OP
OP
benborp
Guru
- Location
- further from Penge
A few responses and a chance to get some things off my chest after a few months.
Regarding what Chutzpah said about the standard of driving being considered careless rather than dangerous - I agree. There were elements of the incident that in my mind were deliberate attempts to endanger me and thus, funnily enough, dangerous. However there is such a bias, public and official, and also procedural against being able to make more serious motoring charges stick and then lead to a conviction that 'careless driving' was all that would stand a chance in this case. I think this bias is what led to Jaguar's experiences and also leads to situations like this:
Partially-sighted man cleared of death crash charge
where the jury wouldn't convict on a more serious death by dangerous driving charge but did convict on dangerous driving, even though the victim was still unarguably dead, killed by the collision with the driver's vehicle.
As to further publicity, I realise that results such as this are valuable as campaign material for cyclists, however I think this case is a little too muddy too be effective. Many will see this incident as a case of a gobby cyclist, riding like a twat getting what he deserves (I'll give my justifications later as to why I would probably do much the same if placed in a similar situation again). I'm also keen to let the matter rest myself and there is also a part of me that feels sorry for the driver, who was transformed in to a quite pathetic figure in the courtroom. I can see more publicity being less beneficial to his future driving.
The process I went through with the video evidence was as follows. After a couple of phone calls I went to my local police station (which isn't that local, there used to be four that were closer, harumphh) to make a statement. I had copied a version of the edit that I've used on youtube on to my mobile phone and also various versions of the same clip in different file formats on to a memory stick. I was able to show the footage on my phone to the PC at the front desk. I had also prepared a statement using Vikeonabike's template. The video, the statement and the transcript within it immediately had the PC's attention and made the whole process of reporting the incident far more urgent. Incidents in the past, although serious, were just an uncorroborated allegation and while giving a statement there was the acknowledgement that it was the start of a long, fruitless process. This was different. I had to give a verbal statement to the PC and this took an hour or so. Having the template to hand as I did this made it all much smoother and less taxing. Keeping events straight in your head and not missing anything out while staying concise as you go back and forth over the incident is fairly heavy going. Having it already to hand, in your own words is great.
I didn't have to hand any footage in at this stage and I was simply told to make sure that the original was kept safe. My statement was forwarded on to the police station that would be investigating and I was told I would be contacted in about a weeks time.
Two days later I was contacted by the PC who was to investigate. He was quite intrigued by the prospect of using video footage of the incident and arranged for me to come in a and give another statement. This was similar to the process that I went through previously, although this time the memory stick was taken from me and checked that a usable file format was on it that the Met and the CPS could use (This memory stick was bagged as evidence and again I was asked to keep the original safe). Also, the statement developed from a far more rigorous discussion of the events. This PC had previously been a cycling officer and had once collared a moped rider after a chase. It was useful to have someone that understood some of the intricacies of cycling in traffic. He said that having helmetcam footage would make all the difference in bringing a prosecution. I also stressed that I was just as concerned by the traffic offences if not more so that the assault.
When it came to the court hearing the magistrates were shown the footage that had been copied from the memory stick. There were no questions asked about the veracity of the footage or events preceding or following the end of the clip (identical to the youtube one). If there had been I'm fairly confident that I would have been able to cite the use of the equipment that I have as being used by various government agencies and used as evidential proof in previous cases. Again, the prosecution told me that the footage made all the difference to bringing this matter to court. They thought it a bizarre outcome that there was not a guilty verdict on the assault. I do now have the opportunity to pursue a civil prosecution which I'm told I would be highly likely to win, but I suffered little in all of this and have little to gain from pursuing someone with little to compensate me with.
Browser: the camera is a VIO s.c.o.u.t. bullet camera attached to a PVR500 digital recorder. This setup is obsolete now but if you talk to dogcamsport.co.uk they would be able to tell what is similar. I prefer the smaller bullet cameras that are then attached to a separate recording unit as the bulk is more spread out and the camera itself is more discrete.
