"Drivers like this are going to kill or seriously injure someone": Cyclist knocked off bike claims police "completely unwilling to prosecute" drivers who hit cyclists

Can someone who know more clarify something: is the driver's license suspended until such time as they take this awareness course, or is it like a speed awareness course where you have a certain amount of time to complete it before any punishment happens, but you can freely drive up to that point? Because I'm terrified that the police might just let this driver get straight back behind the steering wheel after an incident like that!

This is kinda what happened to me ... but in slow motion.
Circumstances are about right, except mine was an 80 year old male, in good light with a calculated impact speed of 60mph.

I received a dislocated elbow, fractured ulna, 11 broken ribs, 3 fractured vertebrae, punctured lung, internal bleeding, subdermal hematoma that's since turned fibrous, a patella that was broken in to 4 peices, and a TBH. 4 months of not being able to walk or pick up an empty teacup, and a further 12 months of physio. As a result I have some cognitive issues, arthritis, walk with a limp, and have been warned that early on-set dementia is a high possibility.

Because the 80 year old driver claimed guilt at the scene, he got 3 penalty points and a small fine for careless driving.

It took 4 years to get compensation from their insurance... and that as a court-steps agreement.

Are they still driving? I fecking hope not. I hope that the image of me, in a crumpled heap several meters down the road of the impact area, silently bleeding while getting CPR is seared permanently in their brain, and it's sufficient to put them off driving for the rest of their lives.

But hey... its only driving.

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 thought that it might be the best option in this case.
I have stopped cycling , West Yorkshire / Bradford Met, because frankly it's dangerous and I want to live until I'm an old incontinent twat who calls everyone Violet.
Also I feel confident that the person knocked off can claim on the drivers insurance for any damage done.
Yep I also agree with the institutionally anti-cyclist thoughts . Let's be honest the police seem to be institutionally everything a civilised society shouldn't be , except when they come round and nick those scummy drug dealers ; they don't even seem to be doing that around my end.

Really weird, on the face of it.

The oncoming cyclist is clearly visible, the motorist on the main road pulls up and stops, the motorist coming out of the side road pulls up to the line and stops, but then the motorist on the main road just pulls out and into the cyclist?!

Their angle of attack is all wrong too - if the cyclist hadn't been in the way then they would have driven directly into the other car.

Was the motorist distracted (cough cough mobile phone cough cough) or are they cognitively impaired? The speed with which they allegedly handed in their licence, I reckon they played a medical card...

Maybe just camera angle but it where is the driver driving to?  (Also odd looking bit of road).  It looks like they were actually turning into an exit lane / the wrong side of the road e.g. they've got confused about which side we drive on in the UK.  If they had not kept turning in it looks like they'd have hit the stationary car instead.

Still, not surprised about the "well they're stopping driving so we're not taking it further".  The police are very familiar with this principle and apply this to themselves e.g. "unfortunately the officer under investigation has now retired from the force..."!

The big danger is cyclists cycling in pedestrian zones - they sometimes nearly hit motorists doing their shopping.

And now the driver will go away thinking that this is a minor offence not worthy of further consideration. After all they merely bumped into the cyclist, which is very different to running a person over with a car

There's no evidence of dangerous driving because it doesn't meet the threshold for that offence. It is clearly driving without due care and attention, though. Question is, why would police not make that charge?

Almost certainly not prosecuted because the driver had agreed to hand in their licence and never drive again.

What a baffling piece of driving. The cyclist was clearly visible (you can see his lights reflecting off street signs), the sight lines are good, it's all low speed. How could the driver simply drive their car into the cyclist? They couldn't possibly have been on their phone whilst negotiation a junction, surely...

developed a certain level of expertise within the role based on years of experience in dealing with and managing serious collisions, primarily fatal road traffic collisions

This translates as 'it wasn't fatal, think yourself lucky, shut up and go away, if you don't like conditions on the roads find another mode of transport...'

Quote:

there is no evidence whatsoever of an offence of dangerous driving

There only seem to be two possible ways to support that - either they're claiming that there's no evidence that this happened, or they're claiming that driving a car into a person isn't dangerous.

Entirely standard police dodging masquerading as 'a wise police officer seeking the right resolution through his years of experience' bollocks. What actually happened was 'little road rat wasn't actually killed/ seriously injured/ injured/ hit (depending on whether they're explaining away a close pass/ collision/ serious collision/ cyclist death), so what's he/ family members whingeing about? (cut and paste in: our thoughts and prayers... insincerity additional bollocks as necessary. I have shown much more than enough evidence on here of other serious moving traffic offences which the police ignore because they can't be bothered/ have decided that everybody offends like that so it's not a real offence/ doesn't like cyclists and thinks everybody would be better off if they were frightened or bullied off the roads / sees themselves as matey blokes on the side of the motorist. As soon as they hear of an offence against a cyclist they're concentrating on ways of binning the case- as they succeeded in doing here. Just remember: it would have been just the same if the cyclist had been KSI'd: she didn't mean to do it/ tormenting the motorist won't bring the cyclist back ...

Dreadful piece of driving.  Thank goodness they have registration plates so they can be held to account.  Oh wait.

Institutionally anti-cyclist