Police chief says clip of Range Rover driver hitting cyclist with car doesn’t tell full story

mattw wrote:

I find three things a little strange:

That Mat has not published the full footage, though I have seen claims of a 3-minute version existing.

I agree, I have asked via Twitter if he could show us the fuller version but no reply. I can only assume that he is taking legal advice regarding action against the motorist and/or Northants police and has been advised not to comment or release any more footage. If this is the case a statement from him to that effect would be helpful.

mattw wrote:

That the police cannot simply publish without needing Mat's consent in the circumstances of the issue being made public.

According to people on here and on Twitter who know more about these things than I, the police can't release any more of Matt's footage without his consent and they can't release other CCTV footage under GDPR regs as it identifies a known individual. That's why the CC was saying if you want to progress with your complaint and ask me to release all footage I will. 

mattw wrote:

The bald statement of an assault having occurred. AIUI Common Assault requires intent to cause harm; I'm not convinced of that here. 

Common Assault doesn't have to be intent to cause physical harm, it can be intent to cause fear of physical harm, so it could be argued (not saying this is the case, just it could be argued) that in knocking the bike the driver wasn't intending physically to hurt him but was intending to frighten him, which is assault. In a less equivocal example, if you were trapped in a dead-end alleyway and I drove a car towards you at high speed then braked before I hit you, I would still be guilty of assault even if it was accepted that I actually had no intention of hitting you, I still made you think it might happen and that is assault.

Rendel Harris wrote:

mattw wrote:

I find three things a little strange:

That Mat has not published the full footage, though I have seen claims of a 3-minute version existing.

I agree, I have asked via Twitter if he could show us the fuller version but no reply. I can only assume that he is taking legal advice regarding action against the motorist and/or Northants police and has been advised not to comment or release any more footage. If this is the case a statement from him to that effect would be helpful.

Yes, I wouldn't take "radio silence" here as anything other than the discussion with the police has been taken offline; which is exactly what the Chief Constable offered.

This may have also attracted a bit too much attention for him, so perhaps he's having a bit of a twitter break.

The driver appeared to be just trying to get away from the cyclist who was deliberately blocking the roadway; the driver may even claim that they were in fear of the cyclist who was engaging in a form of road rage at the driver.

Rendel Harris wrote:

mattw wrote:

That the police cannot simply publish without needing Mat's consent in the circumstances of the issue being made public.

According to people on here and on Twitter who know more about these things than I, the police can't release any more of Matt's footage without his consent and they can't release other CCTV footage under GDPR regs as it identifies a known individual. That's why the CC was saying if you want to progress with your complaint and ask me to release all footage I will. 

I know more about this than most people - they could release it without Matt's consent if it was required for them to do their job (eg were you bystander xxy) - or they decided it was in the public interest to do.  However they do have a general principle of limited disclosure that this probably falls under.   Its also a neat way to take some of the heat out of the equation.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I know more about this than most people - they could release it without Matt's consent if it was required for them to do their job (eg were you bystander xxy) - or they decided it was in the public interest to do.  However they do have a general principle of limited disclosure that this probably falls under.   Its also a neat way to take some of the heat out of the equation.

Which is all fair enough, though there is surely a strong argument that as both the employers of the police and those who have to abide by their decisions there is a strong public interest in knowing the justification for not prosecuting someone who drove into a cyclist. That's not to say there may not be justification, but that the police shouldn't be able to make such contentious decisions without justifying them. Even if they didn't feel able to release the video, they could surely provide a written or verbal account of their thought pocess?

Car Delenda Est wrote:

If the police think the full video tells a different story then they need to release that video and explain their reasoning.

And if the video shows the cyclist doing something first?  How will that improve the situation?   If there is something iffy beforehand best to create some some FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt) and let it turn into tomorrows virtual chip paper.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Car Delenda Est wrote:

If the police think the full video tells a different story then they need to release that video and explain their reasoning.

And if the video shows the cyclist doing something first?  How will that improve the situation?   If there is something iffy beforehand best to create some some FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt) and let it turn into tomorrows virtual chip paper.

