West Mids Police-thanks for nothing

[Coco]

if customer A has had twenty of the things in the past year from completely different people ...

That's the trouble with the internet, its easy to get 20 different identities.

I certainly wouldn't want my insurance premiums going up on the say so of strangers with no supporting evidence. And this is where the OP falls down too. There is no evidence for the police to work on.

A few weeks ago someone reversed into our car while we we sitting in it. He now says we hit him. Its annoying as hell trying to prove something you know to be true. Sympathies for the OP, but little the police can do. A better interaction may have softened the blow though.

 

[dondare]

Half an hour ago, me in primary left hand lane at the lights to stop the left hook, bus pulls up in the right hand lane. Lights change, off we go, bus overtakes me, little shoot in White Citroen VK10 WWT decides he cant wait to get to the back of the queue 100 yards ahead so squeezes his way through, brushing my right pannier. At this point he feels it necessary to put his passenger window down and remind me to read the HC which days I should stay 18 inches from the kerb. Caught up with him in the next queue where we had a full and frank exchange of words.
Called West Mids Police who said that as I'm not injured they will just log it, no visit, no record on the computer, nothing.
But he did hit me and drive off, I pointed out. Silence.

Useless.

Which edition of the HC tells cyclists to ride 18 inches from the kerb? I can't find that.

I did find a rule that says cyclists should be given as much room as a car when overtaken.

 

[Bman]

Which edition of the HC tells cyclists to ride 18 inches from the kerb? I can't find that.

I did find a rule that says cyclists should be given as much room as a car when overtaken.

It's not in the HC.

 

[classic33]

Doesn't matter even if it was London. That kind of driving needs attention, and it's quite likely the driver is guilty of other crimes, not just the close pass and brushing impact with a cyclist.

Attention to these small road crimes is what brings down the road traffic death rate. It's a huge fail to ignore them.

Can I ask do we want to get to the cause of the problem or the root cause of the problem. Offenders if caught early enough can be stopped from repeating the offence. Leave them alone & don't report them they get the feeling that nothing can stop them. Sadly thats not the case. Minor offences lead upto major offences.

If these sort of problems are to be acknowledged by the police as actually having happenned, the only way of doing that is to report them. Any force that then realises that they are receiving an increasing number of the same type of offence will be forced to act. Otherwise questions will be asked elsewhere. I spent over three years pursuing a driver & the police over an incident that "never happenned". Its been discussed on here & theres some disbelief at what happenned.

 

[Downward]

Thanks for that, perhaps we should set a threshold for bad driving at a full on ramming leading to a serious injury, with anything below that classed as sport.

His behaviour shows a complete lack of understanding of other road users and over-estimation of his driving skill level.

Where abouts was it ?

Anyway we all know where all the money for policing Stourbridge goes - Try Friday/Saturday nights down
Stourbridge where again the police waste their time and our money sorting out louts who have had a bit too much to drink.

 

[upsidedown]

Where abouts was it ?

High St Amblecote at the junction with the Wollaston Rd going towards Kingswinford.

Must have done it 1000 times, most drivers are fine hanging back until you're clear of the junction, i just objected to being pushed into what he considered "my area" by him, then having it explained to me like a child.

 

[BentMikey]

OP was a reported close pass with no evidence of any collision.

Sure, we have the OP's word (and we believe him 'cos ? Well 'cos this is a cycling forum and we are all cyclists and frankly, because it has happened to all most of us at some time).

Read the OP again, collision occurred. As for not believing the OP, well if that's the case then I'll NFA this debate.

 

[Mad at urage]

Read the OP again, collision occurred. As for not believing the OP, well if that's the case then I'll NFA this debate.

Read my post again. Whilst we believe the OP the police are not allowed to presume a driver guilty on the say-so of a single person whether they believe the person or not.

And quite right too! Where is the evidence?

Expecting them to do anything about a report "He came too close and I know he touched my panier" when nothing can be proved, is expecting too much IMHO. Yes OP is reporting a collision, but there is no evidence).

Edit: It's frustrating for the OP yes, but - been there, done that! I've been attacked with a weapon, dumped the b'g'r and cycled off - no evidence of any assault on me (police believed me as they new the scrote's car reg, but with my word against his nothing can be done. Forget it, move on - nothing to see here!

 

[BentMikey]

Well I agree on the evidence bit, but I feel the police should at least log it and have a word with the registered owner. They can certainly offer advice on passing cyclists without taking sides.

 

[400bhp]

Well I agree on the evidence bit, but I feel the police should at least log it and have a word with the registered owner. They can certainly offer advice on passing cyclists without taking sides.

That's it isn't it. Anyone reporting an offence isn't required to be able to prove it has been commited. That's the Police's job.

They should have logged it and the fact they didn't is pretty poor. But then you do get some of the call centre operators who aren't very sympathetic.

They use stats to target particular offences. Without the stats they can't.

 

[Dan B]

That's the trouble with the internet, its easy to get 20 different identities.

Happily the people behind e.g. the roadsafe web site seem not to suffer from this trouble. But if you wanted to be thorough about it, ask for the complainant's real name and address, check that against the electoral roll, then send them a paper letter with a code in it that they supply back to your web site to confirm their identity. Maybe charge them a couple of quid to offset costs.

 

[Riding in Circles]

I have been told before that cyclists should ride in the gutter like it says in the HC, if stationary I tell them I have a highway code with me and can they point out that bit, most of them cannot actually read though.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I have been told before that cyclists should ride in the gutter like it says in the HC, if stationary I tell them I have a highway code with me and can they point out that bit, most of them cannot actually read though.

The trouble is that rule 160 says:

160 Once moving you should:

• keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. ...

How do we counter it if they point that out; it doesn't say how far to the left.

 

[Dan B]

The trouble is that rule 160 says:
[/list]
How do we counter it if they point that out; it doesn't say how far to the left.

That rule applies to all drivers and riders. So if it means we should be riding in the gutter, it also means they should be driving in the gutter.

 

[gambatte]

According to the HC, "should" is not something you have to do. If there's a line in the middle of the road and you're not on or to the right of it, you are keeping left....