UK Police – Dereliction of Duty

[Markymark]

Is that because the Police are not taking dangerous behaviour around cyclists as seriously as other things? Say Shoplifting for example, generally the item the shoplifter took are either back in the possession of the shop, or very easily retrieved yet even without any physical harm caused to anyone the Police will attend and charge. Seems a little strange to rely on a cyclist needing to be injured or killed before the Police will charge someone. Are you sure this is the criteria the Police actually work on, it sounds sick to me.

No. Cam evidence will not be taken as it is not calibrated. They wouldn't go to the trouble of getting forensics out and teams of photographers and mathmeticians for a collisionless video.

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

No. Cam evidence will not be taken as it is not calibrated. They wouldn't go to the trouble of getting forensics out and teams of photographers and mathmeticians for a collisionless video.

I think you are exaggerating. I am only talking about getting out a tape measure.
Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?

 

[Markymark]

I think you are exaggerating. I am only talking about getting out a tape measure.
Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?

Tape measure? Would be destroyed in court by any solicitor.

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

Tape measure? Would be destroyed in court by any solicitor.

wow bad news for tape measures,
Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?

 

[fossyant]

Greater Manchester Police won't do anything even if you are seriously injured. There were two cyclists injured in Manchester on 24th and 25th November, both serious (one me) and in similar circumstances (right turning car) and GMP did nothing.

Leigh Day are chasing them.

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

I have looked at this a few times and must admit that I can see how the police can have trouble using this type of footage for evidence. Because of the fish eye lens effect it is hard to gauge just how close the car is. It may have been very close to you but it doesnt look that bad on film.

It appears that when the police have good evidence that they can work with, they are acting on it.

You need to revise your polling choices. Your heading makes me think you are only interested at having a go at the police.

Can you show any examples of the evidence that the Police are able to work with?

 

[Markymark]

wow bad news for tape measures,
Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?

What are you talking about.

I'll say it again. Cam evidence is not Callibrated. It would take a team to present it as evidence sufficient for court. Experts at that. Far more police hours than a couple of local bobbies attending a store. That's why it doesn't happen.

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

I have looked at this a few times and must admit that I can see how the police can have trouble using this type of footage for evidence. Because of the fish eye lens effect it is hard to gauge just how close the car is. It may have been very close to you but it doesnt look that bad on film.

It appears that when the police have good evidence that they can work with, they are acting on it.

You need to revise your polling choices. Your heading makes me think you are only interested at having a go at the police.

O and the Police were happy with this evidence being enough the charge the driver until the driver said he used his horn to warn me to get out of his way, the Police Officer then concluded that the driver was not at fault!

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

What are you talking about.

I'll say it again. Cam evidence is not Callibrated. It would take a team to present it as evidence sufficient for court. Experts at that. Far more police hours than a couple of local bobbies attending a store. That's why it doesn't happen.

Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that? I say again, dangerous verses petty crime!

 

[Markymark]

Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that? I say again, dangerous verses petty crime!

As far as the police and courts are concerned it's not dangerous driving unless it's proved to be dangerous driving. That footage sadly will not stand up. The driver could say they gave you 1m. You would need to prove it was less. The amount of resources it would take to prove that would be decided as unnessary as there was no collision. Taking out a tape measure will not cut it.

The police allocate resources based on likelihood of convictions. In your case, I'd say it's pretty much zero.

 

[SeanM]

O and the Police were happy with this evidence being enough the charge the driver until the driver said he used his horn to warn me to get out of his way, the Police Officer then concluded that the driver was not at fault!

Unless you've cut the video, using a horn to warn you of danger, which is correct and proper, according to the highway code. Didn't seem to cause you to turn your head to discover the danger, in which case it was insufficient, and the driver shouldn't have proceeded. Common sense ?

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

Unless you've cut the video, using a horn to warn you of danger, which is correct and proper, according to the highway code. Didn't seem to cause you to turn your head to discover the danger, in which case it was insufficient, and the driver shouldn't have proceeded. Common sense ?

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

Unless you've cut the video, using a horn to warn you of danger, which is correct and proper, according to the highway code. Didn't seem to cause you to turn your head to discover the danger, in which case it was insufficient, and the driver shouldn't have proceeded. Common sense ?

What? didn't you see me checking the bar end mirror, it is in the video, what was I meant to do? cycle in the door zone? Was I to assume the driver was incapable of driving safely? Seeing the car behind me I naturally thought he was warning someone of something other than his inabilities. You are not meant to sound your horn and then create the danger. Seriously, what is your problem with being able to understand the situation?
and yet again do you think it is right that the Police prefer trivial wastes of time in shops verses public safety?

 

[Banjo]

At a time the police are stretched to the limit reports of collisions that nearly happened are unlikely to be prioritized.
As much as I think that driver needs locking up in the real world its not going to happen.

 

[TheVexatiousLitigant]

At a time the police are stretched to the limit reports of collisions that nearly happened are unlikely to be prioritized.
As much as I think that driver needs locking up in the real world its not going to happen.

Fortunately the Police were not stretched, they interviewed me, then they visited the driver to issue a section 171 for the dangerous pass, it was only after the driver told them he used his horn to try to get me to cycle in the door zone that they decided not to charge the driver for the dangerous behaviour.