Cyclist wrongly told police couldn't investigate car collision

The fact is the police only enforce the laws they have to otherwise they are just making work for themselves, particularly in a case like cycling in a motor-centric society where justice through the courts is rare. They will ignore the problem until a media scandal forces the politicians into action and pressure is brought to bear. West Midlands police appear to have taken up the issue in a very responsible manner, which is a big surprise, but only time will tell if this amounts to anything of any significance.

The worry is that it seems like road.cc, the general public etc are under the impression that this is a one-off, unfortunate exception.

It is not.

This is the standard, normal procedure that almost all cops use when confronted with an attempt to report an offence by a driver against a bike rider:

Checklist:
1. is the victim dead? Record it as an unavoidable accident so that nobody will be penalised, let everyone go, then do nothing. The victim can hardly complain, after all! Make sure that nobody is detained at the scene, because that would "hold up traffic".

2. Is the victim alive, but severely injured? Try to avoid attending the scene, using lines like "not enough resources". If present at the scene, shout at the injured bike rider to get off the road, so that the perpetrator and all other drivers can continue on their way. Refuse to write anything down. Insist that the victim personally attends a police station to request an investigation, after they get out of hospital and the trail has certainly gone cold. Only then put out an "appeal for witnesses", in the certain knowledge that nobody will come forward. Make sure that nobody is detained at the scene, because that would "hold up traffic".

3. Is the victim uninjured or slightly injured? Absolutely refuse to attend the scene. Insist that the victim must personally attend a police station to request an investigation, so that the trail will certainly go cold before they arrive. Then do nothing. If a complaint is made and it gets in the papers, issue a pretend apology, then put out an "appeal for witnesses", in the certain knowledge that nobody will come forward.

Refuse to accept video evidence if possible, using excuses about video formats, data protection etc. Lose the video evidence if it is handed over. Insist that the evidence is not admissable if the footage is shown on a social media site.

If all else fails and the case gets recorded and a perpetrator is identified, refuse to forward the case to the CPS. But don't worry! Even if the CPS do get their hands on it, they will choose not to prosecute. Every time that happens, tell the next 100 or so victims that THIS is the reason why their case won't be recorded or investigated or handed to the CPS, bacause there "is no point".

This is how institutionalised prejudice works. Any victim that doesn't like it, and says so publicly, is seen as an anti-social nuisance. If enough victims complain, MPs or even the PM herself might make promises to solve the problem: that will shut the bloody cyclists up. Then the politicians do nothing.

Remember, your elected representative doesn't care if you live or die. They only care about being in power. Doing something about anti-cycling cops (i.e. most cops) is very near the bottom of the list of things they could fix but won't.

Is not the science of smidsy and best practice on near misses etc really not understood? It isn't difficult.

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/safety/safety_management_en.htm

In the States, going back at least 10 years or more, most city police departments have unwritten policies to discourage investigations of accidents or vehicle collisions - of any type, vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to cyclist, vehicle to pedestrian UNLESS it is a life and death event.  

Then, to add insult to injury, the city planning and engineering staff will turnaround and cite that few accidents and collisions exist in their data base.  No kidding!  

When I was hit by a hit-and-run driver several years ago, I learned to be persistent when I called the accident in and make sure I described the event in graphic enough terms to get the police to bother to come out and investigate.  Here in the States, it is a lot more difficult to claim on your insurance, without a police report.  Personally, I would not be shy about describing the event as "road rage", or advise the police if I think the driver of the car is under the influence.  Both are circumstances the police are more likely to responsd to, at least here in the States.

Such a small mistake if she had said "would not" she would have been bang on.

"Solly ociffer, I am drunk and using a handheld mobile while driving at 85mph in the wrong direction down a one-way street - but I haven't injured very badly anyone yet, so that's OK, ishn't it?"

"That's fine, Sir. Mind how you go".