If the cyclist had done something iffy first, why go to all this trouble of publicising the incident?  I know I wouldn't...

brooksby wrote:

If the cyclist had done something iffy first, why go to all this trouble of publicising the incident?  I know I wouldn't...

Because he was scared and/or fuming and reacted without thinking about it too much?  I happen to believe he wasnt in a calm frame of mind that day because he f-bombed a fairly innocous comment of mine on twitter.  Whether he actually was or not I have no clue - but it presented that way.  Interpretation is everything unfortunately.

I know when I have even a minor incident it lives in my head disproportionately for hours - sometimes even days.   Sharing it (even on twitter) can be cathartic.

Whether or not actions by the cyclist preceeded the incident in the video, the cyclist was not at that point threatening or endangering the car driver so there is no justification for the assault. The right action there is to call the police and let them deal with the prior crime not take vigilate action and use your car as a weapon. 

The only way you could justify hitting someone deliberately with your car is in the case of a car jacking or similar where you are protecting yourself. Hitting someone with a ton of metal to avoid an inconvenience is not, under any circumstances, acceptable. 

So you think your wife would have the right to start a confrontation and then use whatever violence required to get out of that confrontation?
Pretty sure that's just assault and sexism.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

So you think your wife would have the right to start a confrontation and then use whatever violence required to get out of that confrontation? Pretty sure that's just assault and sexism.

Pretty sure you're attempting to twist his point with whataboutery.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

you're attempting to twist his point with whataboutery.

That definitely sounds like an assault.

Whatabout what? I haven't compared it with anything..

Edit: Oh I see you've been confused by the fact that they misrepresented the video as "if it was my wife in the car and she'd inadvertently nearly killed a cyclist who was now getting aggressive, I'd want her to get away from the situation first (without causing injury) and deal with the situation when everyone has calmed down." And I'm pointing out that their example has no relevance to the actual video because that's not what's happened. Unless you think a *man* fiddling with the zip on his bag is threatening or that a hit and run is dealing with the situation, otherwise that's what you call whataboutery.

No I don't.  Read the post carefully.

I'm saying there's enough to suggest a female found herself in a situation - probably of her own making, but possibly accidentally - where there was a man outside her car angry enough to dismount infront of her trapping her in.  From the evidence we can see, she went full lock right as soon as the traffic in the other lane cleared and got out of there.

Yes, it could be "Oh ****, the guy I just deliberately swiped has caught up with me - I'm outtahere", but it *could* be "I don't know what I've done to make this man angry but I'm just going to drive round him and get away because I don't want to be a statistic."  

And - dear reader - if you think cycling round a city is stressful with car drivers being dickheads, get on a running forum and see how women feel about the unwanted attention they get from men when they have the temerity to go running outside, and what sort of reaction they get when they have the audacity to react to it.

How do you know he was angry at that point ?
She wasn't trapped in.

OK - if we're going full on pedantry, I can't see his face so I dont know he was angry.  I can see that he got off his bike and moved infront of the car, so I can see how a jury would accept the argument in mitigation that the driver had reason to believe he was angry.  

The sound isn't brilliant, but he doesn't seem to be recognising her and wishing her well.

At the very end of the clip, we see a car behind her in the queue, so no reverse option.  There's a kerb to the left, curbing her movement (see what I did there?) and cars flowing to her right.  I'm assuming that's because there was also a queue there preventing her moving right during the main part of the clip.  Oh, and there's a bloke infront who has got off his bike and raised his voice.  You're right - she isn't trapped in - she could have pressed the eject button which is fitted as standard to SUVs and parachuted to safety in a different postcode.

If there were cars flowing to her right she must have crashed into them then.
He was already in front of the car so he didn't go anywhere.
Claiming someone is angry suits your narrative, it's not pedantry to ask why you claim this.

It's a fair challenge - if you can't believe everything in a statement, you shouldn't believe anything in a statement.  However, the end of the video looks  to me like she pulled into a gap in the traffic after waiting for it to be clear.  Clumsily, I'll give you.

