Near Miss of the Day 116: Close pass driver won't face prosecution - because cyclist was too experienced

Judge dreadful wrote:

‘Ninja rocks’ are interesting aren’t they?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja_rocks

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QhlmKHbPFhU

 

 

And so green, saves wasting a product that has no other apparent recycling properties.

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

Very strange.

Today I had the virtual identical conversation with the police in Cheshire. Helpful officer who placed the ball firmly in the court of the CPS and saying that it was they that ruled against the police taking matters further. It seems that Cheshire CPS seem to think that driving without due car and attention must in some way cause 'inconvenience' the cyclist ie cause them to brake and swerve to avoid collision or a similar scenario. Drivers repeatedly scaring the shit out of you with close passes at speed is simply not enough.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

Very strange.

Today I had the virtual identical conversation with the police in Cheshire. Helpful officer who placed the ball firmly in the court of the CPS and saying that it was they that ruled against the police taking matters further. It seems that Cheshire CPS seem to think that driving without due car and attention must in some way cause 'inconvenience' the cyclist ie cause them to brake and swerve to avoid collision or a similar scenario. Drivers repeatedly scaring the shit out of you with close passes at speed is simply not enough.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

O.K., I've read the link. Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act covers two seperate offences.

'Driving without due care and attention' is when the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

'Inconsiderate driving' is when a person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving. In other words someone has to be inconvenienced by their driving.

It seems to me that Northants Police and Cheshire CPS are getting the offences mixed up and are looking for some form of inconvenience caused. Not that the driving was below competent and careful, not that he almost knocked me off my bike, but that some inconvenience was caused. Maybe it's from some national prosecutions policy, which is being taken too narrow mindedly by some forces/CPS departments.

zero_trooper wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

Very strange.

Today I had the virtual identical conversation with the police in Cheshire. Helpful officer who placed the ball firmly in the court of the CPS and saying that it was they that ruled against the police taking matters further. It seems that Cheshire CPS seem to think that driving without due car and attention must in some way cause 'inconvenience' the cyclist ie cause them to brake and swerve to avoid collision or a similar scenario. Drivers repeatedly scaring the shit out of you with close passes at speed is simply not enough.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

O.K., I've read the link. Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act covers two seperate offences.

'Driving without due care and attention' is when the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

'Inconsiderate driving' is when a person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving. In other words someone has to be inconvenienced by their driving.

 

It seems to me that Northants Police and Cheshire CPS are getting the offences mixed up and are looking for some form of inconvenience caused. Not that the driving was below competent and careful, not that he almost knocked me off my bike, but that some inconvenience was caused. Maybe it's from some national prosecutions policy, which is being taken too narrow mindedly by some forces/CPS departments.

is shitting oneself while sitting on a bike in a public place not considered inconvenient? Surely it's up to you as the cyclist to tell the CPS that you were inconvenienced, not for them to decide on your behalf.

peted76 wrote:

This sounds like a situation for Boardman to get behind!

Boardman can save his breath, because he will be ignored.  If the establishment considered him a threat in any way, shape or form, he would have already been found leaning against a tree with one of his wrists slit and a rusty penknife nearby, in 'an apparent suicide'. 

The situation with this video reminds me of a conversation with a former colleague, when we had both once again been late because our privatized railways had f**ked up.  'What can you do, eh?' he asked.  'Well, you could start by storming Parliament,' I responded.  'Because of a late train?' he asked, incredulously.  

Most people see the failure to prosecute as a phenomenon in itself and so they waste their time appealing, writing to their MP etc.  It's not just 'a late train'.  It's not just 'a policeman who refuses to prosecute a driver who broke the law'.   It is a symptom of the deep, rotten sickness that lies at the very heart of British society.   Police inaction is a symptom of a country where inequality and the economic and social oppression of the weak by the strong is not just present (as it is in every human society on earth), but is institutionalised to the extent that whilst not official policy, it is deeply ingrained to the point of being an aspect of our culture. 

On the very rare occasions when I bother interacting with a driver who has done something dangerous, their reaction is invariably indignation and bewilderment.  'What did I do?' they shout.  And indeed, when I have witnessed drivers on 'driver awareness' courses, they are invariably very angry because they consider themselves to be the victims of a state apparatus which has 'declared war' on the motorist.  In their eyes, they have done nothing wrong, and irrespective of how closely they came to killing another human being or to causing considerable material damage to others' property, it's still 'not their fault'.   And the only way for so many people to be of the same opinion that they are in fact the victims of some vast conspiracy theory driven by cyclists and (to quote the idiotic bampot Janet Street Porter) our 'powerful backers' (welcome to 1930s Germany!) is for them to have been born in, brought up in and continually steeped in a culture where cyclists are considered 'freeloaders' ... 'usurpers' ... indeed in the view of many ... subhuman.  That these odious opinions are so widespread is because drivers (and increasingly, pedestrians) have interiorised the status of 'unter mensch' that is the cyclist, and so when a cyclist is killed or injured, it's really not that important.  'It's just a cyclist', in the same way that when people step on a beetle, they don't 'hate' the beetle.  They just don't care.  It's 'only a beetle'.

I look forward to the day when someone who unlike me, has nothing to lose, causes severe injuries to a driver who has threatened him, and posts (anonymously) the footage proving that he was exercising self defence.   Untraceable video, but incontrovertible proof nonetheless that the driver initiated a violent encounter, only to get ripped a new one and left unconscious on the side of the road.  