I still haven't been able to get through on the court's result service telephone line.
Regarding what Chutzpah said about the standard of driving being considered careless rather than dangerous - I agree. There were elements of the incident that in my mind were deliberate attempts to endanger me and thus, funnily enough, dangerous. However there is such a bias, public and official, and also procedural against being able to make more serious motoring charges stick and then lead to a conviction that 'careless driving' was all that would stand a chance in this case. I think this bias is what led to Jaguar's experiences and also leads to situations like this:
Partially-sighted man cleared of death crash charge
where the jury wouldn't convict on a more serious death by dangerous driving charge but did convict on dangerous driving, even though the victim was still unarguably dead, killed by the collision with the driver's vehicle.
As to further publicity, I realise that results such as this are valuable as campaign material for cyclists, however I think this case is a little too muddy too be effective. Many will see this incident as a case of a gobby cyclist, riding like a twat getting what he deserves (I'll give my justifications later as to why I would probably do much the same if placed in a similar situation again). I'm also keen to let the matter rest myself and there is also a part of me that feels sorry for the driver, who was transformed in to a quite pathetic figure in the courtroom. I can see more publicity being less beneficial to his future driving.
The process I went through with the video evidence was as follows. After a couple of phone calls I went to my local police station (which isn't that local, there used to be four that were closer, harumphh) to make a statement. I had copied a version of the edit that I've used on youtube on to my mobile phone and also various versions of the same clip in different file formats on to a memory stick. I was able to show the footage on my phone to the PC at the front desk. I had also prepared a statement using Vikeonabike's template. The video, the statement and the transcript within it immediately had the PC's attention and made the whole process of reporting the incident far more urgent. Incidents in the past, although serious, were just an uncorroborated allegation and while giving a statement there was the acknowledgement that it was the start of a long, fruitless process. This was different. I had to give a verbal statement to the PC and this took an hour or so. Having the template to hand as I did this made it all much smoother and less taxing. Keeping events straight in your head and not missing anything out while staying concise as you go back and forth over the incident is fairly heavy going. Having it already to hand, in your own words is great.
I didn't have to hand any footage in at this stage and I was simply told to make sure that the original was kept safe. My statement was forwarded on to the police station that would be investigating and I was told I would be contacted in about a weeks time.
Two days later I was contacted by the PC who was to investigate. He was quite intrigued by the prospect of using video footage of the incident and arranged for me to come in a and give another statement. This was similar to the process that I went through previously, although this time the memory stick was taken from me and checked that a usable file format was on it that the Met and the CPS could use (This memory stick was bagged as evidence and again I was asked to keep the original safe). Also, the statement developed from a far more rigorous discussion of the events. This PC had previously been a cycling officer and had once collared a moped rider after a chase. It was useful to have someone that understood some of the intricacies of cycling in traffic. He said that having helmetcam footage would make all the difference in bringing a prosecution. I also stressed that I was just as concerned by the traffic offences if not more so that the assault.
When it came to the court hearing the magistrates were shown the footage that had been copied from the memory stick. There were no questions asked about the veracity of the footage or events preceding or following the end of the clip (identical to the youtube one). If there had been I'm fairly confident that I would have been able to cite the use of the equipment that I have as being used by various government agencies and used as evidential proof in previous cases. Again, the prosecution told me that the footage made all the difference to bringing this matter to court. They thought it a bizarre outcome that there was not a guilty verdict on the assault. I do now have the opportunity to pursue a civil prosecution which I'm told I would be highly likely to win, but I suffered little in all of this and have little to gain from pursuing someone with little to compensate me with.
Browser: the camera is a VIO s.c.o.u.t. bullet camera attached to a PVR500 digital recorder. This setup is obsolete now but if you talk to dogcamsport.co.uk they would be able to tell what is similar. I prefer the smaller bullet cameras that are then attached to a separate recording unit as the bulk is more spread out and the camera itself is more discrete.
I still haven't been able to get through on the court's result service telephone line.
)
