Deliberate collision

[downfader]

[quote name='swee'pea99']When you say 'unjustified'...?

Are you suggesting that the stroy in Msg 34 is a fabrication?[/quote]

Sorry not that gent, this goes back a while..infact I dont even remember it being on a cycle forum, but a more general one.

Sometimes its almost as if they expect the police to act on a severe lack of evidence, eg no witnesses, it was dark and they didnt get the plates.. Theres not much you can do but suddenly the police are to blame for not being psychic..

...then theres the naysayers: "They wont prosecute or do anything!" Well perhaps if more people reported serious abuse a bigger picture would build up and society in general would understand the seriousness of it all.

Just my opinion obviously.

 

[thomas]

Sometimes its almost as if they expect the police to act on a severe lack of evidence, eg no witnesses, it was dark and they didnt get the plates.. Theres not much you can do but suddenly the police are to blame for not being psychic..

Back home, I must have been about 15 years old at the time. Walking with a friend when 2 lads come up saying their mate said we called his sister a "twit". Said no, turned to leave (didn't want any trouble). As I was turning, I got thumped. Didn't even see it coming, but just walked off quickly to avoid anything else happening. 2 ladies saw it all, stopped and phoned the police for me.

Police took a statement, had my friend as a witness and these 2 ladies as well (I don't know if they actual took statements of any of them, but they could have done).

They did find the person and interview him. He just accused me of mouthing off his sister. The officer who came around to tell me their outcome basically said, he seemed like a nice enough lad to us and did it because of that. He was reprimanded (or something). That was that.

I got left with a feeling that the police actually believed the person who punched me for calling his sister something which really annoyed me. Also, the comment that he seemed like a nice person really annoyed me - of course he will be, you're the police! Hopefully he'll be polite to you to try and get off.

The outcome didn't so much annoy me, as them sort of blaming me for something which was in no way my fault.

 

[hackbike 666]

I have to be honest and say that sometimes on the web when I read of people's complaints about the police it seems unjustified. Sometimes the stories are just so lavish that I wonder if they were made up. Silly thing to think, but I'm naturally sceptical, and I know others have thought the same about me.

Bang to rights,constable.

 

[upsidedown]

It's getting worse out there.

Expect the police to do sod all, when i had my road rage incident a couple of months ago i reported it with exact times, number plate etc, had a call back the same evening to say they would be round. 5 days later still waiting, by then the details, and the anger had faded. To be fair they did ring me late every night to tell me they couldn't make it.

These idiots know they are virtually immune from prosecution so get bolder every time they get away with it.

 

[Brains]

[quote name='swee'pea99']When you say 'unjustified'...?

Are you suggesting that the stroy in Msg 34 is a fabrication?[/quote]

For the full story of message 34,
(Synopsis - Hit and run, plenty of witnesses, very obviously illegally driven vehicle. Little reaction from Police)
See this the thread on this very site from just before Xmas.

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=24553&highlight=deptford

 

[FazTheWookie]

How about a look at http://www.ratethatdriver.co.uk/?

 

[MajorMantra]

How about a look at http://www.ratethatdriver.co.uk/?

Nice as it would be to pillory all the bad drivers we meet, that really smacks of vigilantism. No accountability, no burden of proof, etc. etc.

Matthew

 

[Cubist]

Thought you'd all like an update. The driver and passenger have both now been interviewed under caution. The driver admitted careless driving by swerving into me and the passenger gave an identical account. A file will be submitted to CPS to decide what to prosecute him for at court. Great thing for me here is that with him admitting it and the passenger corroborating events, there will be no need for Cubette to give evidence.

I also learnt that the driver has a warning marker attached to the car for anti-social behaviour. Although it can't be used on this occasion (on second occasion found committing by an officer in uniform the car can be seized and crushed) the boys and girls will be looking out for him. Seems a bit harsh...............

 

[summerdays]

Thanks for the update... look forward to hearing a final one later in the process too. And I'm glad Cubette doesn't have to give evidence.

 

[John the Monkey]

What do you reckon the chances are with the CPS?

Also, how's an intentional swerve into someone not protected by lots of metal "careless" as opposed to "dangerous"?

 

[Crackle]

Glad you updated us and that sounds like a result. It also sounds pretty inevitable that his car will get crushed at some point. Pity he won't be in it.

 

[summerdays]

Does he know that he could loose the car with further bad behaviour - and if he behaved badly in a different car would he still be in trouble (ie does that warning go with the car or his name?)

 

[Cubist]

What do you reckon the chances are with the CPS?

Also, how's an intentional swerve into someone not protected by lots of metal "careless" as opposed to "dangerous"?

That's what he is admitting to. I suspect he is trying to minimise the consequences by hedging towards "I admit to clipping him, but didn't actually mean to." My statement contains what evidence I could muster that it was deliberate. It's down to CPS what they charge him with, and then the magistrates as to what punishment he will receive. Given that he did not attempt to deny the offence, CPS will take him to court, but, frustratingly, they often choose the line of least resistance.

 

[dodgy]

Thanks for the update, but if he'd punched you in the shoulder instead of using a tonne of metal, it would be viewed altogether more seriously. Funny world.

 

[Cubist]

Does he know that he could loose the car with further bad behaviour - and if he behaved badly in a different car would he still be in trouble (ie does that warning go with the car or his name?)

Yes, it would have been made perfectly clear at the time he was given the first warning. The system does not yet cater for tagging the person rather than the vehicle, so the tag stays on the car.