Near Miss of the Day 690: “Driver came flying by me at high speed” – with car coming the other way

Well, why do you think the verge is grass instead of rocks?

Seriously though I would suggest that all drivers be tested annually to see if they remember where the brake pedal is.

Fursty Ferret wrote:

I think it's unwise to report anything like this to the police, because in the event that the car is damaged in the future (because the driver has already made it clear they're a thoughtless cock and will probably park blocking a driveway / illegally etc), your name is already associated with the car as a likely suspect. 

Given the police invariably don't act unless someone is both killed and a serving officer, it's just not worth the hassle. 

The police are going to need a lot more than just a vague connection between a victim and a dangerous driver to pin car damage on them. I'd bet a substantial amount (well, maybe some slightly stale mince pies) that the police have never just gone after a previous victim without something a lot more substantial.

Depends. I think the general rule for police investigations is "start at the nearest point" e.g. if a child disappears first check out the family. However if it was the ones responsible for the Steven Port investigation then you could be loitering next to someone's vandalised car with your keys out, holding a pot of paint stripper and arouse no suspicion whatsoever.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Fursty Ferret wrote:

I think it's unwise to report anything like this to the police, because in the event that the car is damaged in the future (because the driver has already made it clear they're a thoughtless cock and will probably park blocking a driveway / illegally etc), your name is already associated with the car as a likely suspect. 

Given the police invariably don't act unless someone is both killed and a serving officer, it's just not worth the hassle. 

The police are going to need a lot more than just a vague connection between a victim and a dangerous driver to pin car damage on them. I'd bet a substantial amount (well, maybe some slightly stale mince pies) that the police have never just gone after a previous victim without something a lot more substantial.

Such as some stale mince pies and a generously-poured glass of Baileys*?

(* or [sniggers into cuff] should that be Old Bailey's? [/sniggers into cuff])

Any evidence to support this claim?

I think it's unwise to report anything like this to the police
It's not unreasonable to be suspicious that the police practice of 'going after the victim to intimidate him out of the hated practice of reporting offences', but even I wouldn't consider this a feasible case for police retaliation. However, the principle applies and the police are more stupid than you think. I was threatened with prosecution by Lancashire's Sgt. Lavin, now in charge of OpSnap Lancs, with prosecution for impeding a car by being in his way ('being further out into the lane than I needed to be') and thereby forcing him completely over the double unbroken white lines in a dangerous position just before a right hand bend. Such a prosecution would have been a godsend and I urged him to do it, but he then completely disappeared from the airwaves for 2 1/2 years until he re-emerged leading his glorious new department.

That's just a cyclist term, not an offence term.
It would come under careless or inconsiderate driving.
"driving too close to another vehicle"
according to cps guidelines.

wtjs wrote:

Unspecified action means probably 'words of advice', which is why they won't tell you. The worst it can be is the joke driving course, which he probably doesn't even have to tell the insurance company about, never mind anyone else. Deterrent effect almost nil.

And by a junction. 

Exactly! Did the Police take action against both drivers?

Unfortunately, 'something' amounts to - effectively - nothing. As such, am struggling to feel any New Year 'gladness' towards those meant to protect us.