I'd like to think that in fact the driver would be prosecuted for assault or - at the very least! -  the police would state that since the footage is crystal clear, they would not be actively seeking the cyclist.  But of course, Britain is a fascist state and is ruled not by the government or by Parliament, but by Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch.  And there will be such a witch hunt with - I do not doubt it - a reward offered for information leading to the arrest of the cyclist, and such public clamour, that the police will have no choice but to go looking for him.  

What to do?  Unfortunately, we have long since passed the point where 'protest' will work.  A million people descended on the street in 2003 and they were ignored.   Changing the selfish car culture - for that is what's required - will not be easy.  No one gives up a privilege voluntarily.  It usually has to be taken from them.  By force.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

*snip*

What to do?  Unfortunately, we have long since passed the point where 'protest' will work.  A million people descended on the street in 2003 and they were ignored.   Changing the selfish car culture - for that is what's required - will not be easy.  No one gives up a privilege voluntarily.  It usually has to be taken from them.  By force.  

...viva la révolution?

antigee wrote:

so if a driver runs a red light and other drivers don't need to take avoiding action no offence has been committed?   .....of course not - there are plenty of driving offences that don't have direct consequences that result in fines - speeding, disobeying stop lines, crossing double lines etc

why is the standard fopr prosecution set so high for this? simple answer is that the majority don't consider it bad driving and any consequence is the cyclists fault for being there

outcomes like this are a strong argument for a minimum passing distance law as the argument that existing laws can be applied doesn't work too well 

West Mid's police cite reduction in cyclist injuries - seems a good return

 

The issue would appear to be that this hasn't even reached a prosecution decision stage. The rider/victim has been fobbed off from the off (which is my take on the article).

antigee wrote:

so if a driver runs a red light and other drivers don't need to take avoiding action no offence has been committed?   .....of course not - there are plenty of driving offences that don't have direct consequences that result in fines - speeding, disobeying stop lines, crossing double lines etc

why is the standard fopr prosecution set so high for this? simple answer is that the majority don't consider it bad driving and any consequence is the cyclists fault for being there

No it's because the police can't be f***ed to do anything.  They made the decision not to do anything including passing it on to the CPS.

You don't overtake another vehicle before a bend everyone knows that. Problem is some drivers don't recognise that slower moving vehicles, particularly cyclists and horses, are still vehicles you don't overtake.

Bluebug wrote:

antigee wrote:

so if a driver runs a red light and other drivers don't need to take avoiding action no offence has been committed?   .....of course not - there are plenty of driving offences that don't have direct consequences that result in fines - speeding, disobeying stop lines, crossing double lines etc

why is the standard fopr prosecution set so high for this? simple answer is that the majority don't consider it bad driving and any consequence is the cyclists fault for being there

No it's because the police can't be f***ed to do anything.  They made the decision not to do anything including passing it on to the CPS.

Surely this is tantamount to Misconduct in Public Office?

Grahamd wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

antigee wrote:

so if a driver runs a red light and other drivers don't need to take avoiding action no offence has been committed?   .....of course not - there are plenty of driving offences that don't have direct consequences that result in fines - speeding, disobeying stop lines, crossing double lines etc

why is the standard fopr prosecution set so high for this? simple answer is that the majority don't consider it bad driving and any consequence is the cyclists fault for being there

No it's because the police can't be f***ed to do anything.  They made the decision not to do anything including passing it on to the CPS.

Surely this is tantamount to Misconduct in Public Office?

Perverting the course of justice IMHO.

zero_trooper wrote:

Do we have a definitive list of police forces signed up to a 'Close Pass' initiative? Is Northants one of these forces?

Err, no.

Northants Police won’t even prosecute when cyclists have been knocked off, let alone close passes. I’ve been hit by cars twice in the last 6 months, both with video evidence. And they still have done f**k all about it.   

smcc1879 wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

Do we have a definitive list of police forces signed up to a 'Close Pass' initiative? Is Northants one of these forces?

Err, no.

Northants Police won’t even prosecute when cyclists have been knocked off, let alone close passes. I’ve been hit by cars twice in the last 6 months, both with video evidence. And they still have done f**k all about it.   

smcc1879 - the secret is to be 'injured' as a result of the collision. A sprained wrist would do. Then the motorist has to report the accident to the police  (by law) and then the police have to investigate it. You may still not get the result that you want, but at least you should should get some sort of documented reasoning.

ktache wrote:

Just by fitting cameras you define yourself as an experienced cyclist, thus Northamptonshire plod will never prosecute any close pass you might submit.

?????????????

IIRC, in the Helen Measures case, wasn't the fact that the victim came off her bike held up as proof that she was an inexperienced cyclist and therefore it couldn't have all been HMs entire stupid f-ing fault? So in that case, apparent inexperience was used as a *mitigating* condition...

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

Just by fitting cameras you define yourself as an experienced cyclist, thus Northamptonshire plod will never prosecute any close pass you might submit.

?????????????

IIRC, in the Helen Measures case, wasn't the fact that the victim came off her bike held up as proof that she was an inexperienced cyclist and therefore it couldn't have all been HMs entire stupid f-ing fault? So in that case, apparent inexperience was used as a *mitigating* condition...

Which was BS in any case as her victim WAS an experienced cyclist, it's just that it was a new to her bike. In any case that it was accepted as mitigation was a fucking disgrace.

As for plod not doing anything, if this was done to a police vehicle or a police officer on a bike you can put a few quid on the odds of it not being ignored.