My narrative doesn't need him to be angry, it only needs her to have reason to believe he is.  His having pulled perpendicular infront and dismounted gets me there.  It does sound like his voice is raised.  Would you disagree? 

Anyway, my narrative is that - on the evidence we see - a jury may be convinced by defence counsel that the driver had reason to be afraid and that the collision at the end was a scared woman looking over her shoulder to find a gap in the outside lane and clipping the bike with the front left of her car on her way past the cyclist.  On that basis I can see why the police / CPS wouldn't want to waste time on it.

Now, that's on the evidence we can see.  The police can see something else.  The other part of my narrative is that they *might* have seen an accidental infringement that started it, followed by the bloke cycling after the car trying to get her to stop.  His intention may have been to give a good-natured "you cut me up there, but it was an easy mistake to make, let me educate you and we can both be on our way".  They might also have seen an egregious bit of bullying by the entitled driver and a cyclist trying to get her to stop because there was a collision and her repeatedly trying to run him off the road until being stuck at the lights with nowhere to go.  We don't know, and the poster is quiet on the subject.

The police viewed the footage and dropped it; they might have done so out of laziness, corruption or incompetence, but they might also have looked at the footage and thought with heavy heart "there's no way a jury are convicting here", let it go.  I think some people on this forum actually want it to be the former because that suits their narrative.  I hope it's the latter because I don't think people join the police force to make the streets less safe.

Oh, and the other other part of my narrative is that my advice to my wife would still be: whether you caused it or not, and whether he's right to be angry or not, do not engage an* angry man - get away if you can do so without running him over and let the police deal with it.  

* I used the indefinite article - just for you.

panda wrote:

We don't know, and the poster is quiet on the subject.

They're not:

Quote:

"The Range Rover driver overtook in a rather rapid fashion to reach a set of traffic lights at red. I filtered through to the front of the lights and took primary. I think she took umbrage at that and sounded her horn."

They haven't supported that with the video, so whether or not to believe that account is open to question, but they have given an account of it.

From what I could hear, he was asking what was wrong with his bike - after all, using the horn while stationary is illegal but often used to indicate a problem with the person in fronts vehicle. 

We're all speculating without the missing "what did you do last summer" video.

It does look like more than just turning your bike so you can look at someone - there's a slight step towards also and the bike's at right angles to the car.  Equally getting behind your bike is defensive as much as challenging.  You're preparing to run away if the motorist drives into you.  You don't take up a position to move towards someone to attack them by hiding behind something.

So I'd say the reality is the chap is making some kind of challenge.  However he's also alert to the reality of the situation in that he's actually the physically vulnerable person here.  As for the driver being trapped - cars aren't tanks but a Range Rover is going in that direction.  Although it has windows those are reasonably sturdy and you can wind them up.  They're surrounded by witnesses - this isn't down a quiet back alley at night, it's very public.

Again I'd also imagine that a lawyer could spin this either way so wouldn't have thought the CPS would touch it.  I'm pretty sure I'd have either stayed with the bike facing forwards or moved to the ke/curb (but with bike ready) if I really wanted a chat; but that's me.

Yeah I think that's about right.

I'd be inclined to pull up with the palms open "I'm not a threat" pose (which our boy may have done - only her dashcam, if fitted, would tell us).

Panda, your advice to your wife, is that your advice to all women as its been suggested I (as a man) can kill them with my bare hands. Is that not suiting a narrative?

Gold medal winning olympic boxer Nicola Adams versus a disabled man with limited movement on a recumbent bike?

As others have suggested, the 'threat' posed surely has to be greater than the evidence we see here. Simply suggesting she may have felt threatened would open up loopholes to all kinds of malicious behaviour!

Why couldn't they just lock the doors on their 2 tonne mobile fortress?
The idea that a man is automatically a threat, if you suspect they're angry, and can be treated as such is a disgusting level of sexism and victim blaming.

Please also note that the car blasted the horn and then began to close in on him as he dismounted, no wonder the poor man felt threatened by such an aggressive driver.