me off the road so
decisively he scuffed his own tyres on the kerb.
I got the number plate and one independent witness got the number
plate. Several witnesses had a description of the vehicle. I was told
that they wouldn't bother pursuing it because even if they located the
driver, he'd just say it wasn't him, someone must have cloned his
number plate.
I concluded the police would much rather every traffic collision was a
hit-and-run - presumably it makes the paperwork easier if they don't
actually catch anyone. Oh, and they never wrote to me to tell me this
- the only information I got about the progress of the
non-investigation was when I wrote to the local paper and they
published my letter. Then an inspector managed to reply to the paper
(but never to me...).
But hey - it keeps the crime figures down, _and_ the unsolved crime
figure down if you refuse to categorise anything as a crime. Win-win!
What could possibly be wrong with that?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
JNugent
I think the chances of your being prosecuted for obstruction are quite slim.
But even so, the "safety" of imaginary cyclists who have crossed red traffic
lights coming towards you is surely none of your business and certainly no
excuse for obstructing other road users.
Mind you, the fact that you think the possibility strong enough to warrant
even consideration speaks eloquently of your own, and presumably
well-informed, opinion of cyclists in the area.
Keitht
> I had a bit of an incident with White Van Man today.
>
> deemed credible witnesses in such cases?
It's a fairly rare thing to happen, that you refused to play the
driver's game infuriated him further but you still managed to stay clear.
Don't do what I've done in the past in similar circumstances and inform
the driver that they are so poor at driving that they can't even get you
to run in to them - not unless you can bugger off in the opposite
direction the van was heading.
I, personally, wouldn't put too much value on it - you survived, learnt
a wee bit more about where and where not to take the primary and you
won't get any action unless it's on CCTV and/or your bike got squished.
If it happens frequently then it may not just be WVM causing the aggro
but a fine adjustment to your 'primary' required. It's possible to block
without appearing to block but a dedicated WVM (usually never on their
own) will always find time to object to you breathing.
"I'm gonna ram you off the road you cycling cunt" and that was in a bus
lane. I stopped, right in the middle of the bus lane and pointed out to
the other drivers around that WVM thought they were all twats for being
considerate law-abiding drivers. WVM saw the opposition (we Brits don't
like queue jumpers) and forced his way back in the traffic - with
continued threats from both passengers. I had also reminded him that the
bus coming up behind most likley had a camera on board.
(I just don't like bullies but also realise I might get thumped one day)
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Danny Colyer
> I took note of his registration number and reported it to the police.
> Whilst I didn't stop for witnesses, there was a bus right behind him
> who must have seen what happened. I assume that if the police were to
> ask, the bus company could find out who was driving based on the time
> and location.
You might be better off approaching the bus company yourself.
Some buses these days are fitted with forward-facing video cameras
(there's been some discussion locally about whether these could be used
to provide evidence to prosecute motorists who park illegally in bus
lanes). If you're really lucky, the bus company might be able to
provide video evidence of the incident.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
bod43
>
> > I took note of his registration number and reported it to the police.
> > Whilst I didn't stop for witnesses, there was a bus right behind him
> > who must have seen what happened. I assume that if the police were to
> > ask, the bus company could find out who was driving based on the time
> > and location.
My view is that the Criminal justice system is Institutionally
Motorist and so your complaint will likely be ignored.
Now, if the van driver was to get out, pin you to the ground
and call the police claiming that the dent in his van was caused
by you kicking it then the police will react instantly. You will
be whisked off the street, put in jail for 12 hours (while they
"investigate") and charged and convicted of criminal damage.
No independent witnesses are necessary for this - in my
personal experience. This is a criminal offence and you
will subsequently have a criminal record. "I was chased
along the street and I was run over and trapped
underneath - the damage was caused as I struggled
to escape from under the moving vehicle" is
not an acceptable reason to escape the conviction.
The criminal Justice system "knows" that no motorist would
use a vehicle as a weapon so the scenario described above
could never happen.
Someone has proposed the use of the term "Motorist
Supramacist" to describe the situation.
Adam Lea
>
> (I just don't like bullies but also realise I might get thumped one
> day)
Here lies the problem - it is a no win situation. If you stand up to them
you risk being hospitalised, if you succumb to them you are reinforcing
their belief that they have the right to bully people to get their own way.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>The criminal Justice system "knows" that no motorist would
>use a vehicle as a weapon so the scenario described above
>could never happen.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. A grate frend of mine is a barrister for
the CPS, one of his earliest cases was a driver who had driven at a
man in order to frighten him, having been prevented from gate-crashing
a party by his intended victim. In doing so he hit another man (whose
party it was, perhaps coincidentally) and drove off at speed with this
unfortunate trapped underneath his vehicle. The legal nicety to be
decided was whether the driver had realised the victim was under the
car before or after he died, which made the difference between murder
and manslaughter in this particular case.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
JNugent
> bod43 <Bo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> The criminal Justice system "knows" that no motorist would
>> use a vehicle as a weapon so the scenario described above
>> could never happen.
> Up to a point, Lord Copper. A grate frend of mine is a barrister for
> the CPS, one of his earliest cases was a driver who had driven at a
> man in order to frighten him, having been prevented from gate-crashing
> a party by his intended victim. In doing so he hit another man (whose
> party it was, perhaps coincidentally) and drove off at speed with this
> unfortunate trapped underneath his vehicle. The legal nicety to be
> decided was whether the driver had realised the victim was under the
> car before or after he died, which made the difference between murder
> and manslaughter in this particular case.
That particular legal nicety (or rather, an analogue of it) has to be
addressed in every case where the court has to decide between murder and
manslaughter, no matter what the physical circumstances of the killing.
BIG_ONE
>I had a bit of an incident with White Van Man today.
<snip>
>Is there much hope of anything happening, or are cops the only ones
>deemed credible witnesses in such cases?
wvm looks guilty of nothing more than being wvm, yea threatening
behavior & dangerous driving are in the job description.
However, good advice here:
http://www.londonfgss.com/thread4213.html
I think a worthy point made in the referenced post is that in order to
force the force to do something it is worth complaining if they don't:
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/
https://secure.met.police.uk/complaints/
edds...@hotmail.co.uk
I was driving up to a local set of traffic lights which is two lanes with one filter lane going into one lane after about 300 yards , as I was coming up to the filter lane the lights where changing from red to green so I indicated right and overtook the slow moving traffic from the lights then all of a sudden a guy behind me was right up my tail and I can't stand close driving so I showed my break lights by just tapping them, thus making him more agitated so when I came up the road he then overtook me hurling abuse I then followed him to gethis number plate to report him however I did not report him, later that evening I had a pho call from the police and had to go to the station they came to the conclusion I was thretening him and gave me a section 59 which I thought was unfair as it was him in the wrong looking back now I shouldn't of told the truth and just denied everything they said anyway I learn now to just let drivers go pastand if they hit a lamppost that's karma for you.
Bertie Wooster
annoyed each other.
Note: while a cyclist can complain about an annoying motorist, and
have a Section 59 imposed against the motorist, the converse is not
true. I.e. a motorist can complain as much as they like about annoying
cyclists, but cyclists can annoy motorists with impunity.
My advice to you: ride a bike.
Bertie Wooster
Normally I ignore the various Judith clones/socks, even when they
pretend to be me; but advocating that cyclists annoy motorists is a
Bad Thing, and I will not have any part of it.
Bertie Wooster
wrote: