Swindon Rammer Final Update

[Origamist]

Origamist, does your camera show your hand whilst signalling, to differentiate between signalling and gesturing, for example?

No.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I can not believe the attitude of the Police Officer. I would certainly contact the IPCC and do not be fobbed off by "an internal inquiry instead". He has in effect told you that your actions warranted arrest and assault whilst the driver was completely innocent.

 

[clarion]

Exactly the same as the attitude I got when I was assaulted by a cabbie who attempted a hit & run on me. Police didn't give a shoot. Mind you, that was the Met, and the relationship with cabbies is a bit too cosy. I'd have expected better (and less arrant bollox) from outside the Great Wen.

 

[StuartG]

I am in two minds over this. Yes the driver was in the wrong and the actions of the police were unhelpful.

The issue is the level of tolerence. We don't expect the police to prosecute for every offence. I cycle along the pavement for the last 20 yards home along a quiet residential as there isn't a dropped kerb nearer. I've done it in front of a police lady. Not an eyelid batted. That's what you expect.

There is also the question of resources. Prosecution is time intensive. It takes an officer off the street and they are under a lot of pressure to be seen out in the community. See above.

Zero tolerenece is neither feasible or, in many eyes, acceptable. So where does this incident lie on the severity line?

Facts are no one was hurt and minimal damage. Two factors that otherwise would make a prosecution with likely success mandatory. This also means any investigation would be cursory and, as you report, by an unqualified officer who probably had his mind on (in his mind) more important crimes with much worse scroats.

Outcome is unsatisfactory though the naming and shaming of the guy is not a bad outcome in itself. I think I might be tempted to drop a note of your disappointment to the Chief Constable but personally I would leave it there. I've had similar incidents to this. You can't ride (or drive!) for too many years in a city without having at least one.

I would rather wait until there is there is (and we know there are a lot) of incidents clearly further along the severity line that the police default on. The Bexley punching incident springs to mind. That was a clear wrong that was picked up easily by the media got us mostly the sympathy of the non-cycling masses . Result!

We don't want to appear too preoccupied with more minor infractions (though I'm sure it didn't feel like that at the time) which further alienates us from the motoring fraternity.

Sorry but I think you need to step back from this one.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I'm entirely unsurprised. The last road rage incident I suffered involved a guy I'd come across before (and complained about then) driving up my backside on a single-track road with nowhere to go, beeping his horn in rage.

The responding police officers' response was "why didn't you get out of his way"?

In my experience many police officers are so bound up with driving their cars, they don't have the first ****ing clue about what it is to be a vulnerable road user.

 

[oldfatfool]

The fact that the driver stopped, reversed and altered his direction of travel to deliberately confront the op, regardless of anything the OP may or may not have done is grounds for him having his collar felt, he is driving a 2 tonne vehicle compared to a 30lb bike!

As for the OP asking/ inciting trouble for having a camera/ Y-T channel, are the rozzers holding their hands up as the cause of the recent riots?? I saw enough of their CCTV footage on the news to last a lifetime

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Facts are no one was hurt and minimal damage.

I bet you if I discharged a legally-owned shotgun in a field, close to some walkers, and if those walkers complained I then ran over and shoved them to the ground, that the police would pay a hell of a lot more attention.

Look at the approach that van took. A total disregard for the cyclist's safety. When called out on it, he then drove his van directly at said cyclist, hitting him as a result.

What's the difference? None. Except driving a van like a dickhead is apparently socially acceptable, whereas doing the same with a gun is not.

 

[Origamist]

We (us cyclists) know you are not doing this, but to the average motorist this may appear as exactly what you are doing. Viewed amongst all your other vids on your channel, it could look like you are out to get motorists and that will not win you much support from the largely car driving population.


If anyone with a camera captures such incidents don't put them on you tube then debate the whole incident on an internet forum. Just put the video onto a CD and hand it into the police station. And only after the prosecution or it becomes clear the police are going to do nothing, then let us all take a look; I do find the vids and the debates quite educational.

Or set up a separate account for different types of videos (I use YouTube for educational vids and Vimeo for those that are getting reported to the police). I password protect the videos on the Vimeo site.

 

[abo]

As I stated in my original thread, it was a minor incident with minimal damage.

Is he (or his insurance) paying for the damage? You can bet that if you were sat in a stationary car and he bumped you causing even a small amount of damage then he'd be coughing up regardless of whether the collision was deliberate or an accident.

 

[BentMikey]

Or set up a separate account for different types of videos (I use YouTube for educational vids and Vimeo for those that are getting reported to the police). I password protect the videos on the Vimeo site.

