Motorist drives into cyclist moments after shouting abuse for not using cycle lane

You make an excellent point. I am coming to understand that the Highway Code is there to settle civil disputes when accidents occur and damage is done, apart from the "must" clauses. Disregardng it while driving is not a crime it seems. We seem to be in the realms of "No harm, no foul" as Jack Reacher would put it. The problem facing the cyclist then is that if they capitulate (allow themselves to be bullied) no action is taken, if they don't, while the driver may be open to civil action and financial penalty, they potentially suffer serious injury or worse.

Turning these incidents into a civil matter certainly has merit in these circumstances. We all know that these events can be traumatic and in our snowflake society claims may be successful. It may even be possible to claim that by putting a person off cycling you are endangering them (and others) due to the effects of motoring on climate change. May be worth pursuing by better brains than mine.

I've written to a well known solicitors who specialise in scammy parking claims, (I hope it is not too much trouble for them )

I've pointed out that the cynical business model is that most cyclists wouldn't want a windfall, they just want to know that the motorist has suffered for their poor driving choices - so there ought to be lots of money making for them while even bring about social justice,and that I expect the police and politicians would be quite supportive of a civil process over a criminal one.

Good luck.

It occurred to me that the very use of cameras is evidence of the level of anxiety about motorists.

You do realise that that excuse is utter Horlicks?

anagallis_arvensis wrote:

Given covid I can understand that I suppose.

You are more understanding than I would be!

That excuse might wash if it was a typical close pass that could reasonably be considered merely careless driving. But deliberately driving into someone is (IMHO) at the minimum dangerous driving (which ought to be prioritised regardless of any staffing issues) or assault (which also ought to be a priority and moreover is not subject to the same two-week limitation that applies to motoring offences). 

OnYerBike wrote:

That excuse might wash if it was a typical close pass that could reasonably be considered merely careless driving. But deliberately driving into someone is (IMHO) at the minimum dangerous driving (which ought to be prioritised regardless of any staffing issues) or assault (which also ought to be a priority and moreover is not subject to the same two-week limitation that applies to motoring offences). 

This.  A hundred time this.

Cpmplain to the PCC?

 Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter

brooksby is right- the police are just lying. Lancashire Constabulary has tried this many times to excuse offences like HGVs crashing through red lights seconds after they turned red, or vehicles on the public road having been untaxed for almost 3 years (this is a 'hot one' just come through today- I have issued an ultimatum which they will probably ignore, so a proper complaint will ensue) etc. Lancashire Constabulary was last summer and autumn running a longstanding dodge where they didn't even look at online submissions to allocate an incident reference number (this a a proxy measure for the time they 'looked at' the case) until after the 14 days deadline had expired. Police lying is routine for almost everything now, from lying about whether you have raped and murdered someone to deliberate dodges to obviate working and allow more time to covering up.

They still have the option of viewing this as an assault, and then there is no 14 day limitation because it doesn't fall user driving offences.

However, the reality is that the stress of persuing it further outweighs the feel good factor of getting a result.

I would want to pursue it as assault

Also if an accident ie collision occurs there is no 14 day requirement either. Worth knowing.

Ride On wrote:

Also if an accident ie collision occurs there is no 14 day requirement either. Worth knowing.

Not quite. The 14 day requirement (Road Traffic Offenders Act s1) applies to certain offences (listed in RTOA sched 1), not to types of incident. So it applies to Careless/Dangerous driving/cycling irrespective of collision.

It does not apply to the 'causing serious injury / death by...' so you're looking at more than a slight knock (and the police charging it as such) before the 14 day limit disappears - unless they can get them on an alternative offence (assault, other motoring offence) which isn't subject to RTOA s1.

All "lack of resources" type excuses are double-speak for "it was too low down our priorities to merit the allocation of resource". Resources are always limited.

TBF, having a daughter in the police, you'd be appalled at how under-resourced the police are now. Some of their cars were so old, she refused to drive them because they didn't seem safe(!), her force had a single breathalyser unit between all the patrol cars, so any drunk driver required calling the lucky team for the night. Our neighbourhood police team was 4 people 10 years ago - so consider shifts, that's little more than 1 person full time for about 30,000 people, but then by the time all the admin, time off for sickness, training, and so on, it ends up being nearer 0.5 people per day.

Then there are the IT systems... my daughter was compelled to use a system to write down evidence that simply would lose interview statements when save was pressed. The vendors knew it happened 10% of the time - aside from with my daughter it was 100% - and many of the interviews were reluctant witnesses. They then replaced the system with a new one which they couldn't get fixed until the Met came sniffing around wanting to know if it was any good,so they were effectively using a live beta.

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

I'd totally agree with you but the police appear to be in line with the courts - who as we've read are extremely disinclined to attribute awareness to motorists just because they're driving and that would appear to be both sensible and the law. Even where the motorist managed not to crash for a long time before and after apparently we accept that they can be "not driving" or aware of their surroundings for a flexible period of time - without censure. While I can't pronounce on the legal soundness of this unfortunately it probably accords with reality and most people's realistic appraisal of their own driving...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

Assuming by this you are referring to the offence of "failure to stop or report an accident", unfortunately the definition of an "accident" given for that offence requires there to be injury to a person or damage to property, which does not appear to have been the case this time.

I also don't think there is a legal excuse of being reasonably unaware - although if that were the case it might affect the public interest test for prosecution. 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

You may be correct, but do you have a citation? An accident is, in itself, not an offence; 14 days doesn't apply to failure to stop/report, so they could still charge that.

If an offence has been committed, then no NIP is required where there has been an accident  - schedule one says when an nip is required, and an accident is not one of those to which it applies. 
 

https://www.hickmanandrose.co.uk/what-is-an-accident-avoiding-the-servic...
 

an accident absolutely occurred here. 

No, nothing about it was accidental.

A collision, that was no accident.

Sriracha wrote:

All "lack of resources" type excuses are double-speak for "it was too low down our priorities to merit the allocation of resource". Resources are always limited.

Exactly this.  Although I note IanMSpencer's reports from the front line - and I can believe it - it's always a choice, somewhere.  Of course the people higher up (senior police / politicians) are those who have more control on where the the searchlight is pointed. And whether by "a nod and a wink", by making it clear that your career isn't going further if you do x rather than y or simply by cutting off funds for something that's how it gets shifted.

They could always put in a claim for distress and mental anguish, make it a value that the driver would not be willing to simply pay you off. Might not get anywhere much but it would either force the driver to deal with a solicitor or pass it on to his insurers which would then mean he would lose his NCD. Then when he tries to switch insurers he'd have to declare it.