The other approach means that the filmed motorist experiences considerably more publicity pain from the public channels where all videos are visible, and gets a lot more feedback on their driving from multiple YouTube users. I feel that's more likely to hit home as a result, but I must admit your method is also very tempting for its advantages.

 

[StuartG]

I bet you if I discharged a legally-owned shotgun in a field, close to some walkers, and if those walkers complained I then ran over and shoved them to the ground, that the police would pay a hell of a lot more attention.

....

Except driving a van like a dickhead is apparently socially acceptable, whereas doing the same with a gun is not.

This, like most analogies, fails at various levels. IMHO not a way to progress an argument.

Yes, passing close is socially acceptable. That's because motorists mostly overtake motorists who can be expected to keep a steady line in a clearly defined space. The fact that this reasoning doesn't apply to overtaking cyclists is recorded only in a tiny part of the Highway Code in a manner that is not explicit in distance terms. And when did anyone last read the HC?

That's why the van driver did it. That's why the police officer didn't see it as unreasonable and why they both mistakenly consider that the OP over reacted. Do we really want to re-inforce this mistaken view.

The issue at the base of this is the education of all road users (and police). A nirvana always sought but never delivered. In the end motorists/police will never understand cycling - unless they cycle. Really the only solution is o up the modal share. which means getting motorists to want to be like us - not appearing to be a load of ratty dickheads.

 

[Nigeyy]

Exactly. And that's what makes this all so troubling reading. To me it really doesn't matter what the OP did prior to the incident -the van driver was not in any danger whatsoever but chose to reverse up and from the video it certainly looks like he aggressively drove up to the OP. While you could make a reasonable case that no damage was done, etc, etc and not to make a mountain out of a mole hill, to shift blame to the OP is just not acceptable in my opinion.

Once that happens with me, I'm more likely to pursue it. Good point about the CCTV as well -perhaps all the CCTVs are inciting people to break the law?

The fact that the driver stopped, reversed and altered his direction of travel to deliberately confront the op, regardless of anything the OP may or may not have done is grounds for him having his collar felt, he is driving a 2 tonne vehicle compared to a 30lb bike!

As for the OP asking/ inciting trouble for having a camera/ Y-T channel, are the rozzers holding their hands up as the cause of the recent riots?? I saw enough of their CCTV footage on the news to last a lifetime

 

[Red Light]

Secondly, the statement that having a YouTube channel may give the impression I do things like this deliberately

I always wondered why they had cameras in police cars. Now I know

 

[growingvegetables]

We don't expect the police to prosecute for every offence.

True

• And a police officer dealing with a member of the public should have the skills to be able to explain a decision not to prosecute professionally and clearly. No more, no less.
• Prosecution is not the only option. I might not agree with the officer's decision that the driver's conduct did not fall below the required standard to warrant a prosecution, but FFS, he stopped on a junction, reversed, turned left, followed you into a bus-stop, rammed your bike, and confronted you! If that doesn't merit at least a warning letter, or better still a warning letter delivered by the personal hand of a Traffic Officer – words fail me.

However, the OP doesn't appear to have had a police officer with the ability to make a clear decision, or explain it clearly and professionally. Further, he's made a whole lot of personal judgements about OP. Worst of all, he hasn't worked out there might be a little bit of difference between a disagreement over position on the road, and an act of road rage. It reads as if the officer is almost excusing (even condoning?) acts of road rage?

So ...... if it were me, I would fire off a complaint, copied to the Chief Superintendent of the relevant police station, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police, and the IPCC. Focus on the police officer's conduct, comments, and decision, rather than the initial incident. Let them sort out at which level the complaint should be resolved/sorted.



Over a period of many years, I had to have regular contacts with a particular police force. All respect to the many superbly professional officers I met during that saga; a funny sort of affectionate respect for loads of guys looking forward to retirement, never having been promoted. And a profound, deep, and irrevocable mistrust of some evil ******** in that force.

Be aware of the reality of “police canteen culture”. For some police officers, feeling that one of their colleagues has been “hard done by”, can“justify” extraordinary harassment of you and yours – not often, granted, but it can happen. DO copy your complaint to all three levels, and document everything. Just a tuppennyworth.

 

[gaz]

The expectations of prosecutions from video footage is sometimes slightly too high. Not saying that is the case here. But it really needs to be clear cut before it is going to go to court.

I've had plenty of stuff which has gone down the route of FPN's or a letter to the driver about their bad driving. It's easier and quicker for everyone and gets a good result.